Quote:

The most prescient portrait of the American character and our ultimate fate as a species is found in Herman Melville’s “Moby Dick.” Melville makes our murderous obsessions, our hubris, violent impulses, moral weakness and inevitable self-destruction visible in his chronicle of a whaling voyage. He is our foremost oracle. He is to us what William Shakespeare was to Elizabethan England or Fyodor Dostoyevsky to czarist Russia. Our country is given shape in the form of the ship, the Pequod, named after the Indian tribe exterminated in 1638 by the Puritans and their Native American allies. The ship’s 30-man crew—there were 30 states in the Union when Melville wrote the novel—is a mixture of races and creeds. The object of the hunt is a massive white whale, Moby Dick, which in a previous encounter maimed the ship’s captain, Ahab, by dismembering one of his legs. The self-destructive fury of the quest, much like that of the one we are on, assures the Pequod’s destruction. And those on the ship, on some level, know they are doomed—just as many of us know that a consumer culture based on corporate profit, limitless exploitation and the continued extraction of fossil fuels is doomed. “If I had been downright honest with myself,” Ishmael admits, “I would have seen very plainly in my heart that I did but half fancy being committed this way to so long a voyage, without once laying my eyes on the man who was to be the absolute dictator of it, so soon as the ship sailed out upon the open sea. But when a man suspects any wrong, it sometimes happens that if he be already involved in the matter, he insensibly strives to cover up his suspicions even from himself. And much this way it was with me. I said nothing, and tried to think nothing.” Our financial system—like our participatory democracy—is a mirage. The Federal Reserve purchases $85 billion in U.S. Treasury bonds—much of it worthless subprime mortgages—each month. It has been artificially propping up the government and Wall Street like this for five years. It has loaned trillions of dollars at virtually no interest to banks and firms that make money—because wages are kept low—by lending it to us at staggering interest rates that can climb to as high as 30 percent. ... Or our corporate oligarchs hoard the money or gamble with it in an overinflated stock market. Estimates put the looting by banks and investment firms of the U.S. Treasury at between $15 trillion and $20 trillion. But none of us know. The figures are not public. And the reason this systematic looting will continue until collapse is that our economy [would] go into a tailspin without this giddy infusion of free cash. The ecosystem is at the same time disintegrating. Scientists from the International Programme on the State of the Ocean, a few days ago, issued a new report that warned that the oceans are changing faster than anticipated and increasingly becoming inhospitable to life. The oceans, of course, have absorbed much of the excess CO2 and heat from the atmosphere. This absorption is rapidly warming and acidifying ocean waters. This is compounded, the report noted, by increased levels of deoxygenation from nutrient runoffs from farming and climate change. The scientists called these effects a “deadly trio” that when combined is creating changes in the seas that are unprecedented in the planet’s history. This is their language, not mine. The scientists wrote that each of the earth’s five known mass extinctions was preceded by at least one [part] of the “deadly trio”—acidification, warming and deoxygenation. They warned that “the next mass extinction” of sea life is already under way, the first in some 55 million years. Or look at the recent research from the University of Hawaii that says global warming is now inevitable, it cannot be stopped but at best slowed, and that over the next 50 years the earth will heat up to levels that will make whole parts of the planet uninhabitable. Tens of millions of people will be displaced and millions of species will be threatened with extinction. The report casts doubt that [cities on or near a coast] such as New York or London will endure. Yet we, like Ahab and his crew, rationalize our collective madness. All calls for prudence, for halting the march toward economic, political and environmental catastrophe, for sane limits on carbon emissions, are ignored or ridiculed. Even with the flashing red lights before us, the increased droughts, rapid melting of glaciers and Arctic ice, monster tornadoes, vast hurricanes, crop failures, floods, raging wildfires and soaring temperatures, we bow slavishly before hedonism and greed and the enticing illusion of limitless power, intelligence and prowess.

Quote:

The corporate assault on culture, journalism, education, the arts and critical thinking has left those who speak this truth marginalized and ignored, frantic Cassandras who are viewed as slightly unhinged and depressingly apocalyptic. We are consumed by a mania for hope, which our corporate masters lavishly provide, at the expense of truth. Friedrich Nietzsche in “Beyond Good and Evil” holds that only a few people have the fortitude to look in times of distress into what he calls the molten pit of human reality. Most studiously ignore the pit. Artists and philosophers, for Nietzsche, are consumed, however, by an insatiable curiosity, a quest for truth and desire for meaning. They venture down into the bowels of the molten pit. They get as close as they can before the flames and heat drive them back. This intellectual and moral honesty, Nietzsche wrote, comes with a cost. Those singed by the fire of reality become “burnt children,” he wrote, eternal orphans in empires of illusion. Decayed civilizations always make war on independent intellectual inquiry, art and culture for this reason. They do not want the masses to look into the pit. They condemn and vilify the “burnt people”—Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader, Cornel West. They feed the human addiction for illusion, happiness and hope. They peddle the fantasy of eternal material progress. They urge us to build images of ourselves to worship. They insist—and this is the argument of globalization ¬¬—that our voyage is, after all, decreed by natural law. We have surrendered our lives to corporate forces that ultimately serve systems of death. We ignore and belittle the cries of the burnt people. And, if we do not swiftly and radically reconfigure our relationship to each other and the ecosystem, microbes look set to inherit the earth. Clive Hamilton in his “Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth About Climate Change” describes a dark relief that comes from accepting that “catastrophic climate change is virtually certain.” This obliteration of “false hopes,” he says, requires an intellectual knowledge and an emotional knowledge. The first is attainable. The second, because it means that those we love, including our children, are almost certainly doomed to insecurity, misery and suffering within a few decades, if not a few years, is much harder to acquire. To emotionally accept impending disaster, to attain the gut-level understanding that the power elite will not respond rationally to the devastation of the ecosystem, is as difficult to accept as our own mortality. The most daunting existential struggle of our time is to ingest this awful truth—intellectually and emotionally—and rise up to resist the forces that are destroying us. The human species, led by white Europeans and Euro-Americans, has been on a 500-year-long planetwide rampage of conquering, plundering, looting, exploiting and polluting the earth—as well as killing the indigenous communities that stood in the way. But the game is up. The technical and scientific forces that created a life of unparalleled luxury—as well as unrivaled military and economic power for a small, global elite—are the forces that now doom us. The mania for ceaseless economic expansion and exploitation has become a curse, a death sentence. But even as our economic and environmental systems unravel, after the hottest year [2012] in the contiguous 48 states since record keeping began 107 years ago, we lack the emotional and intellectual creativity to shut down the engine of global capitalism. We have bound ourselves to a doomsday machine that grinds forward. Complex civilizations have a bad habit of ultimately destroying themselves. Anthropologists including Joseph Tainter in “The Collapse of Complex Societies,” Charles L. Redman in “Human Impact on Ancient Environments” and Ronald Wright in “A Short History of Progress” have laid out the familiar patterns that lead to systems breakdown. The difference this time is that when we go down the whole planet will go with us. There will, with this final collapse, be no new lands left to exploit, no new civilizations to conquer, no new peoples to subjugate. The long struggle between the human species and the earth will conclude with the remnants of the human species learning a painful lesson about unrestrained greed, hubris and idolatry. Collapse comes throughout human history to complex societies not long after they reach their period of greatest magnificence and prosperity. “One of the most pathetic aspects of human history is that every civilization expresses itself most pretentiously, compounds its partial and universal values most convincingly, and claims immortality for its finite existence at the very moment when the decay which leads to death has already begun,” Reinhold Niebuhr wrote.

Quote:

That pattern holds good for a lot of societies, among them the ancient Maya and the Sumerians of what is now southern Iraq. There are many other examples, including smaller-scale societies such as Easter Island. The very things that cause societies to prosper in the short run, especially new ways to exploit the environment such as the invention of irrigation, lead to disaster in the long run because of unforeseen complications. This is what Ronald Wright in “A Short History of Progress” calls the “progress trap.” We have set in motion an industrial machine of such complexity and such dependence on expansion, Wright notes, that we do not know how to make do with less or move to a steady state in terms of our demands on nature. And as the collapse becomes palpable, if human history is any guide, we, like past societies in distress, will retreat into what anthropologists call “crisis cults.” The powerlessness we will feel in the face of ecological and economic chaos will unleash further collective delusions, such as fundamentalist beliefs in a god or gods who will come back to earth and save us. The Christian right provides a haven for this escapism. These cults perform absurd rituals to make it all go away, giving rise to a religiosity that peddles collective self-delusion and magical thinking. Crisis cults spread rapidly among Native American societies in the later part of the 19th century as the buffalo herds and the last remaining tribes were slaughtered. The Ghost Dance held out the hope that all the horrors of white civilization—the railroads, the murderous cavalry units, the timber merchants, the mine speculators, the hated tribal agencies, the barbed wire, the machine guns, even the white man himself—would disappear. And our psychological hard wiring is no different. In our decline, hatred becomes our primary lust, our highest form of patriotism. We deploy vast resources to hunt down jihadists and terrorists, real and phantom. We destroy our civil society in the name of a war on terror. We persecute those, from Julian Assange to [Chelsea] Manning to Edward Snowden, who expose the dark machinations of power. We believe, because we have externalized evil, that we can purify the earth. And we are blind to the evil within us. Melville’s description of Ahab is a description of the bankers, corporate boards, politicians, television personalities and generals who through the power of propaganda fill our heads with seductive images of glory and lust for wealth and power. We are consumed with self-induced obsessions that spur us toward self-annihilation. “All my means are sane,” Ahab says, “my motive and my object mad.” Ahab, as the historian Richard Slotkin points out in his book “Regeneration Through Violence,” is “the true American hero, worthy to be captain of a ship whose ‘wood could only be American.’ ” Melville offers us a vision, one that D.H. Lawrence later understood, of the inevitable fatality of white civilization brought about by our ceaseless lust for material progress, imperial expansion, white supremacy and exploitation of nature. Melville, who had been a sailor on clipper ships and whalers, was keenly aware that the wealth of industrialized societies was stolen by force from the wretched of the earth. All the authority figures on the ship are white men—Ahab, Starbuck, Flask and Stubb. The hard, dirty work, from harpooning to gutting the carcasses of the whales, is the task of the poor, mostly men of color. Melville saw how European plundering of indigenous cultures from the 16th to the 19th centuries, coupled with the use of African slaves as a workforce to replace the natives, was the engine that enriched Europe and the United States. The Spaniards’ easy seizure of the Aztec and Inca gold following the massive die-off from smallpox and [other diseases] among native populations set in motion five centuries of unchecked economic and environmental plunder. Karl Marx and Adam Smith pointed to the huge influx of wealth from the Americas as having made possible the Industrial Revolution and modern capitalism. The Industrial Revolution also equipped the industrialized state with technologically advanced weapons systems, turning us into the most efficient killers on the planet.

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/21477-the-myth-of-human-progress-and-the-collapse-of-complex-societies

Depressingly accurate.

For the few "Cassandras" here the link above will allow you to read the rest.

