“It is always possible to bind together a considerable number of people in love, so long as there are other people left over to receive the manifestations of their aggressiveness.”

What?! Does Freud EVER make any sense?

;-) really funny, no truth in it but, really funny; unless, he was setting up Reagan's famous: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help"

Perhaps he is suggesting that the "people bound together in love" become the aggressive force. Odd. But I suppose people bound together by any idea other than the maintenance of personl liberty are a danger.

I go along with J.Carlton on this one.

Yup, J.Carlton, that's about it._____Freud didn't say much that wasn't ridiculous or obvious.

Frankly. I find it an astute observation. reminds me of the history of religious power. They are willing to do anything to save mankind -- even if it kills them. "God is Love -- now let's bomb the hell out of those damned (enter your favorite religion-to-hate here)." When enough people think they are bound in love and then force their ways down others' throats, their hypocrisy becomes only too apparent...

Unfortunately I agree with Archer on this one as to its astuteness. A common enemy brings people together. Like all you guys that rally together in "love" to oppose "socialists" (hell you don't even know what the word means) or Obamunists etcetera. If you are really so much for individuality and freedom why do come on this site like Archer, the biggest prosyletiser I know, trying to convine others of his sick thinking..

Archer, I absolutely agree. My point was, just because you say you have love for your fellow man, doesn't mean its so. A lot of atrocities have occurred in the name of love (it wasn't love, it was an atrocity). Love will bring like spirits together to defend individual freedom and liberty. Waffler, would it help your perception if those that love freedom and liberty would oppose more than just socialism, such as democracy, collectivism,' progressive' dogmas, fascism, communism, and all other forms of tyranny and despotism?

Well Mike as long as you don't oppose the most universal sign of socialism and progressivism as public sewers, and that progressive thing called "the internet". The village west of Chicago named Westmont has for its slogan "The Progressive Village". Historically that is a Republican area. What do you mean when you throw around words like "socialism" and "progressive dogmas"?

Waffler, thanks for the opportunity to debunk a public education's dummied down and false understanding of socialism and progressivism's universal signs.

Sewers, the internet, and anything in the public domain are not in and of themselves signs of a free society of individual sovereigns or a socialist / progressive state. I'm not quite sure what you are referring to when you mentioned a Republican area. There is so little difference between Democrat and Republican progressives it is almost not worth mentioning. In a Republic of individual sovereigns where 1 sovereign would like to get rid of his waste in a most safe and expeditious manner, he would explore his options. Upon finding out that he could share the costs with his next door neighbor(s) sovereign (and so on - a united multiple of individuals), he/they would hire a representative to carryout his/their plan. If the neighbor(s) were too far away to make it feasible, he would build his own septic system.

In a socialist or progressive state, the individual(s) would live at the whim of an alien power (even / especially after hearings) claiming to represent some ethereal whole. As to the internet, a private company such as Cisco builds a network of wires, junction boxes, etc and sells time on its system to any entity for a price (real straight forward capitalism) When one enters the Gore invented internet, it is monitored and controlled beyond The Laws of Nature and Nature's God by socialists and progressives.

Socialism is a political power that claims authority from an enigmatic ethereal whole, enhancing, restricting, or otherwise production and/or distribution for the collective. A communistic form of socialism controls through holding title to production and distribution in the name of the collective. A fascist form of socialism (like, The German's Socialist Worker's party - Nazi) is operated with corporations and other governmentally authorized entities, sometimes buying into legal title such as AIG and GM. (*note: a trust is a private contract outside the purview of government; no government will allow the public sale of units of beneficial interest - a semi-equivalent to stock, hmmm socialism in progress.)

Progressivism, complete with its dogma, as Hitler (Hillary - American spelling) Clinton claimed being for or part of, while running for president, is an unconstitutional kin to socialism.

You would make a good son of Samuel Johnson I think. He is the one who supposedly made the first English dictionary. It is laughed at lampooned for its personal and subjective rather than professional. fair, or objective definitions. For example he defined oats as "a grain food fed to horses in England and to Scotsmen in Scotland". People who share a sewer system are being "social" period. I don't believe that having a septic tank in many neighborhoods is legal, does that then make that neighborhood somehow communist or fascist in your view? There are such things as Standards of Practice in plumbing, electricity, weights and measurs. These standards may vary from nation to nation around the world, but within jursidictions they are often enforced by law. Are these jurisdictions therefore socialist, communist or fascist? I think you ned to study the terms that you are so fond of attacking so that you might understand exactly what you are saying?

Waffler, lol. It seems you only read half of what I wrote and then off topic / misdirection commented of half that. Of course all of 'social's' definitions don't equate to the political socialism but, how liberal of you to overlook that fact. And, how liberal of you to not understand what law is. Are you equating my lampooning of Hillary to what horses and Scotsmen eat? ;-) Enforcement of law does not depict a specific type of government. Forms of government such as socialism, communism, and fascism not only enforce law, they also enforce non-lawful despotism and tyranny.

Again, Freud does the cryptic Marxist explanation of what love is, not the Christian power of love, beauty, art, pastoral and self love. He's dark and sardonic. 

Yes Freud makes perfect sense. This is how the Nazis, the communists, the Muslims and the Democrats unite people, by dividing mankind and instilling in some the hatred of the other.   These are the wisest words ever spoken.