User:Wikischmedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user page.

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikischmedia.
About Me...
This user is a university student.
IR This user is educated in the study of international relations.
E or N This user understands the difference between empirical and normative discussion.
PID This user politically identifies as a Realist and a Nationalist.
{Wiki} Wikipedia, Wikischmedia... This user makes formatting errors while editing Wikipedia.
IQ? This user has an IQ of 158, and for that reason, questions the validity of IQ tests.
M This user sees Mensa as proof that even geniuses can be shammed into paying dues.
Melting Pot
This user is of German ancestry.
This user is of Italian ancestry.
This user is of Sephardi Jewish ancestry.

After reading this, you will most certainly think I am crazy.

Contents

[edit] Wikischmedia

Wikipedia, Wikischmedia... Who reads these profiles anyway? I love to have intellectual conversations with other political scientists. I will however, not argue for the sake of passing time. My political interests are right of center, but I do not identify with a political party. I will say that I formulate my own opinions on every subject, and despite my somewhat ethnic background, I tend to have a unique opinion on almost everything.

[edit] Melting Pot

How do I explain my ancestry being so diverse? My father is Italian and my mother is German. My father’s mother is a Sephardi Jew. Was that really so hard? Having ancestry on three seperate extremes of an axis, I tend to sympathise with fringe political ideologies from all sides, as well as communicate with those that practice them. Zionism, and on the other side, Nazism, and other forms of Fascism are all interesting topics for me to discuss, even though I agree and disagree with parts of each. I take every idea and belief presented to me seriously, and do not discount certain beliefs because of their history or previous associations.

[edit] I Frequent...

I listen to the Savage Nation religiously, and am a big fan of Michael Savage and take all of his opinions seriously. On the other side of the spectrum, I frequently and anonymously browse and post on the Stormfront White Nationalist Community and on the Prussian Blue forums. I can also be found on Xbox live, Gamertag: TheSavageNation.

[edit] Goals

  • None at the moment.

[edit] Articles I've Worked On

[edit] International Relations

This is where I have fun. The following is a collection of quotes and works written by me, concerning the feild of international relations. Yes, international relations is a real scientific feild with real scientific theories. If your university offers the course, I would highly recommend you take it.

Note: Even though my politics would be considered by many to be conservative, my style of writing is somewhat liberal, and would not meet up to wikipedia's quality standards. Almost every wikipedia article I have read could have been written by a computer, and this lack of essence may be professional, but it tends to make the articles boring. I try to write scientifically, and in style at the same time.

  • "One thing a scientist must be able to do is articulate his opinion in as few words as possible."
  • "Communism is more dangerous than fascism because in communism you don't know that you're being controlled."
  • "Religion has become pornography and pornography has become religion." (This quote is hard for some to understand, but my intention was to state that pornography is a more acceptable subject than is religion, thanks in-part to humanists and an irreligious left.)

What causes a revolution?

Like an infectious virus, a revolution must incubate inside the deep corners of society, finally spreading outward infecting the entire population. I have been able to identify three stages of revolution.

  1. Intellectual
  2. Political
  3. Population

Revolution starts with the usually pacifist intellectual. With little intention to cause others harm, they write down ideas to improve society. People die, but ideas do not, and successful intellectuals’ words are echoed through the chambers of history. Arguments formulated both supporting and criticizing the works of past intellectuals are evidence of the impact they have on society.

The second stage, the political stage comes when the intellectual’s ideas gain recognition. I would consider this the hotheaded stage of revolution, as politicians take the ideas and run with them.

It is rare for an entire population to rally around a single cause. Instead, politicians target their perceived constituency or ‘malleable populations.’ For example, the United States is filled with what I would call ‘malleable populations.’ On one side are the evangelical Christians, the southern Baptists, gun owners and hard-line capitalists. On the other side are the trade unionists, pacifists, ethnic minorities, Jews and socialists. From the most clever lawyer to the factory worker, few people are able to transcend the underlying group mentality.

The population is the most dangerous part of revolution, for they will conduct the genocide (if any) and tearing down of previous institutions in order to prop up new ones.

Debunking the Democratic Peace Theory

The Democratic Peace Theory is a theory widely accepted among liberals and idealists alike, however I believe it to be erroneous. The main concept which started from the philosophy of Emmanuel Kant is that if every country was a democracy, there would be no more war because democracies don't attack other democracies.

I have created the following theory that explains why the Democratic Peace Theory isn't always correct.

"If a majority of people within a state are dissatisfied with the current world order, through revolution they will work to disrupt the peace, regardless of government structure."

In order for a country to be defined a state, it must have territory, population, organization, and recognition. The current world order could be defined through foreign policy, economic policy and/or social policy. Revolution is defined as a violent overthrow of the current government structure, or a peaceful overthrow of the current government structure through elections.

A prime example of this would be when Germany elected Adolf Hitler democratically. Hitler was elected because he provided a solution to Germany's foreign policy mess (specifically the treaty of Versailles) after World War I. Because of the failed Weimar Republic, Germany's economy and social policy were almost non-existent. In order to bring about change, Hitler gave jobs to those out of work, and reversed the social and moral decadence of the Weimar Republic. All three, foreign policy, economic policy and social policy were factors in getting Hitler elected, as I have outlined in my thesis statement.

More recent examples of democracies electing political parties, or individuals that are undemocratic would be the recent elections in the Middle East. In 1971, India and Pakistan, two democracies decided to go to war. Hamas was recently elected democratically by the Palestinian people. The president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected democratically, and has high approval ratings from his people.

I'm not saying that the Democratic Peace Theory has never been applicable to some situations; however one would be over simplifying to say that democracies don't attack other democracies. Because of a constant struggle for power, there will always be war. A bipolar balance of powers would be the best solution we have to peace.

[edit] See Also...

(About the crazy...) See, I told you so.