As it is I'm sure I've posted far too much for most to be bothered. :'(

Quote:

Living is no laughing matter:           you must live with great seriousness                 like a squirrel, for example—       I mean without looking for something beyond and above living,               I mean living must be your whole occupation.     Living is no laughing matter:           you must take it seriously,           so much so and to such a degree       that, for example, your hands tied behind your back,                           your back to the wall,       or else in a laboratory           in your white coat and safety glasses,           you can die for people—       even for people whose faces you’ve never seen,       even though you know living           is the most real, the most beautiful thing.     I mean, you must take living so seriously       that even at seventy, for example, you’ll plant olive trees—       and not for your children, either,       but because although you fear death you don’t believe it,       because living, I mean, weighs heavier.     II     Let’s say we’re seriously ill, need surgery—     which is to say we might not get up                     from the white table.     Even though it’s impossible not to feel sad                       about going a little too soon,     we’ll still laugh at the jokes being told,     we’ll look out the window to see if it’s raining,     or still wait anxiously                 for the latest newscast . . .     Let’s say we’re at the front—           for something worth fighting for, say.     There, in the first offensive, on that very day,           we might fall on our face, dead.     We’ll know this with a curious anger,           but we’ll still worry ourselves to death           about the outcome of the war, which could last years.     Let’s say we’re in prison     and close to fifty,     and we have eighteen more years, say,                       before the iron doors will open.     We’ll still live with the outside,     with its people and animals, struggle and wind—                             I mean with the outside beyond the walls.     I mean, however and wherever we are,           we must live as if we will never die.     III     This earth will grow cold,     a star among stars               and one of the smallest,     a gilded mote on blue velvet—             I mean this, our great earth.     This earth will grow cold one day,     not like a block of ice     or a dead cloud even     but like an empty walnut it will roll along             in pitch-black space . . .     You must grieve for this right now     —you have to feel this sorrow now—     for the world must be loved this much                           if you’re going to say “I lived”. . .

I choose life!!  :)

I would trust business over big government every time.

Smarter people inhabit the boardroom than the parliament.
only has beens and wannabees are political activists and politicians.

They end up there because we, the private sector, find no use for them.

If there are problems put steve jobs, bill gates, dick smith, richard branson and ita buttrose onto it. they'll solve it. Politicians will just milk it.

aquascoot wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 5:29pm:

I would trust business over big government every time. Smarter people inhabit the boardroom than the parliament. only has beens and wannabees are political activists and politicians. They end up there because we, the private sector, find no use for them. If there are problems put steve jobs, bill gates, dick smith, richard branson and ita buttrose onto it. they'll solve it. Politicians will just milk it.

Business (WHICH IS BUSINESS LAST I HEARD  ;) ;)) don't milk nothing, ya hear  :o :o :o

ooooooooooooh, don't forget to analyse where aqua put the word 'BIG' will ya dear reader!

Aqua thinks he pWns ya'll ya hear  :o :o :o :o  :D

The article is far too Marxist and pessimistic for my liking. We should remember that authors like this are projecting their morals and values into their writings and are not describing reality in itself.

The section on Nietzsche is correct, but it's been used as a "tag-on" to help bolster his argument. Nietzsche did indeed peer into the meaningless of the world; he did see that deep down there is no meaning whatsoever other than the meaning we humans attach to things. He then states that only a select few could honestly look at the meaningless and come out optimists. There are many who peer into the meaningless and cannot stand it; those who long for meaning but realise there is none. The author appears to have pierced the veil of Maya but come out a pessimist.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 5:53pm:

aquascoot wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 5:29pm: I would trust business over big government every time. Smarter people inhabit the boardroom than the parliament. only has beens and wannabees are political activists and politicians. They end up there because we, the private sector, find no use for them. If there are problems put steve jobs, bill gates, dick smith, richard branson and ita buttrose onto it. they'll solve it. Politicians will just milk it. Business (WHICH IS BUSINESS LAST I HEARD  ;) ;)) don't milk nothing, ya hear  :o :o :o

Business is a tool. You can use it for whatever purpose you wish to apply it.
medical research or making bombs.
The people who work in business work in an environment which quickly sorts the wheat from the chaff. you produce the results in business or you perish.
There is no incentive for big government to produce any results. the public are totally hoodwinked.
It surprises me people think business is somehow hoodwinking the public.
Business needs to be given a regulatory framework by the umpires (government) and then left alone.
The umpires (government) should not be active participants in the game as they are simply failures. They are the umpires.
Would you go to an AFL or NRL match to watch the umpires play. Would you get mitchell johnson to hand the ball to the umpires to bowl?   Its foolishness to imvolve people in tasks they cannot do effectively.

I doubt a government could even instal pink batts or school sheds without a major f^^k up.

How on earth can they run complex things like hospitals, ports, and the NBN.  Simply a silly idea. ;)

OP - just stupid.

Clive hamilton and Nietzsche  cited as authorities for the same argument means it's a fatally flawed argument.

aquascoot wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 5:29pm:

I would trust business over big government every time. Smarter people inhabit the boardroom than the parliament. only has beens and wannabees are political activists and politicians. They end up there because we, the private sector, find no use for them. If there are problems put steve jobs, bill gates, dick smith, richard branson and ita buttrose onto it. they'll solve it. Politicians will just milk it.

And this is the ignorance that brings about our doom. 

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 6:23pm:

The section on Nietzsche is correct, but it's been used as a "tag-on" to help bolster his argument. Nietzsche did indeed peer into the meaningless of the world; he did see that deep down there is no meaning whatsoever other than the meaning we humans attach to things. He then states that only a select few could honestly look at the meaningless and come out optimists. There are many who peer into the meaningless and cannot stand it; those who long for meaning but realise there is none. The author appears to have pierced the veil of Maya but come out a pessimist.

What a tragedy it is for humanity to have a ball and chain around its neck by the likes of a simpletons like you and soren and aquascoot.  

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 6:11pm:

The article is far too Marxist and pessimistic for my liking. We should remember that authors like this are projecting their morals and values into their writings and are not describing reality in itself.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 6:23pm:

The section on Nietzsche is correct, but it's been used as a "tag-on" to help bolster his argument. Nietzsche did indeed peer into the meaningless of the world; he did see that deep down there is no meaning whatsoever other than the meaning we humans attach to things. He then states that only a select few could honestly look at the meaningless and come out optimists. There are many who peer into the meaningless and cannot stand it; those who long for meaning but realise there is none. The author appears to have pierced the veil of Maya but come out a pessimist.

Quote:

Clive hamilton and Nietzsche  cited as authorities for the same argument means it's a fatally flawed argument.

Unfortunately I'm not so well read or have a philosophy degree so perhaps your points are valid.

As I would class it as an opinion piece I would expect the morals and values of the authour to be on display and yes it does come across as somewhat negative.

However it does reflect quite well my own world view, particually the increased font paragraphs, I missed the most poignant sentance


Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 3:22pm:

We are consumed by a mania for hope, which our corporate masters lavishly provide, at the expense of truth.

The bogan king rules and the bogans rejoice :(

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 6:11pm:

The article is far too Marxist and pessimistic for my liking. We should remember that authors like this are projecting their morals and values into their writings and are not describing reality in itself.

like wtf  :D :D

aquascoot wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 6:51pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 5:53pm: aquascoot wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 5:29pm: I would trust business over big government every time. Smarter people inhabit the boardroom than the parliament. only has beens and wannabees are political activists and politicians. They end up there because we, the private sector, find no use for them. If there are problems put steve jobs, bill gates, dick smith, richard branson and ita buttrose onto it. they'll solve it. Politicians will just milk it. Business (WHICH IS BUSINESS LAST I HEARD  ;) ;)) don't milk nothing, ya hear  :o :o :o Business is a tool. You can use it for whatever purpose you wish to apply it. medical research or making bombs. The people who work in business work in an environment which quickly sorts the wheat from the chaff. you produce the results in business or you perish. There is no incentive for big government to produce any results. the public are totally hoodwinked. It surprises me people think business is somehow hoodwinking the public. Business needs to be given a regulatory framework by the umpires (government) and then left alone. The umpires (government) should not be active participants in the game as they are simply failures. They are the umpires. Would you go to an AFL or NRL match to watch the umpires play. Would you get mitchell johnson to hand the ball to the umpires to bowl?   Its foolishness to imvolve people in tasks they cannot do effectively. I doubt a government could even instal pink batts or school sheds without a major f^^k up. How on earth can they run complex things like hospitals, ports, and the NBN.  Simply a silly idea. ;)

You're an idiot dood: you're saying exactly nothing!   ;) ;) have a nice day now  ;D

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 8:53pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 6:23pm: The section on Nietzsche is correct, but it's been used as a "tag-on" to help bolster his argument. Nietzsche did indeed peer into the meaningless of the world; he did see that deep down there is no meaning whatsoever other than the meaning we humans attach to things. He then states that only a select few could honestly look at the meaningless and come out optimists. There are many who peer into the meaningless and cannot stand it; those who long for meaning but realise there is none. The author appears to have pierced the veil of Maya but come out a pessimist. What a tragedy it is for humanity to have a ball and chain around its neck by the likes of a simpletons like you and soren and aquascoot.

Perhaps you can unravel a problem in the op: how does the author escape illusionary ideals?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 29^th, 2014 at 9:56am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 8:53pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 6:23pm: The section on Nietzsche is correct, but it's been used as a "tag-on" to help bolster his argument. Nietzsche did indeed peer into the meaningless of the world; he did see that deep down there is no meaning whatsoever other than the meaning we humans attach to things. He then states that only a select few could honestly look at the meaningless and come out optimists. There are many who peer into the meaningless and cannot stand it; those who long for meaning but realise there is none. The author appears to have pierced the veil of Maya but come out a pessimist. What a tragedy it is for humanity to have a ball and chain around its neck by the likes of a simpletons like you and soren and aquascoot.   Perhaps you can unravel a problem in the op: how does the author escape illusionary ideals?

You're burying your head in the sand and still insisting (for ideological reasons) that it isn't happening and all of humanity will have to pay the price of your ignorance 

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 29^th, 2014 at 12:45am:

aquascoot wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 6:51pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 5:53pm: aquascoot wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 5:29pm: I would trust business over big government every time. Smarter people inhabit the boardroom than the parliament. only has beens and wannabees are political activists and politicians. They end up there because we, the private sector, find no use for them. If there are problems put steve jobs, bill gates, dick smith, richard branson and ita buttrose onto it. they'll solve it. Politicians will just milk it. Business (WHICH IS BUSINESS LAST I HEARD  ;) ;)) don't milk nothing, ya hear  :o :o :o Business is a tool. You can use it for whatever purpose you wish to apply it. medical research or making bombs. The people who work in business work in an environment which quickly sorts the wheat from the chaff. you produce the results in business or you perish. There is no incentive for big government to produce any results. the public are totally hoodwinked. It surprises me people think business is somehow hoodwinking the public. Business needs to be given a regulatory framework by the umpires (government) and then left alone. The umpires (government) should not be active participants in the game as they are simply failures. They are the umpires. Would you go to an AFL or NRL match to watch the umpires play. Would you get mitchell johnson to hand the ball to the umpires to bowl?   Its foolishness to imvolve people in tasks they cannot do effectively. I doubt a government could even instal pink batts or school sheds without a major f^^k up. How on earth can they run complex things like hospitals, ports, and the NBN.  Simply a silly idea. ;) You're an idiot dood: you're saying exactly nothing!   ;) ;) have a nice day now  ;D

If there are any posters on here you agree with DRAH, i would suggest they have serious intellectual delay issues

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 29^th, 2014 at 10:05am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 29th, 2014 at 9:56am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 8:53pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 6:23pm: The section on Nietzsche is correct, but it's been used as a "tag-on" to help bolster his argument. Nietzsche did indeed peer into the meaningless of the world; he did see that deep down there is no meaning whatsoever other than the meaning we humans attach to things. He then states that only a select few could honestly look at the meaningless and come out optimists. There are many who peer into the meaningless and cannot stand it; those who long for meaning but realise there is none. The author appears to have pierced the veil of Maya but come out a pessimist. What a tragedy it is for humanity to have a ball and chain around its neck by the likes of a simpletons like you and soren and aquascoot.   Perhaps you can unravel a problem in the op: how does the author escape illusionary ideals? You're burying your head in the sand and still insisting (for ideological reasons) that it isn't happening and all of humanity will have to pay the price of your ignorance

I am not personally insisting anything, I am analysing the op.

