Ideological Idiots

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Having recently been accused of causing somebody to froth at the mouth for being an "Ideological Idiot", I just wondered if anybody else feels compelled to denounce un-ideological idiocy as a failed paradigm!?
I mean, I feel quite comfortable in my own head being anti-EU. Nothing to do with refugees or economics, let alone finances (although I do feel any political entity that pushes monetary union without fiscal union is doomed to failure).
No, my stance is more informed by the 'absorption' of Tibet into China [yeh, I know the EU didn't invade us, but results, imho, are similar].
So does this make the Dalai Lama an Ideological Idiot?

If it does, there's him, me, Abdullah Ocalan, Che Guevara/Fidel Castro, Kemal Ataturk, Carles Puigdemont, and Genghis Khan that floats my Ideological Idiocy boats*

Who's yours? Or are you ideology free?

PS for the hard of understanding, I admire the *asterisked individuals; I'm using 'ideological idiot' as a badge of honour.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Having recently been accused of causing somebody to froth at the mouth for being an "Ideological Idiot", I just wondered if anybody else feels compelled to denounce un-ideological idiocy as a failed paradigm!?
I mean, I feel quite comfortable in my own head being anti-EU. Nothing to do with refugees or economics, let alone finances (although I do feel any political entity that pushes monetary union without fiscal union is doomed to failure).
No, my stance is more informed by the 'absorption' of Tibet into China [yeh, I know the EU didn't invade us, but results, imho, are similar].
So does this make the Dalai Lama an Ideological Idiot?

If it does, there's him, me, Abdullah Ocalan, Che Guevara/Fidel Castro, Kemal Ataturk, Carles Puigdemont, and Genghis Khan that floats my Ideological Idiocy boats*

Who's yours? Or are you ideology free?

PS for the hard of understanding, I admire the *asterisked individuals; I'm using 'ideological idiot' as a badge of honour.

I'm not really sure how you put Genghis Khan in the same boat as the rest. The others believed in some form of localized independence, while Temujin tried to conquer everywhere from Ulan Bator to the Adriatic, doing a great deal of Chinese like absorption.

[Harry Genshaw]

Yasser Arafat

[Prufrock]

Tony Blair.

[Prufrock]

It may be surprised to know I think ideology is dangerous af and is at the absolute heart of the current shit-show playing out across the world. It's essentially a declaration that you've made your mind up before considering the facts.

No ta.

[TANGODANCER]

It may be surprised to know I think ideology is dangerous af and is at the absolute heart of the current shit-show playing out across the world. It's essentially a declaration that you've made your mind up before considering the facts.
No ta.

Ideology is the essence of existence. The only thing wrong with it, like everything else, is it's not the concept that's dangerous, but some of its unbalanced practitioners.

[Prufrock]

What does the "essence of existence" mean?

[TANGODANCER]

What does the "essence of existence" mean?

Well, I thought it might mean essentially, idealism is at the core of our reason for existing, Professor. What do you think it means? Oh, don't forget my reasoning will always be influenced by believing in God.

[Prufrock]

I'm not being deliberately obtuse, maybe I'm being thick, but I don't know what that means.

[TANGODANCER]

I'm not being deliberately obtuse, maybe I'm being thick, but I don't know what that means.

[Prufrock]

You really don't like being questioned in any way at all do you?!

[TANGODANCER]

You really don't like being questioned in any way at all do you?!

Nope, not when the questionaire is just trying to show off by being a muppet. I've been down that road too many times and yet you never desist. If you really can't understand simple things, then your university education has been a waste of time, money and energy. Or, in the mixed works of the Bard: "That which we call a muppet, by any other name is still a muppet. William Shakespeare, The Taming of The Pru.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Having recently been accused of causing somebody to froth at the mouth for being an "Ideological Idiot", I just wondered if anybody else feels compelled to denounce un-ideological idiocy as a failed paradigm!?
I mean, I feel quite comfortable in my own head being anti-EU. Nothing to do with refugees or economics, let alone finances (although I do feel any political entity that pushes monetary union without fiscal union is doomed to failure).
No, my stance is more informed by the 'absorption' of Tibet into China [yeh, I know the EU didn't invade us, but results, imho, are similar].
So does this make the Dalai Lama an Ideological Idiot?