The op is troublesome because it argues that people live a life of illusion but then (the author) hints at seeing the truth. The distinction between truth and illusion, intelligible realm and the world of appearances, or noumena and phenomena is an old one, dating as far back as (at least) Plato. The author would be aware of this. I am interested here in how he believes he has, or can, escape illusion.

aquascoot wrote on Jan 29^th, 2014 at 10:30am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 29th, 2014 at 12:45am: aquascoot wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 6:51pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 5:53pm: aquascoot wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 5:29pm: I would trust business over big government every time. Smarter people inhabit the boardroom than the parliament. only has beens and wannabees are political activists and politicians. They end up there because we, the private sector, find no use for them. If there are problems put steve jobs, bill gates, dick smith, richard branson and ita buttrose onto it. they'll solve it. Politicians will just milk it. Business (WHICH IS BUSINESS LAST I HEARD  ;) ;)) don't milk nothing, ya hear  :o :o :o Business is a tool. You can use it for whatever purpose you wish to apply it. medical research or making bombs. The people who work in business work in an environment which quickly sorts the wheat from the chaff. you produce the results in business or you perish. There is no incentive for big government to produce any results. the public are totally hoodwinked. It surprises me people think business is somehow hoodwinking the public. Business needs to be given a regulatory framework by the umpires (government) and then left alone. The umpires (government) should not be active participants in the game as they are simply failures. They are the umpires. Would you go to an AFL or NRL match to watch the umpires play. Would you get mitchell johnson to hand the ball to the umpires to bowl?   Its foolishness to imvolve people in tasks they cannot do effectively. I doubt a government could even instal pink batts or school sheds without a major f^^k up. How on earth can they run complex things like hospitals, ports, and the NBN.  Simply a silly idea. ;) You're an idiot dood: you're saying exactly nothing!   ;) ;) have a nice day now  ;D If there are any posters on here you agree with DRAH, i would suggest they have serious intellectual delay issues

Money is socialism: get over it already  ;D

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 29^th, 2014 at 10:53am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 29th, 2014 at 10:05am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 29th, 2014 at 9:56am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 8:53pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 6:23pm: The section on Nietzsche is correct, but it's been used as a "tag-on" to help bolster his argument. Nietzsche did indeed peer into the meaningless of the world; he did see that deep down there is no meaning whatsoever other than the meaning we humans attach to things. He then states that only a select few could honestly look at the meaningless and come out optimists. There are many who peer into the meaningless and cannot stand it; those who long for meaning but realise there is none. The author appears to have pierced the veil of Maya but come out a pessimist. What a tragedy it is for humanity to have a ball and chain around its neck by the likes of a simpletons like you and soren and aquascoot.   Perhaps you can unravel a problem in the op: how does the author escape illusionary ideals? You're burying your head in the sand and still insisting (for ideological reasons) that it isn't happening and all of humanity will have to pay the price of your ignorance  I am not personally insisting anything, I am analysing the op. The op is troublesome because it argues that people live a life of illusion but then (the author) hints at seeing the truth. The distinction between truth and illusion, intelligible realm and the world of appearances, or noumena and phenomena is an old one, dating as far back as (at least) Plato. The author would be aware of this. I am interested here in how he believes he has, or can, escape illusion.

Do you even have a clue how stupid this looks.  The OP isn't presented here as a philosophical argument with propositions leading to a conclusion.  It assumes that from the things he is saying that you will recognise and empathise with what is being said and hopefully be motivated to act to do something about the positively dire circumstances that we are in. Its as if, just before a great battle, the general gives his army a speech to spur them on to fight and you interrupt and say "Ahhh, now wait a minute Mr General Sir, how do you know that you have or even can escape illusion".  Just ridiculous.  Understand what I'm saying?  Save your comments for the philosophy tutorial. But right now you need to think about the sheer danger and absolutely terrible situation humanity is in and what you can do to prevent the impending disaster.  Oh and BTW the OP isn't saying all   people live a life of illusion. It clearly acknowledges that some people do in fact see the truth and I think you can safely assume that the author puts himself in that category.   

Misty hates the kids: the only end point of shenanigans possible!

:o

How's it going hating all those kids misty and please don't pretend I'm trying to have a conversation with you so you can pretend you can't be bothered talking below your ken  ;D

many blessings ,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-kv_QunHPo

Danny Wilten - Mystical Geometry Of Man

namaste

- : ) =

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 29^th, 2014 at 8:35pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 29th, 2014 at 10:53am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 29th, 2014 at 10:05am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 29th, 2014 at 9:56am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 8:53pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 6:23pm: The section on Nietzsche is correct, but it's been used as a "tag-on" to help bolster his argument. Nietzsche did indeed peer into the meaningless of the world; he did see that deep down there is no meaning whatsoever other than the meaning we humans attach to things. He then states that only a select few could honestly look at the meaningless and come out optimists. There are many who peer into the meaningless and cannot stand it; those who long for meaning but realise there is none. The author appears to have pierced the veil of Maya but come out a pessimist. What a tragedy it is for humanity to have a ball and chain around its neck by the likes of a simpletons like you and soren and aquascoot.   Perhaps you can unravel a problem in the op: how does the author escape illusionary ideals? You're burying your head in the sand and still insisting (for ideological reasons) that it isn't happening and all of humanity will have to pay the price of your ignorance  I am not personally insisting anything, I am analysing the op. The op is troublesome because it argues that people live a life of illusion but then (the author) hints at seeing the truth. The distinction between truth and illusion, intelligible realm and the world of appearances, or noumena and phenomena is an old one, dating as far back as (at least) Plato. The author would be aware of this. I am interested here in how he believes he has, or can, escape illusion. Do you even have a clue how stupid this looks.  The OP isn't presented here as a philosophical argument with propositions leading to a conclusion.  It assumes that from the things he is saying that you will recognise and empathise with what is being said and hopefully be motivated to act to do something about the positively dire circumstances that we are in. Its as if, just before a great battle, the general gives his army a speech to spur them on to fight and you interrupt and say "Ahhh, now wait a minute Mr General Sir, how do you know that you have or even can escape illusion".  Just ridiculous.  Understand what I'm saying?  Save your comments for the philosophy tutorial. But right now you need to think about the sheer danger and absolutely terrible situation humanity is in and what you can do to prevent the impending disaster.  Oh and BTW the OP isn't saying all   people live a life of illusion. It clearly acknowledges that some people do in fact see the truth and I think you can safely assume that the author puts himself in that category.

Nearly everything mistie posts makes sense to me.
Nearly everything Karmal posts (when he is not being a troll) makes sense to me.
A small bit of what you post makes some sort of sense.
I am yet to read a post from DRAH that makes sense.
The light is entertainment value in the way of a good fiction novel.  I think he resides in narnia

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 29^th, 2014 at 8:35pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 29th, 2014 at 10:53am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 29th, 2014 at 10:05am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 29th, 2014 at 9:56am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 8:53pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 6:23pm: The section on Nietzsche is correct, but it's been used as a "tag-on" to help bolster his argument. Nietzsche did indeed peer into the meaningless of the world; he did see that deep down there is no meaning whatsoever other than the meaning we humans attach to things. He then states that only a select few could honestly look at the meaningless and come out optimists. There are many who peer into the meaningless and cannot stand it; those who long for meaning but realise there is none. The author appears to have pierced the veil of Maya but come out a pessimist. What a tragedy it is for humanity to have a ball and chain around its neck by the likes of a simpletons like you and soren and aquascoot.   Perhaps you can unravel a problem in the op: how does the author escape illusionary ideals? You're burying your head in the sand and still insisting (for ideological reasons) that it isn't happening and all of humanity will have to pay the price of your ignorance  I am not personally insisting anything, I am analysing the op. The op is troublesome because it argues that people live a life of illusion but then (the author) hints at seeing the truth. The distinction between truth and illusion, intelligible realm and the world of appearances, or noumena and phenomena is an old one, dating as far back as (at least) Plato. The author would be aware of this. I am interested here in how he believes he has, or can, escape illusion. Do you even have a clue how stupid this looks.  The OP isn't presented here as a philosophical argument with propositions leading to a conclusion.  It assumes that from the things he is saying that you will recognise and empathise with what is being said and hopefully be motivated to act to do something about the positively dire circumstances that we are in. Its as if, just before a great battle, the general gives his army a speech to spur them on to fight and you interrupt and say "Ahhh, now wait a minute Mr General Sir, how do you know that you have or even can escape illusion".  Just ridiculous.  Understand what I'm saying?  Save your comments for the philosophy tutorial. But right now you need to think about the sheer danger and absolutely terrible situation humanity is in and what you can do to prevent the impending disaster.  Oh and BTW the OP isn't saying all   people live a life of illusion. It clearly acknowledges that some people do in fact see the truth and I think you can safely assume that the author puts himself in that category.

Liebig's Law...

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 29^th, 2014 at 8:35pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 29th, 2014 at 10:53am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 29th, 2014 at 10:05am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 29th, 2014 at 9:56am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 8:53pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 6:23pm: The section on Nietzsche is correct, but it's been used as a "tag-on" to help bolster his argument. Nietzsche did indeed peer into the meaningless of the world; he did see that deep down there is no meaning whatsoever other than the meaning we humans attach to things. He then states that only a select few could honestly look at the meaningless and come out optimists. There are many who peer into the meaningless and cannot stand it; those who long for meaning but realise there is none. The author appears to have pierced the veil of Maya but come out a pessimist. What a tragedy it is for humanity to have a ball and chain around its neck by the likes of a simpletons like you and soren and aquascoot.   Perhaps you can unravel a problem in the op: how does the author escape illusionary ideals? You're burying your head in the sand and still insisting (for ideological reasons) that it isn't happening and all of humanity will have to pay the price of your ignorance  I am not personally insisting anything, I am analysing the op. The op is troublesome because it argues that people live a life of illusion but then (the author) hints at seeing the truth. The distinction between truth and illusion, intelligible realm and the world of appearances, or noumena and phenomena is an old one, dating as far back as (at least) Plato. The author would be aware of this. I am interested here in how he believes he has, or can, escape illusion. Do you even have a clue how stupid this looks.  The OP isn't presented here as a philosophical argument with propositions leading to a conclusion.  It assumes that from the things he is saying that you will recognise and empathise with what is being said and hopefully be motivated to act to do something about the positively dire circumstances that we are in. Its as if, just before a great battle, the general gives his army a speech to spur them on to fight and you interrupt and say "Ahhh, now wait a minute Mr General Sir, how do you know that you have or even can escape illusion".  Just ridiculous.  Understand what I'm saying?  Save your comments for the philosophy tutorial. But right now you need to think about the sheer danger and absolutely terrible situation humanity is in and what you can do to prevent the impending disaster.  Oh and BTW the OP isn't saying all   people live a life of illusion. It clearly acknowledges that some people do in fact see the truth and I think you can safely assume that the author puts himself in that category.

I see. You just want to be pushed around by your emotions, rather than identifying and logically analysing reasoned arguments. Good luck with that.

"The Myth of Human Progress"




Men and women are not stupid creatures.

We understand that if we make poor choices, we will likely draw to ourselves, consequences that we do not like.

But that has never stopped us!


Isaiah 48:17
Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.
18  O that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments! then had thy peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea:
19  Thy seed also had been as the sand, and the offspring of thy bowels like the gravel thereof; his name should not have been cut off nor destroyed from before me.
20  Go ye forth of Babylon, flee ye from the Chaldeans, with a voice of singing declare ye, tell this, utter it even to the end of the earth; say ye, The LORD hath redeemed his servant Jacob.
21  And they thirsted not when he led them through the deserts: he caused the waters to flow out of the rock for them: he clave the rock also, and the waters gushed out.
22  There is no peace, saith the LORD, unto the wicked.



It is sad.

Men and women are too wilful and selfish to make what they know are good choices.

The circumstance and the 'end' which prideful mankind will come to;

Psalms 7:15
He made a pit, and digged it, and is fallen into the ditch which he made.



That description in;
Psalms 7:15
....sounds pretty close to 'where we [collectively] are', imo.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 6:11pm:

The article is far too Marxist and pessimistic for my liking. We should remember that authors like this are projecting their morals and values into their writings and are not describing reality in itself.

That's right, Mistie. You'd never do anything that.

(The article is far too Marxist and pessimistic for my liking).

Karnal wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 10:07am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 6:11pm: The article is far too Marxist and pessimistic for my liking. We should remember that authors like this are projecting their morals and values into their writings and are not describing reality in itself. That's right, Mistie. You'd never do anything that. (The article is far too Marxist and pessimistic for my liking).

You have to admit, it's pretty much all doom and gloom.

It is a requirement to define what Human Progress first before drawing any conclusion, so therefore I disagree with every conclusion the OP has made from his Article. 

Is Human Progress a spiritual one?... Is it an advance in technology and human knowledge? Is it attaining Enlightenment?  Is it an individual selfish desire for self-fulfilment? So what is Human progress from your viewpoint OP?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 9:24am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 29th, 2014 at 8:35pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 29th, 2014 at 10:53am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 29th, 2014 at 10:05am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 29th, 2014 at 9:56am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 8:53pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 6:23pm: The section on Nietzsche is correct, but it's been used as a "tag-on" to help bolster his argument. Nietzsche did indeed peer into the meaningless of the world; he did see that deep down there is no meaning whatsoever other than the meaning we humans attach to things. He then states that only a select few could honestly look at the meaningless and come out optimists. There are many who peer into the meaningless and cannot stand it; those who long for meaning but realise there is none. The author appears to have pierced the veil of Maya but come out a pessimist. What a tragedy it is for humanity to have a ball and chain around its neck by the likes of a simpletons like you and soren and aquascoot.   Perhaps you can unravel a problem in the op: how does the author escape illusionary ideals? You're burying your head in the sand and still insisting (for ideological reasons) that it isn't happening and all of humanity will have to pay the price of your ignorance  I am not personally insisting anything, I am analysing the op. The op is troublesome because it argues that people live a life of illusion but then (the author) hints at seeing the truth. The distinction between truth and illusion, intelligible realm and the world of appearances, or noumena and phenomena is an old one, dating as far back as (at least) Plato. The author would be aware of this. I am interested here in how he believes he has, or can, escape illusion. Do you even have a clue how stupid this looks.  The OP isn't presented here as a philosophical argument with propositions leading to a conclusion.  It assumes that from the things he is saying that you will recognise and empathise with what is being said and hopefully be motivated to act to do something about the positively dire circumstances that we are in. Its as if, just before a great battle, the general gives his army a speech to spur them on to fight and you interrupt and say "Ahhh, now wait a minute Mr General Sir, how do you know that you have or even can escape illusion".  Just ridiculous.  Understand what I'm saying?  Save your comments for the philosophy tutorial. But right now you need to think about the sheer danger and absolutely terrible situation humanity is in and what you can do to prevent the impending disaster.  Oh and BTW the OP isn't saying all   people live a life of illusion. It clearly acknowledges that some people do in fact see the truth and I think you can safely assume that the author puts himself in that category.    I see. You just want to be pushed around by your emotions, rather than identifying and logically analysing reasoned arguments. Good luck with that.

No. The OP is not trying (either by logic or otherwise) to convince you of it's assertions.  It assumes that you already know (or on the road to knowing) that these things are happening and from there the writer is urging you to do something; namely stop being complacent, get off your bum and take control to change the situation before it's too late. That's why analysing it like it's some philosophical argument is absurd. 

Oh and BTW you don't think this post isn't a good indicator that you're being pushed around by your emotions, rather than logic and reasoned argument.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 9:24am:

The article is far too Marxist and pessimistic for my liking.

. As to what is Marxist about the OP leaves me quite confused. You might want to elaborate on that but before you do you need to realise that it's not logical to reject something simply on the basis that you don't agree with it ideologically.  It's either happening or not irrespective of your political ideology.  Same holds true with climate change; its either happening or not irrespective of whether you believe in capitalism or communism or anything else.  But I'm sure I don't have to explain that to you.   

Sasha wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 11:03am:

It is a requirement to define what Human Progress first before drawing any conclusion, so therefore I disagree with every conclusion the OP has made from his Article.  Is Human Progress a spiritual one?... Is it an advance in technology and human knowledge? Is it attaining Enlightenment?  Is it an individual selfish desire for self-fulfilment? So what is Human progress from your viewpoint OP?

Wow that's deep. Remind me to ask myself those very questions just before a 20 ton lorry is about to crash into me on my way to work. 

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 11:21am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 9:24am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 29th, 2014 at 8:35pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 29th, 2014 at 10:53am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 29th, 2014 at 10:05am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 29th, 2014 at 9:56am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 8:53pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 6:23pm: The section on Nietzsche is correct, but it's been used as a "tag-on" to help bolster his argument. Nietzsche did indeed peer into the meaningless of the world; he did see that deep down there is no meaning whatsoever other than the meaning we humans attach to things. He then states that only a select few could honestly look at the meaningless and come out optimists. There are many who peer into the meaningless and cannot stand it; those who long for meaning but realise there is none. The author appears to have pierced the veil of Maya but come out a pessimist. What a tragedy it is for humanity to have a ball and chain around its neck by the likes of a simpletons like you and soren and aquascoot.   Perhaps you can unravel a problem in the op: how does the author escape illusionary ideals? You're burying your head in the sand and still insisting (for ideological reasons) that it isn't happening and all of humanity will have to pay the price of your ignorance  I am not personally insisting anything, I am analysing the op. The op is troublesome because it argues that people live a life of illusion but then (the author) hints at seeing the truth. The distinction between truth and illusion, intelligible realm and the world of appearances, or noumena and phenomena is an old one, dating as far back as (at least) Plato. The author would be aware of this. I am interested here in how he believes he has, or can, escape illusion. Do you even have a clue how stupid this looks.  The OP isn't presented here as a philosophical argument with propositions leading to a conclusion.  It assumes that from the things he is saying that you will recognise and empathise with what is being said and hopefully be motivated to act to do something about the positively dire circumstances that we are in. Its as if, just before a great battle, the general gives his army a speech to spur them on to fight and you interrupt and say "Ahhh, now wait a minute Mr General Sir, how do you know that you have or even can escape illusion".  Just ridiculous.  Understand what I'm saying?  Save your comments for the philosophy tutorial. But right now you need to think about the sheer danger and absolutely terrible situation humanity is in and what you can do to prevent the impending disaster.  Oh and BTW the OP isn't saying all   people live a life of illusion. It clearly acknowledges that some people do in fact see the truth and I think you can safely assume that the author puts himself in that category.    I see. You just want to be pushed around by your emotions, rather than identifying and logically analysing reasoned arguments. Good luck with that. No. The OP is not trying (either by logic or otherwise) to convince you of it's assertions.  It assumes that you already know (or on the road to knowing) that these things are happening and from there the writer is urging you to do something; namely stop being complacent, get off your bum and take control to change the situation before it's too late. That's why analysing it like it's some philosophical argument is absurd.

Well, at least we can agree to disagree. If I am being urged to do something than I reserve my right to scrutinize it.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 11:30am:

Sasha wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 11:03am: It is a requirement to define what Human Progress first before drawing any conclusion, so therefore I disagree with every conclusion the OP has made from his Article.  Is Human Progress a spiritual one?... Is it an advance in technology and human knowledge? Is it attaining Enlightenment?  Is it an individual selfish desire for self-fulfilment? So what is Human progress from your viewpoint OP? Wow that's deep. Remind me to ask myself those very questions just before a 20 ton lorry is about to crash into me on my way to work.

Well it is about Human progress, and I see very many different ideas that contradict each other. Let me know when it hits you.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 11:21am:

No. The OP is not trying (either by logic or otherwise) to convince you of it's assertions.  It assumes that you already know (or on the road to knowing) that these things are happening and from there the writer is urging you to do something; namely stop being complacent, get off your bum and take control to change the situation before it's too late. That's why analysing it like it's some philosophical argument is absurd.

So it's preaching to the converted. Pardon me for not blindly accepting its assertions.


Quote:

As to what is Marxist about the OP leaves me quite confused. You might want to elaborate on that but before you do you need to realise that it's not logical to reject something simply on the basis that you don't agree with it ideologically.  It's either happening or not irrespective of your political ideology.  Same holds true with climate change; its either happening or not irrespective of whether you believe in capitalism or communism or anything else.  But I'm sure I don't have to explain that to you.

You want me to elaborate? I thought you didn't want any analysis of the piece?

Sasha wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 11:03am:

It is a requirement to define what Human Progress first before drawing any conclusion, so therefore I disagree with every conclusion the OP has made from his Article.  Is Human Progress a spiritual one?... Is it an advance in technology and human knowledge? Is it attaining Enlightenment?  Is it an individual selfish desire for self-fulfilment? So what is Human progress from your viewpoint OP?

True.
It appears, though, it is attacking material progress and the economics and environmental side effects that go with it. But it doesn't set up any alternative. It merely negates.

Sasha wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 11:36am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 11:21am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 9:24am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 29th, 2014 at 8:35pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 29th, 2014 at 10:53am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 29th, 2014 at 10:05am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 29th, 2014 at 9:56am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 8:53pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 6:23pm: The section on Nietzsche is correct, but it's been used as a "tag-on" to help bolster his argument. Nietzsche did indeed peer into the meaningless of the world; he did see that deep down there is no meaning whatsoever other than the meaning we humans attach to things. He then states that only a select few could honestly look at the meaningless and come out optimists. There are many who peer into the meaningless and cannot stand it; those who long for meaning but realise there is none. The author appears to have pierced the veil of Maya but come out a pessimist. What a tragedy it is for humanity to have a ball and chain around its neck by the likes of a simpletons like you and soren and aquascoot.   Perhaps you can unravel a problem in the op: how does the author escape illusionary ideals? You're burying your head in the sand and still insisting (for ideological reasons) that it isn't happening and all of humanity will have to pay the price of your ignorance  I am not personally insisting anything, I am analysing the op. The op is troublesome because it argues that people live a life of illusion but then (the author) hints at seeing the truth. The distinction between truth and illusion, intelligible realm and the world of appearances, or noumena and phenomena is an old one, dating as far back as (at least) Plato. The author would be aware of this. I am interested here in how he believes he has, or can, escape illusion. Do you even have a clue how stupid this looks.  The OP isn't presented here as a philosophical argument with propositions leading to a conclusion.  It assumes that from the things he is saying that you will recognise and empathise with what is being said and hopefully be motivated to act to do something about the positively dire circumstances that we are in. Its as if, just before a great battle, the general gives his army a speech to spur them on to fight and you interrupt and say "Ahhh, now wait a minute Mr General Sir, how do you know that you have or even can escape illusion".  Just ridiculous.  Understand what I'm saying?  Save your comments for the philosophy tutorial. But right now you need to think about the sheer danger and absolutely terrible situation humanity is in and what you can do to prevent the impending disaster.  Oh and BTW the OP isn't saying all   people live a life of illusion. It clearly acknowledges that some people do in fact see the truth and I think you can safely assume that the author puts himself in that category.    I see. You just want to be pushed around by your emotions, rather than identifying and logically analysing reasoned arguments. Good luck with that. No. The OP is not trying (either by logic or otherwise) to convince you of it's assertions.  It assumes that you already know (or on the road to knowing) that these things are happening and from there the writer is urging you to do something; namely stop being complacent, get off your bum and take control to change the situation before it's too late. That's why analysing it like it's some philosophical argument is absurd.    Well, at least we can agree to disagree. If I am being urged to do something than I reserve my right to scrutinize it.