If it does, there's him, me, Abdullah Ocalan, Che Guevara/Fidel Castro, Kemal Ataturk, Carles Puigdemont, and Genghis Khan that floats my Ideological Idiocy boats*

Who's yours? Or are you ideology free?

PS for the hard of understanding, I admire the *asterisked individuals; I'm using 'ideological idiot' as a badge of honour.

I'm not really sure how you put Genghis Khan in the same boat as the rest. The others believed in some form of localized independence, while Temujin tried to conquer everywhere from Ulan Bator to the Adriatic, doing a great deal of Chinese like absorption.

He certainly 'expanded' what rather tiny influence his tribe exerted when he was born. However, he did that in an inclusive manner, empowering not just the Mongols, but also an entire range of peoples including the Naimans and the entire spectrum of peoples that these days are called Turks/Turcomen. He did it whilst offering inclusion into his empire if any 'opponent' would just offer allegiance to his ideals. (Those who still opposed him he relentlessly and ruthlessly struck down to encourage the embracement of [literally] world-wide peace and prosperity).
He made his nation literate, he established a law code, an alphabet, and religious freedom (which his descendants squandered by becoming frothing at the mouth Islamists). He established, single-handedly, the world's largest ever empire (in both area and population). He was a genius and an expert in many areas (including the art of warfare, horseback riding, debate, hunting, and city building).

[BWFC_Insane]

It may be surprised to know I think ideology is dangerous af and is at the absolute heart of the current shit-show playing out across the world. It's essentially a declaration that you've made your mind up before considering the facts.
No ta.

Ideology is the essence of existence. The only thing wrong with it, like everything else, is it's not the concept that's dangerous, but some of its unbalanced practitioners.

To be fair to Pru I'm not sure what you mean either. Ideological thinking is as Pru says making your mind up on things based on a set ideology. Are you really saying that is the "essence of existence". Because I think most people chop and change as they go depending upon the circumstances.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Having recently been accused of causing somebody to froth at the mouth for being an "Ideological Idiot", I just wondered if anybody else feels compelled to denounce un-ideological idiocy as a failed paradigm!?
I mean, I feel quite comfortable in my own head being anti-EU. Nothing to do with refugees or economics, let alone finances (although I do feel any political entity that pushes monetary union without fiscal union is doomed to failure).
No, my stance is more informed by the 'absorption' of Tibet into China [yeh, I know the EU didn't invade us, but results, imho, are similar].
So does this make the Dalai Lama an Ideological Idiot?

If it does, there's him, me, Abdullah Ocalan, Che Guevara/Fidel Castro, Kemal Ataturk, Carles Puigdemont, and Genghis Khan that floats my Ideological Idiocy boats*

Who's yours? Or are you ideology free?

PS for the hard of understanding, I admire the *asterisked individuals; I'm using 'ideological idiot' as a badge of honour.

I'm not really sure how you put Genghis Khan in the same boat as the rest. The others believed in some form of localized independence, while Temujin tried to conquer everywhere from Ulan Bator to the Adriatic, doing a great deal of Chinese like absorption.

He certainly 'expanded' what rather tiny influence his tribe exerted when he was born. However, he did that in an inclusive manner, empowering not just the Mongols, but also an entire range of peoples including the Naimans and the entire spectrum of peoples that these days are called Turks/Turcomen. He did it whilst offering inclusion into his empire if any 'opponent' would just offer allegiance to his ideals. (Those who still opposed him he relentlessly and ruthlessly struck down to encourage the embracement of [literally] world-wide peace and prosperity).
He made his nation literate, he established a law code, an alphabet, and religious freedom (which his descendants squandered by becoming frothing at the mouth Islamists). He established, single-handedly, the world's largest ever empire (in both area and population). He was a genius and an expert in many areas (including the art of warfare, horseback riding, debate, hunting, and city building).