. Oh I thought you had done scrutinising and concluded that you disagree with everything the OP said because he failed to define "Human progress". A very sound approach let me tell you. You must be in Misty's philosophy class. Anyhoo just go on scrutinising and be sure to tell us how many errors you find.  Oh and, keep an eye out for that truck. 

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 11:51am:

Sasha wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 11:36am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 11:21am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 9:24am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 29th, 2014 at 8:35pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 29th, 2014 at 10:53am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 29th, 2014 at 10:05am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 29th, 2014 at 9:56am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 8:53pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 6:23pm: The section on Nietzsche is correct, but it's been used as a "tag-on" to help bolster his argument. Nietzsche did indeed peer into the meaningless of the world; he did see that deep down there is no meaning whatsoever other than the meaning we humans attach to things. He then states that only a select few could honestly look at the meaningless and come out optimists. There are many who peer into the meaningless and cannot stand it; those who long for meaning but realise there is none. The author appears to have pierced the veil of Maya but come out a pessimist. What a tragedy it is for humanity to have a ball and chain around its neck by the likes of a simpletons like you and soren and aquascoot.   Perhaps you can unravel a problem in the op: how does the author escape illusionary ideals? You're burying your head in the sand and still insisting (for ideological reasons) that it isn't happening and all of humanity will have to pay the price of your ignorance  I am not personally insisting anything, I am analysing the op. The op is troublesome because it argues that people live a life of illusion but then (the author) hints at seeing the truth. The distinction between truth and illusion, intelligible realm and the world of appearances, or noumena and phenomena is an old one, dating as far back as (at least) Plato. The author would be aware of this. I am interested here in how he believes he has, or can, escape illusion. Do you even have a clue how stupid this looks.  The OP isn't presented here as a philosophical argument with propositions leading to a conclusion.  It assumes that from the things he is saying that you will recognise and empathise with what is being said and hopefully be motivated to act to do something about the positively dire circumstances that we are in. Its as if, just before a great battle, the general gives his army a speech to spur them on to fight and you interrupt and say "Ahhh, now wait a minute Mr General Sir, how do you know that you have or even can escape illusion".  Just ridiculous.  Understand what I'm saying?  Save your comments for the philosophy tutorial. But right now you need to think about the sheer danger and absolutely terrible situation humanity is in and what you can do to prevent the impending disaster.  Oh and BTW the OP isn't saying all   people live a life of illusion. It clearly acknowledges that some people do in fact see the truth and I think you can safely assume that the author puts himself in that category.    I see. You just want to be pushed around by your emotions, rather than identifying and logically analysing reasoned arguments. Good luck with that. No. The OP is not trying (either by logic or otherwise) to convince you of it's assertions.  It assumes that you already know (or on the road to knowing) that these things are happening and from there the writer is urging you to do something; namely stop being complacent, get off your bum and take control to change the situation before it's too late. That's why analysing it like it's some philosophical argument is absurd.    Well, at least we can agree to disagree. If I am being urged to do something than I reserve my right to scrutinize it. . Oh I thought you had done scrutinising and concluded that you disagree with everything the OP said because he failed to define "Human progress". A very sound approach let me tell you. You must be in Misty's philosophy class. Anyhoo just go on scrutinising and be sure to tell us how many errors you find.  Oh and, keep an eye out for that truck.

No, not everything, just his conclusions. You seem to take this rather personally.

aquascoot wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 6:51pm:

Business is a tool. You can use it for whatever purpose you wish to apply it.

Not exactly, Aquascoot. Business requires profit. If it doesn't generate profit, it doesn't receive capital. And without capital, it can't do business.

The inventor of the polio vaccine, for example, refused to patent it. He gave it away because he wanted to cure polio - not make a profit.

Under a business model, this would be impossible. Shareholders would require a reward for their investment. This is the very nature of capitalism, and it's why we have things called governments. The polio vaccine would not have been invented without public funding or charity - and charity is not business. It is the antithesis of the profit motive.

However, government monopolies have their problems. There's a famous shoe story from the Soviet Union. The story goes something like this: the government shoe manufacturer had a quota to produce shoes. The government manufacturer sent out the exact number it was asked to produce, but the shoes were all one size and designed for only one foot. It was pointless complaining. The factory had produced its quota. Whether all those one foot shoes sat in warehouses indefinitely was irrelevant. Shoe production figures could be reported favourably, so the government was doing its job.

This story, however, could equally occur under a private monopoly. Stories of private firms rorting the US government during the Iraqi reconstruction are rife. Most of these contracts were untendered - many of them were "gifts" to Republican donors and friends of Bush and Cheney. There are tales of multimillion dollar bills for undelivered services - services ranging from security consultants who never left US soil to water purification and power services that were never actually provided.

Some of this was, of course, the result of Donald Rumsfeld's reform of US Defence contracting - the biggest reform to the US military since the Vietnam war. Defence privatization had been Rumsfeld's crusade for years, but in the end, Rumsfeld had very few friends left in the Pentagon. The privatization of the US military is just one part of the fiasco that was the invasion of Iraq. In the end, Rumsfeld had to go.

What's important here is not whether a service is public or private, but whether it's a monopoly. Towards its end, the British East India Company was more bureaucratic and inefficient than the public sector that replaced it. Don't forget - the private sector preceded the public sector during the emergence of capitalism in the 16th century. Before the navies ruled the seas, pirates like Francis Drake performed the crown's business of conquest and battles with warring foreign powers. These pirates were granted titles and land grants, becoming legitimate and very rich indeed. Their spoils were invested into further voyages, including the booming spice trade. The surplus from this trade was invested into the early publicly floated companies, state mandated monopolies such as the British East India Company and the Dutch East Indies Company. As an example of how profitable such ventures were, one shipload of spices from Malacca or Cochin could set a merchant up for life, earning millions of profits in today's money.

This is why monopolies were so important - not only did they earn a fortune in gold and silver for their licensed companies (providing bribes, like the Iraqi contracts, to influential friends), their wealth was required to provide security from warring kingdoms' ships and secure the emerging colonies where they did business. Trade routes required warships. Ports required forts. Trade and conquest required muscle, but also exceptional negotiating skills. Such skills provided the basis of modern diplomacy. The muscle provided the basis of maritime law and the means to secure colonies. Together, the brains and the brawn became what was called "gunship diplomacy": the basis of Western colonialism. More importantly, it provided the matrix of the modern global economy and the foundation of capitalism itself.

This, I guess, is a rather long-winded way to show how capitalism emerged - the origins of private enterprise and monopolies on a global scale. These monopolies were not efficient - they could only be sustained by huge profits. The private sector its is not necessarily efficient. As an example of this, the Dutch tulip boom was part of a series of financial shocks that led to the end of Dutch global hegemony. At a point, the price of one tulip bulb cost more than a house. Such market fluctuations are the basis of global instability. This was Lenin's criticism of capitalism: capitalism per se was not necessarily the problem, it was monopoly capitalism led by an irrational, but self-interested, financial sector. Such financial crises would cause future world wars and inevitably bring down capitalism itself.

Lenin predicted the Great Depression and WWII - not bad for a communist. Still, he underestimated the state's ability to tame capitalism. The private sector has been the cause of each financial crisis we've had since. In itself, there is nothing necessarily efficient about the profit motive. It only works within a framework that facilitates efficiency and fairness.

Business is not a tool - by its nature, it must generate profit. The tool, if you want, is the mechanism that keeps the profit motive in check

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 11:51am:

Sasha wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 11:36am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 11:21am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 9:24am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 29th, 2014 at 8:35pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 29th, 2014 at 10:53am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 29th, 2014 at 10:05am: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 29th, 2014 at 9:56am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 8:53pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 6:23pm: The section on Nietzsche is correct, but it's been used as a "tag-on" to help bolster his argument. Nietzsche did indeed peer into the meaningless of the world; he did see that deep down there is no meaning whatsoever other than the meaning we humans attach to things. He then states that only a select few could honestly look at the meaningless and come out optimists. There are many who peer into the meaningless and cannot stand it; those who long for meaning but realise there is none. The author appears to have pierced the veil of Maya but come out a pessimist. What a tragedy it is for humanity to have a ball and chain around its neck by the likes of a simpletons like you and soren and aquascoot.   Perhaps you can unravel a problem in the op: how does the author escape illusionary ideals? You're burying your head in the sand and still insisting (for ideological reasons) that it isn't happening and all of humanity will have to pay the price of your ignorance  I am not personally insisting anything, I am analysing the op. The op is troublesome because it argues that people live a life of illusion but then (the author) hints at seeing the truth. The distinction between truth and illusion, intelligible realm and the world of appearances, or noumena and phenomena is an old one, dating as far back as (at least) Plato. The author would be aware of this. I am interested here in how he believes he has, or can, escape illusion. Do you even have a clue how stupid this looks.  The OP isn't presented here as a philosophical argument with propositions leading to a conclusion.  It assumes that from the things he is saying that you will recognise and empathise with what is being said and hopefully be motivated to act to do something about the positively dire circumstances that we are in. Its as if, just before a great battle, the general gives his army a speech to spur them on to fight and you interrupt and say "Ahhh, now wait a minute Mr General Sir, how do you know that you have or even can escape illusion".  Just ridiculous.  Understand what I'm saying?  Save your comments for the philosophy tutorial. But right now you need to think about the sheer danger and absolutely terrible situation humanity is in and what you can do to prevent the impending disaster.  Oh and BTW the OP isn't saying all   people live a life of illusion. It clearly acknowledges that some people do in fact see the truth and I think you can safely assume that the author puts himself in that category.    I see. You just want to be pushed around by your emotions, rather than identifying and logically analysing reasoned arguments. Good luck with that. No. The OP is not trying (either by logic or otherwise) to convince you of it's assertions.  It assumes that you already know (or on the road to knowing) that these things are happening and from there the writer is urging you to do something; namely stop being complacent, get off your bum and take control to change the situation before it's too late. That's why analysing it like it's some philosophical argument is absurd.    Well, at least we can agree to disagree. If I am being urged to do something than I reserve my right to scrutinize it. . Oh I thought you had done scrutinising and concluded that you disagree with everything the OP said because he failed to define "Human progress". A very sound approach let me tell you. You must be in Misty's philosophy class. Anyhoo just go on scrutinising and be sure to tell us how many errors you find.  Oh and, keep an eye out for that truck.

'


Specifically what truck do you think we should be looking for?

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 11:21am:

As to what is Marxist about the OP leaves me quite confused.

Of course it's not Marxist. Marxism is all about human progress. Marxism is part of German idealist tradition that, borrowing from Aristotle, invented the modern idea of human progress.

Mistie got Marxism confused with doom and gloom. He's a moral abstractionist, you see.

Sasha wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 11:03am:

Is Human Progress a spiritual one?... Is it an advance in technology and human knowledge? Is it attaining Enlightenment?  Is it an individual selfish desire for self-fulfilment? So what is Human progress from your viewpoint OP?

Taken from Hegel, the idea of progress is about bringing the higher realms, or spirit, into the world. For Hegel, human history works in stages, each progressing step by step towards a state of pure consciousness. Descartes split the phenomenon of reason from the flesh, or human desire. The Enlightenment notion of progress was about bringing the laws of God into the laws of men through reason, scientific discovery, and later, through political-economy.

Marx developed the stages of human progress into the idea of historical materialism. Here, the purpose of reason, or consciousness, was to be in the world. In defining such a purpose, Marx did away with the notion of God. The endpoint, or telos, of human progress was not based in a Platonic world of idealist forms as it was for Hegel, but in the world of human relations. For Marx, progress was about ending class struggle, which caused history to progress through stages.

For Hegel and Marx, progress was predicted to end at a certain historical point, culminating in what Hegel called the end of history. The conservative philosopher, Francis Fukuyama, called this historical end point as the end of the Cold War. For Hegel, human progress ended with the political establishment of liberal democracy (or constitutional monarchies or republics).

Fukuyama, however, has since retracted this opinion.

Marx's telos was communism. While Marx never formally retracted this opinion, he moved his emphasis in his later works towards the political model of social democracy. This is one reason why communist parties throughout the world struggled to put what they called "theory into practice": Marx was never clear about what needed to happen to achieve communism, or the end of class struggle. His Communist Manifesto was just a passionate call for the proletariat (Marx's endpoint as history's triumphant class) to take over the means of production. The main architect of communist thought became Lenin, articulated in his work, What Is To Be Done. During the Cold War, communist parties throughout the world struggled to identify as the true party of Marxism-Leninism.

Existentialists like Satre picked up on Marx's materialism, but did away with the notion of progress. For Satre, "existence precedes essence", meaning that Hegel's world of spirit (or pure reason) was a mere projection of things, and relationships between things, in this world. Satre had no time for God, but a focus on existence required a closer look at how humans think and perceive things. Satre referred to the later work of Nietzsche, which hovers on the question of metaphysics and being.

This required a focus on language - a move in 20th century Western thought that became known as the "linguistic turn". This move looked at the relationship of language with things - signs and "signifiers" (or words, if you want) with their meanings, or "signifieds". This field came to call itself semiotics, a movement within structuralism. Semiotics initially articulated a push in modern thought towards "pure" expression. This was the basis of modern art, movements like cubism, abstract expressionism and minimalism aiming to capture the real meaning of things in a visual form.

From this perspective, Western thought quickly reached the limits of such a project. Modern thought began to accept this. It came to identify no relationship at all between"signifieds" and their "signifiers", language and its meaning, or representation and the thing being represented. This was a pivotal historical rupture in Western philosophy.

This disruption, started largely by Neitzsche, saw an end to Hegelian idealism, along with the question (or possibility) of human progress. For many, it marked the end of the Enlightenment itself. If spirit, or pure reason, was merely a linguistic phenomenon, interchangeable with any of a myriad of signifiers, it could never be fully captured within language itself. This moved Western thought towards what has become known as post-structuralism, a very loosely connected group of thinkers who share the implausibility of defining human evolution in linear terms; the impossibility of progress.

This has also seen an end to the faith in politics once held by Marxists. Such ideas as equality, human progress, and historical and dialectical materialism have come to be seen as "liberatory discourses" and "universal signifiers" - a term that also applies to God. The Hegelian/Marxist idea of history as progressing in stages - thesis, antithese and synthesis - is also called to question. Thinkers we might call post-structuralists have focused any political action on specific social movements. Following the linguistic turn, it is still possible to reform institutions, seek to put "theory into practice" and act "in the world", but it's important not to create further abstractions (and greater social problems).

The 20th century saw so much death and destruction, its response was indeed gloomy. Such systemic conflict was part of our competing Western views on human progress. It can, of course, also be seen as the teething pains of human progress, or class struggle.

I'll let you be the judge of that.

Karnal wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 12:48pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 11:21am: As to what is Marxist about the OP leaves me quite confused. Of course it's not Marxist. Marxism is all about human progress. Marxism is part of German idealist tradition that, borrowing from Aristotle, invented the modern idea of human progress. Mistie got Marxism confused with doom and gloom. He's a moral abstractionist, you see.

Actually I'm gathering that Misty's definition of Marxism/Communism is "Anything that I don't like"

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 2:44pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 12:48pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 11:21am: As to what is Marxist about the OP leaves me quite confused. Of course it's not Marxist. Marxism is all about human progress. Marxism is part of German idealist tradition that, borrowing from Aristotle, invented the modern idea of human progress. Mistie got Marxism confused with doom and gloom. He's a moral abstractionist, you see. Actually I'm gathering that Misty's definition of Marxism/Communism is "Anything that I don't like"

That's most things, Sparticus.

Mistie can't help it - he works at the uni.

It's full of "progressives".

Karnal wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 12:11pm:

aquascoot wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 6:51pm: Business is a tool. You can use it for whatever purpose you wish to apply it. Not exactly, Aquascoot. Business requires profit. If it doesn't generate profit, it doesn't receive capital. And without capital, it can't do business. The inventor of the polio vaccine, for example, refused to patent it. He gave it away because he wanted to cure polio - not make a profit....

Good post. Not that I agree with it all but good post none the less.  I remember a news report during the Gorbachev years that still makes me laugh today.  It was talking about some of the inefficiencies of soviet industry and said that the standard joke at the time was that the Russian Govt likes to boast that Russia makes the world's biggest micro chip. 

Karnal wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 2:49pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 2:44pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 12:48pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 11:21am: As to what is Marxist about the OP leaves me quite confused. Of course it's not Marxist. Marxism is all about human progress. Marxism is part of German idealist tradition that, borrowing from Aristotle, invented the modern idea of human progress. Mistie got Marxism confused with doom and gloom. He's a moral abstractionist, you see. Actually I'm gathering that Misty's definition of Marxism/Communism is "Anything that I don't like" That's most things, Sparticus. Mistie can't help it - he works at the uni. It's full of "progressives".

I know he keeps insisting on the use of that term "progressives". Does that mean to distinguish ourselves from his position we are compelled to refer to him and his ilk as "the backwards". Seems almost cruel really.   

Karnal wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 12:48pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 11:21am: As to what is Marxist about the OP leaves me quite confused. Of course it's not Marxist. Marxism is all about human progress. Marxism is part of German idealist tradition that, borrowing from Aristotle, invented the modern idea of human progress. Mistie got Marxism confused with doom and gloom. He's a moral abstractionist, you see.

Marx's original philosophy was indeed about progress. But Marxist analyses of the economy and society are invariably always pessimistic. The op is but one of many examples.

Reply 43 is a pretty good summation of what was considered progress, Karnal.
I started a thread on this to see if someone could articulate what progress today means. I didn't get any real responses.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 3:04pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 12:48pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 11:21am: As to what is Marxist about the OP leaves me quite confused. Of course it's not Marxist. Marxism is all about human progress. Marxism is part of German idealist tradition that, borrowing from Aristotle, invented the modern idea of human progress. Mistie got Marxism confused with doom and gloom. He's a moral abstractionist, you see. Marx's original philosophy was indeed about progress. But Marxist analyses of the economy and society are invariably always pessimistic. The op is but one of many examples.

Where on earth do you get that from. Do you just make these things up when it suites you.  You know he believed the inevitable result of this march through the stages of history would be the dictatorship of the proletariat.  The result he favoured. So where's the pessimism in that. 

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 3:11pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 3:04pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 12:48pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 11:21am: As to what is Marxist about the OP leaves me quite confused. Of course it's not Marxist. Marxism is all about human progress. Marxism is part of German idealist tradition that, borrowing from Aristotle, invented the modern idea of human progress. Mistie got Marxism confused with doom and gloom. He's a moral abstractionist, you see. Marx's original philosophy was indeed about progress. But Marxist analyses of the economy and society are invariably always pessimistic. The op is but one of many examples. Where on earth do you get that from. Do you just make these things up when it suites you.  You know he believed the inevitable result of this march through the stages of history would be the dictatorship of the proletariat.  The result he favoured. So where's the pessimism in that.

Marx was pessimistic about his own time. Hence why he called for a revolution. Marx and Marxists are only optimistic in the idealistic sense; meaning, in the sense that they project some utopia in the future. The present is always unbearable for them, though.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 3:00pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 12:11pm: aquascoot wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 6:51pm: Business is a tool. You can use it for whatever purpose you wish to apply it. Not exactly, Aquascoot. Business requires profit. If it doesn't generate profit, it doesn't receive capital. And without capital, it can't do business. The inventor of the polio vaccine, for example, refused to patent it. He gave it away because he wanted to cure polio - not make a profit.... Good post. Not that I agree with it all but good post none the less.

All property is theft, Spartacus. I'm yet to meet anyone who disagrees with this, but feel free if you want.

From the aristocracy to the merchant class to the current financiers (particularly currency speculators, who profit on lowering countries' currency reserves, and hence, the value of their money) - all wealth has its origins in piracy, the spoils of war, or financial crisis.

As everybody knows. The only thing we disagree with is whether we believe this is the natural state of affairs or not.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 3:14pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 3:11pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 3:04pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 12:48pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 11:21am: As to what is Marxist about the OP leaves me quite confused. Of course it's not Marxist. Marxism is all about human progress. Marxism is part of German idealist tradition that, borrowing from Aristotle, invented the modern idea of human progress. Mistie got Marxism confused with doom and gloom. He's a moral abstractionist, you see. Marx's original philosophy was indeed about progress. But Marxist analyses of the economy and society are invariably always pessimistic. The op is but one of many examples. Where on earth do you get that from. Do you just make these things up when it suites you.  You know he believed the inevitable result of this march through the stages of history would be the dictatorship of the proletariat.  The result he favoured. So where's the pessimism in that.  Marx was pessimistic about his own time. Hence why he called for a revolution. Marx and Marxists are only optimistic in the idealistic sense; meaning, in the sense that they project some utopia in the future. The present is always unbearable for them, though.

Mistie, everyone in Marx's time called for revolution. The French, the Yanks - even the poms put the King on the chopping block.

Have you looked at Kuhn's, the Structure of Scientific Revolutions? All shifts in thought/logic are about competing paradigms - the laws that govern truth.

The history of Western thought is a never-ending series of revolutions and power struggles. I don't think anyone can deny this either.

Please do if you feel free.

Karnal wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 3:16pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 3:00pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 12:11pm: aquascoot wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 6:51pm: Business is a tool. You can use it for whatever purpose you wish to apply it. Not exactly, Aquascoot. Business requires profit. If it doesn't generate profit, it doesn't receive capital. And without capital, it can't do business. The inventor of the polio vaccine, for example, refused to patent it. He gave it away because he wanted to cure polio - not make a profit.... Good post. Not that I agree with it all but good post none the less.   All property is theft, Spartacus. I'm yet to meet anyone who disagrees with this, but feel free if you want. From the aristocracy to the merchant class to the current financiers (particularly currency speculators, who profit on lowering countries' currency reserves, and hence, the value of their money) - all wealth has its origins in piracy, the spoils of war, or financial crisis. As everybody knows. The only thing we disagree with is whether we believe this is the natural state of affairs or not.