Estimates of people killed in his expansion vary between 40 and 70 million people (10-17% of the world's population) which for me puts him in a different class to the others mentioned. It seems a high price to pay for "world-wide peace".

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Having recently been accused of causing somebody to froth at the mouth for being an "Ideological Idiot", I just wondered if anybody else feels compelled to denounce un-ideological idiocy as a failed paradigm!?
I mean, I feel quite comfortable in my own head being anti-EU. Nothing to do with refugees or economics, let alone finances (although I do feel any political entity that pushes monetary union without fiscal union is doomed to failure).
No, my stance is more informed by the 'absorption' of Tibet into China [yeh, I know the EU didn't invade us, but results, imho, are similar].
So does this make the Dalai Lama an Ideological Idiot?

If it does, there's him, me, Abdullah Ocalan, Che Guevara/Fidel Castro, Kemal Ataturk, Carles Puigdemont, and Genghis Khan that floats my Ideological Idiocy boats*

Who's yours? Or are you ideology free?

PS for the hard of understanding, I admire the *asterisked individuals; I'm using 'ideological idiot' as a badge of honour.

I'm not really sure how you put Genghis Khan in the same boat as the rest. The others believed in some form of localized independence, while Temujin tried to conquer everywhere from Ulan Bator to the Adriatic, doing a great deal of Chinese like absorption.

He certainly 'expanded' what rather tiny influence his tribe exerted when he was born. However, he did that in an inclusive manner, empowering not just the Mongols, but also an entire range of peoples including the Naimans and the entire spectrum of peoples that these days are called Turks/Turcomen. He did it whilst offering inclusion into his empire if any 'opponent' would just offer allegiance to his ideals. (Those who still opposed him he relentlessly and ruthlessly struck down to encourage the embracement of [literally] world-wide peace and prosperity).
He made his nation literate, he established a law code, an alphabet, and religious freedom (which his descendants squandered by becoming frothing at the mouth Islamists). He established, single-handedly, the world's largest ever empire (in both area and population). He was a genius and an expert in many areas (including the art of warfare, horseback riding, debate, hunting, and city building).

Estimates of people killed in his expansion vary between 40 and 70 million people (10-17% of the world's population) which for me puts him in a different class to the others mentioned. It seems a high price to pay for "world-wide peace".

I think those estimates are way off the mark, and probably also include subsequent deaths during the warfare of all the Mongol successor states. The fact his Empire fell apart so speedily also, for me, points to the fact nobody else was capable of continuing the work he'd started (I'd use establish rather than start normally given the breadth of his personal achievement).
I'm also firmly of the opinion that to get to that 'state' in those times only the methods he persued would have been successful.

[TANGODANCER]

Sticking with Spots original question, I'd be tempted to forward Irish leader Michael Collins as my contribution.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Sticking with Spots original question, I'd be tempted to forward Irish leader Michael Collins as my contribution.

I'd possibly include him in the pantheon, except for the fact there was an earlier rebel (whose name escapes me) upon whose ideology Mr Collins based his own.
It was though a damn shame that he saw his pals Armstrong and Aldrin cavorting on the surface while he was stuck in orbit.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Sticking with Spots original question, I'd be tempted to forward Irish leader Michael Collins as my contribution.

I'd possibly include him in the pantheon, except for the fact there was an earlier rebel (whose name escapes me) upon whose ideology Mr Collins based his own.
It was though a damn shame that he saw his pals Armstrong and Aldrin cavorting on the surface while he was stuck in orbit.

And now that you've prompted me, I'll add Werner von Braun to the list.

[TANGODANCER]

Sticking with Spots original question, I'd be tempted to forward Irish leader Michael Collins as my contribution.

I'd possibly include him in the pantheon, except for the fact there was an earlier rebel (whose name escapes me) upon whose ideology Mr Collins based his own.

Wolfe Tone? My readings are all that Collins was exceedingly strong-minded and liked to give orders rathr than receive them. His known historical hero was Napoleon Bonaparte.