If a person works, saves towards a home and a roof under which to live, or builds it himself, this property can hardly be called, "theft".
In regards to your posts on this subject, I can only say, excellent, and must have taken a lot of effort to write, and you are definitely very knowledgeable, but I think they are wasted on this forum.
, 

Oh, indeed, Hawil. Pearls before swine (present company excepted, of course).

That home you may one day own is financed by a bank. The land it’s on was taken by  King George the third. And on and on.

When we have savings, we have no say over the product of our labour. This is why programs like personal carbon credits are so ludicrous. We can scrimp and savre on our carbon footprint, watching our electricity use and our carbon miles - and so we should - but every dollar we put into the bank is financing projects that burn fossil fuels.

It’s a global economy. Everything we use or spend comes or goes from someone else.

All property is theft.

Karnal wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 3:29pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 3:14pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 3:11pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 3:04pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 12:48pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 11:21am: As to what is Marxist about the OP leaves me quite confused. Of course it's not Marxist. Marxism is all about human progress. Marxism is part of German idealist tradition that, borrowing from Aristotle, invented the modern idea of human progress. Mistie got Marxism confused with doom and gloom. He's a moral abstractionist, you see. Marx's original philosophy was indeed about progress. But Marxist analyses of the economy and society are invariably always pessimistic. The op is but one of many examples. Where on earth do you get that from. Do you just make these things up when it suites you.  You know he believed the inevitable result of this march through the stages of history would be the dictatorship of the proletariat.  The result he favoured. So where's the pessimism in that.  Marx was pessimistic about his own time. Hence why he called for a revolution. Marx and Marxists are only optimistic in the idealistic sense; meaning, in the sense that they project some utopia in the future. The present is always unbearable for them, though. Mistie, everyone in Marx's time called for revolution. The French, the Yanks - even the poms put the King on the chopping block. Have you looked at Kuhn's, the Structure of Scientific Revolutions? All shifts in thought/logic are about competing paradigms - the laws that govern truth. The history of Western thought is a never-ending series of revolutions and power struggles. I don't think anyone can deny this either. Please do if you feel free.

I do. It's a load of anachronistic, nay, reactionary 19th century load of bollocks.

Soren wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 8:04pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 3:29pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 3:14pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 3:11pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 3:04pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 12:48pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 11:21am: As to what is Marxist about the OP leaves me quite confused. Of course it's not Marxist. Marxism is all about human progress. Marxism is part of German idealist tradition that, borrowing from Aristotle, invented the modern idea of human progress. Mistie got Marxism confused with doom and gloom. He's a moral abstractionist, you see. Marx's original philosophy was indeed about progress. But Marxist analyses of the economy and society are invariably always pessimistic. The op is but one of many examples. Where on earth do you get that from. Do you just make these things up when it suites you.  You know he believed the inevitable result of this march through the stages of history would be the dictatorship of the proletariat.  The result he favoured. So where's the pessimism in that.  Marx was pessimistic about his own time. Hence why he called for a revolution. Marx and Marxists are only optimistic in the idealistic sense; meaning, in the sense that they project some utopia in the future. The present is always unbearable for them, though. Mistie, everyone in Marx's time called for revolution. The French, the Yanks - even the poms put the King on the chopping block. Have you looked at Kuhn's, the Structure of Scientific Revolutions? All shifts in thought/logic are about competing paradigms - the laws that govern truth. The history of Western thought is a never-ending series of revolutions and power struggles. I don't think anyone can deny this either. Please do if you feel free. I do. It's a load of anachronistic, nay, reactionary 19th century load of bollocks.

So good of you to join the discussion, old boy.

Thanks for your valid thoughts - most useful.

Indeed.
Your stupid little Leninist agitprop is fvked. It is the laziest, clumsiest no-thought BS imaginable. It stank 150 years ago. Yet here you are, eating and regurgitating it.
Have another sh!t sandwich, PB, have two.
Marxism. How stupid can you be???

Soren wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 8:22pm:

Indeed. Your stupid little Leninist agitprop is fvked. It is the laziest, clumsiest no-thought BS imaginable. It stank 150 years ago. Yet here you are, eating and regurgitating it. Have another sh!t sandwich, PB, have two. Marxism. How stupid can you be???

Thanks, old chap, I’ve eaten.

I must say, we can all see the influence of your marvellous education at the prestigious University of Balogney. Such temprance, such generousity. Such modesty and restraint.

You’ve been reading Freud on Man’s soul again, no? I can tell!

All stools come from somewhere, dear boy. You’ve been "borrowing" again.

Not that I mind - help yourself to as many of my stools as possible.

As you know, all property is theft.

Karnal wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 3:16pm:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 3:00pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 12:11pm: aquascoot wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 6:51pm: Business is a tool. You can use it for whatever purpose you wish to apply it. Not exactly, Aquascoot. Business requires profit. If it doesn't generate profit, it doesn't receive capital. And without capital, it can't do business. The inventor of the polio vaccine, for example, refused to patent it. He gave it away because he wanted to cure polio - not make a profit.... Good post. Not that I agree with it all but good post none the less.   All property is theft, Spartacus. I'm yet to meet anyone who disagrees with this, but feel free if you want. From the aristocracy to the merchant class to the current financiers (particularly currency speculators, who profit on lowering countries' currency reserves, and hence, the value of their money) - all wealth has its origins in piracy, the spoils of war, or financial crisis. As everybody knows. The only thing we disagree with is whether we believe this is the natural state of affairs or not.

Indeed I am happy to debate some of the things you said in your 2 large posts. Unfortunately tonight I must go to bed.  But we have time right.

As to the "All property is theft" line, not sure that I see much use in discussing that. Not that I agree or disagree with it at this stage but not sure how it impacts on my political philosophy.  No doubt you will try and enlighten me.  I would like to include Misty in the discussion but the trouble is he's prone to making things up as he goes along and then spends the rest of the time with contorted explanations about why what he originally said made sense after all, which really does tend to waste a lot of time.   

I say, old chap, any chance you could pen the forward to M.Mist’s next book? The university has asked me to publish it.

Something along the lines of below, it doesn’t have to be too long.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 9:01pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 3:16pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 3:00pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 12:11pm: aquascoot wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 6:51pm: Business is a tool. You can use it for whatever purpose you wish to apply it. Not exactly, Aquascoot. Business requires profit. If it doesn't generate profit, it doesn't receive capital. And without capital, it can't do business. The inventor of the polio vaccine, for example, refused to patent it. He gave it away because he wanted to cure polio - not make a profit.... Good post. Not that I agree with it all but good post none the less.   All property is theft, Spartacus. I'm yet to meet anyone who disagrees with this, but feel free if you want. From the aristocracy to the merchant class to the current financiers (particularly currency speculators, who profit on lowering countries' currency reserves, and hence, the value of their money) - all wealth has its origins in piracy, the spoils of war, or financial crisis. As everybody knows. The only thing we disagree with is whether we believe this is the natural state of affairs or not. Indeed I am happy to debate some of the things you said in your 2 large posts. Unfortunately tonight I must go to bed.  But we have time right. As to the "All property is theft" line, not sure that I see much use in discussing that. Not that I agree or disagree with it at this stage but not sure how it impacts on my political philosophy.  No doubt you will try and enlighten me.  I would like to include Misty in the discussion but the trouble is he's prone to making things up as he goes along and then spends the rest of the time with contorted explanations about why what he originally said made sense after all, which really does tend to waste a lot of time.

Yes, he does like to waffle - which is a real art in one sentence.

Mistie is the most succinct waffler I’ve ever read. More is less, that’s M.Mist’s motto.

If we can get the old boy to write the intro, Mistie’s book may well be the first where the forward is longer than the rest of the book.

It would certainly be a most endeering and compassionate tome. The old boy will make sure of that.

Maybe we could waterproof it and publish it for the aged care and children’s markets.

Wow this is such a really deep thread. I wish I had the time to digest it more fully.

I could try to debate a little here, but I could offer no answer or solution because I have always found that veering away from the natural too much has only caused me problems.
At this stage of my life, what people think of me matters little. What I think of them is what matters most to me.
Some people don't give a crap about any structured bs. In fact, I think that most enjoy the unstructured a whole lot more, despite the risks.

Apart from morality, let's see how good your math is. Do you have your own personal risk vs. reward system?
If you don't. then you oughta work on one, because they will all play you. ALL of them. ...because they are simple humans. They all have an agenda.
Hardly anybody here really and truly wants to help you; they just want to keep stringing you along with their craphole state of being because they are too damned poo-scared to take a risk themselves.

When people judge me now, I just laugh and say "Have a look you, have a look me" you smacking moron. I always knew I would win.
The simple bottom line is that I judge. I don't subscribe to the "judge not" scenario. I judge you all, so you'd better be ready to be judged yourselves.

Amadd wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 11:20pm:

Wow this is such a really deep thread. I wish I had the time to digest it more fully. I could try to debate a little here, but I could offer no answer or solution because I have always found that veering away from the natural too much has only caused me problems. At this stage of my life, what people think of me matters little. What I think of them is what matters most to me. Some people don't give a crap about any structured bs. In fact, I think that most enjoy the unstructured a whole lot more, despite the risks. Apart from morality, let's see how good your math is. Do you have your own personal risk vs. reward system? If you don't. then you oughta work on one, because they will all play you. ALL of them. ...because they are simple humans. They all have an agenda. Hardly anybody here really and truly wants to help you; they just want to keep stringing you along with their craphole state of being because they are too damned poo-scared to take a risk themselves. When people judge me now, I just laugh and say "Have a look you, have a look me" you smacking moron. I always knew I would win. The simple bottom line is that I judge. I don't subscribe to the "judge not" scenario. I judge you all, so you'd better be ready to be judged yourselves.

There's certainly an art to living I'll give you that. The games family will play with ya is almost laughable: it kind of explains Australias drinking problem actually,... and thus the worlds!

The bit that gets me is Barnaby Joyce telling a national live audience that "...I think we all know 'FREE-TRADE AGREEMENTS' are a bit of a euphemism"....lol

Interesting times are here  :-[ :-[

hawil wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 5:03pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 3:16pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 3:00pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 12:11pm: aquascoot wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 6:51pm: Business is a tool. You can use it for whatever purpose you wish to apply it. Not exactly, Aquascoot. Business requires profit. If it doesn't generate profit, it doesn't receive capital. And without capital, it can't do business. The inventor of the polio vaccine, for example, refused to patent it. He gave it away because he wanted to cure polio - not make a profit.... Good post. Not that I agree with it all but good post none the less.   All property is theft, Spartacus. I'm yet to meet anyone who disagrees with this, but feel free if you want. From the aristocracy to the merchant class to the current financiers (particularly currency speculators, who profit on lowering countries' currency reserves, and hence, the value of their money) - all wealth has its origins in piracy, the spoils of war, or financial crisis. As everybody knows. The only thing we disagree with is whether we believe this is the natural state of affairs or not. If a person works, saves towards a home and a roof under which to live, or builds it himself, this property can hardly be called, "theft". In regards to your posts on this subject, I can only say, excellent, and must have taken a lot of effort to write, and you are definitely very knowledgeable, but I think they are wasted on this forum. ,

Nothing is wasted  ;)

Sasha wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 11:03am:

It is a requirement to define what Human Progress first before drawing any conclusion, so therefore I disagree with every conclusion the OP has made from his Article.  Is Human Progress a spiritual one?... Is it an advance in technology and human knowledge? Is it attaining Enlightenment?  Is it an individual selfish desire for self-fulfilment? So what is Human progress from your viewpoint OP?

Isn't it simply understanding?  :D

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 11:30am:

Sasha wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 11:03am: It is a requirement to define what Human Progress first before drawing any conclusion, so therefore I disagree with every conclusion the OP has made from his Article.  Is Human Progress a spiritual one?... Is it an advance in technology and human knowledge? Is it attaining Enlightenment?  Is it an individual selfish desire for self-fulfilment? So what is Human progress from your viewpoint OP? Wow that's deep. Remind me to ask myself those very questions just before a 20 ton lorry is about to crash into me on my way to work.

a kind mind is a fine mind  :-?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 31^st, 2014 at 1:55am:

Sasha wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 11:03am: It is a requirement to define what Human Progress first before drawing any conclusion, so therefore I disagree with every conclusion the OP has made from his Article.  Is Human Progress a spiritual one?... Is it an advance in technology and human knowledge? Is it attaining Enlightenment?  Is it an individual selfish desire for self-fulfilment? So what is Human progress from your viewpoint OP? Isn't it simply understanding?  :D

Good point, Death. And this was exactly the point of Habermas.

We come to truth through consensus. The telos of all communication is consensus. We come together to speak to find understanding.

Just like this board, eh?

Karnal wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 3:29pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 3:14pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 3:11pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 3:04pm: Karnal wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 12:48pm: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 11:21am: As to what is Marxist about the OP leaves me quite confused. Of course it's not Marxist. Marxism is all about human progress. Marxism is part of German idealist tradition that, borrowing from Aristotle, invented the modern idea of human progress. Mistie got Marxism confused with doom and gloom. He's a moral abstractionist, you see. Marx's original philosophy was indeed about progress. But Marxist analyses of the economy and society are invariably always pessimistic. The op is but one of many examples. Where on earth do you get that from. Do you just make these things up when it suites you.  You know he believed the inevitable result of this march through the stages of history would be the dictatorship of the proletariat.  The result he favoured. So where's the pessimism in that.  Marx was pessimistic about his own time. Hence why he called for a revolution. Marx and Marxists are only optimistic in the idealistic sense; meaning, in the sense that they project some utopia in the future. The present is always unbearable for them, though. Mistie, everyone in Marx's time called for revolution. The French, the Yanks - even the poms put the King on the chopping block. Have you looked at Kuhn's, the Structure of Scientific Revolutions? All shifts in thought/logic are about competing paradigms - the laws that govern truth. The history of Western thought is a never-ending series of revolutions and power struggles. I don't think anyone can deny this either. Please do if you feel free.

Yes I've read Kuhn. A similar idea can be found in Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and even as far back as Heraclitus. Although, I am hesitant to just reduce it all to "power struggles". Power exists of course in these paradigms shifts, but it ignores the content and ideas of these paradigms. Ideas can take on real meaning for people. The reduction to "power struggles" I believe was the post-structuralists way of attempting to refute the essentialist nature of ideas that proceeded the 1960s. 

Karnal wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 9:14pm:

Yes, he does like to waffle - which is a real art in one sentence. Mistie is the most succinct waffler I’ve ever read. More is less, that’s M.Mist’s motto. If we can get the old boy to write the intro, Mistie’s book may well be the first where the forward is longer than the rest of the book. It would certainly be a most endeering and compassionate tome. The old boy will make sure of that. Maybe we could waterproof it and publish it for the aged care and children’s markets.

Being serious for a second, there's actually a mountain of work to be done on the failure and contradictions in the post-structuralist/post-modern project.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 31^st, 2014 at 10:27am:

The reduction to "power struggles" I believe was the post-structuralists way of attempting to refute the essentialist nature of ideas that proceeded the 1960s.

You're right. Most of those we call post-structuralists were reacting against Marxism and its view of progress - a preordained set of historical stages culminating in an ahistorical telos: the state's control of the means of production and the end of class struggle.

A reading of Niezsche shows that struggle is inherent in language, a point taken up by Habermas and the more linguistic Marxists.

It's a big mistake, I think, to read Marx literally. His thought evolved. More so than his more fundamentalist economic work, his writing on ideology has found a natural trajectory towards post-structuralism. The link between classical Marxism and post-structuralism is Marx's thought on ideology in the 1844 Manuscripts.

Foucault's History of Sexuality constantly returns to the idea of an economy of sex. The industrial revolution saw a new imperative to control and regulate sex - this was hardly a new idea (feminists, anarchists and libertarians had already posed this). But for Foucault, this shift found its source in the ideas of the Enlightenment and its aftermath: the 17th century role of the confessional, 18th century Quaker ideas on penal reform, 19th century medical discourses on hysteria and masturbation,  etc, etc, etc. Here we have a view of social/economic relations that is not economically reductionist, but relative to ideas and the history of Western thought: the hermeneutic relationship between knowledge and power.

For Foucault, borrowing from both Nietzsche AND Marxist thinkers like Althusser, sexuality is a form of ideology, and from this it is possible to conceive of entirely new forms of power - a much more nuanced and specific understanding of power to the Marxist idea of class struggle and the relationship between the state and its subjects.

For Foucault, such a form of power - the powers of the state and the law - of course exists, but only in a relationship with other forms of knowledge, including knowledge on human anatomy, psychiatry, populations, the economy - a form of power Foucault identified as emerging from the Enlightenment:biopower.

This new form of power is what differentiates Western thought from its more traditional counterparts, such as those found in Islamic societies. Put simply, we conceive of human life quite differently because we have different forms of power. Obviously, a political-economic system where human subjects are owned by the state (or the Crown) will operate completely differently to a system that disperses power between individuals.

Within biopower, however, the relationship of individuals is mediated by other forms of knowledge. The role of the church in controlling and managing populations has been taken up by medicine and the welfare state, and one of their main tasks is to manage bodies (and their desires) for the production line (and the consumer society).

However, this usurps the traditional Marxist role of history and the state. The telos of economic affairs, for Foucault, is not the state. In fact, in this way of thinking there can be no telos at all. Knowledge and power are interdependent. History is going nowhere. Truth "spirals" between knowledge and power - we evolve, we devolve, we repeat the same mistakes.

There is no march of history, there is no progress. History merely turns. To my mind, in many ways this is an almost pre-modern view of history - more Shakespearean than anything else, but without its roots in nature.

Which is no mistake. With the exception of Nietzsche, Foucault's heroes were pre-Socratic. Here, the powers of the gods only work within the city walls - or for devout post-structuralists - within language itself.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 31^st, 2014 at 11:08am:

Karnal wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 9:14pm: Yes, he does like to waffle - which is a real art in one sentence. Mistie is the most succinct waffler I’ve ever read. More is less, that’s M.Mist’s motto. If we can get the old boy to write the intro, Mistie’s book may well be the first where the forward is longer than the rest of the book. It would certainly be a most endeering and compassionate tome. The old boy will make sure of that. Maybe we could waterproof it and publish it for the aged care and children’s markets. Being serious for a second, there's actually a mountain of work to be done on the failure and contradictions in the post-structuralist/post-modern project.

If it was a project, you'd be right.

Karnal wrote on Jan 31^st, 2014 at 9:00am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jan 31st, 2014 at 1:55am: Sasha wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 11:03am: It is a requirement to define what Human Progress first before drawing any conclusion, so therefore I disagree with every conclusion the OP has made from his Article.  Is Human Progress a spiritual one?... Is it an advance in technology and human knowledge? Is it attaining Enlightenment?  Is it an individual selfish desire for self-fulfilment? So what is Human progress from your viewpoint OP? Isn't it simply understanding?  :D Good point, Death. And this was exactly the point of Habermas. We come to truth through consensus. The telos of all communication is consensus. We come together to speak to find understanding. Just like this board, eh?

Ah,.. it's all good in the end- if it's not good it's not the end,... of course!

Karnal wrote on Jan 30^th, 2014 at 7:16pm:

Oh, indeed, Hawil. Pearls before swine (present company excepted, of course). That home you may one day own is financed by a bank. The land it’s on was taken by  King George the third. And on and on. When we have savings, we have no say over the product of our labour. This is why programs like personal carbon credits are so ludicrous. We can scrimp and savre on our carbon footprint, watching our electricity use and our carbon miles - and so we should - but every dollar we put into the bank is financing projects that burn fossil fuels. It’s a global economy. Everything we use or spend comes or goes from someone else. All property is theft.

You lost me on this; as others are accusing you of bringing up Marx, I,am a Socialist at heart, but I,am well aware that human beings have not progressed to the point that a Communist system could work; as far as Capitalism is concerned, in the end it must also collapse, because of excessive greed, and since Communism has collapsed there seems to be no limit to greed.

hawil wrote on Jan 31^st, 2014 at 4:36pm:

Karnal wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 7:16pm: Oh, indeed, Hawil. Pearls before swine (present company excepted, of course). That home you may one day own is financed by a bank. The land it’s on was taken by  King George the third. And on and on. When we have savings, we have no say over the product of our labour. This is why programs like personal carbon credits are so ludicrous. We can scrimp and savre on our carbon footprint, watching our electricity use and our carbon miles - and so we should - but every dollar we put into the bank is financing projects that burn fossil fuels. It’s a global economy. Everything we use or spend comes or goes from someone else. All property is theft. You lost me on this; as others accusing of bringing up Marx, I,am a Socialist at heart, but I,am well aware that human beings have not progressed to the point that a Communist system could work; as far as Capitalism is concerned, in the end it must also collapse, because of excessive greed, and since Communism has collapsed there seems to be no limit to greed.

True, but just because all property is theft doesn’t mean we should give up stealing.

I love taking my stolen Australian dollars to developing countries to.spend up big. I love getting cheap imports from China. I’m quite fond of my house and land the king sold me too, even if it is receiving stolen goods.

The world has never had a communist state, Hawil. The ones that went through the motions were all state capitalists. There is no conceivable way anyone could infer Lenin, Stalin or Mao acted in the spirit of Marxism.

I doubt you could even call any of the communist parties we’ve had Marxist, or even remotely humanist. They were run like disciplined military units, and functioned under hierarchical cloaks of secrecy.

I’m referring, of course, to the Australian ones. In Tzarist Russia, the Bolsheviks raised funds by robbing banks - this was one of Stalin’s first jobs within the party.

It makes an interesting contrast to liberal capitalism’s ethical paradigm. Where communism (or state capitalism) preached unity and brotherly love, its people lived in constant fear of the state.

Freemarket capitalism, however, preached the virtue of greed and self-interest, yet aside from the odd world war or two, it somehow it managed to deliver a reasonable amount of happiness to a decent number of people.

Karnal wrote on Jan 31^st, 2014 at 12:42pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 31st, 2014 at 11:08am: Karnal wrote on Jan 30th, 2014 at 9:14pm: Yes, he does like to waffle - which is a real art in one sentence. Mistie is the most succinct waffler I’ve ever read. More is less, that’s M.Mist’s motto. If we can get the old boy to write the intro, Mistie’s book may well be the first where the forward is longer than the rest of the book. It would certainly be a most endeering and compassionate tome. The old boy will make sure of that. Maybe we could waterproof it and publish it for the aged care and children’s markets. Being serious for a second, there's actually a mountain of work to be done on the failure and contradictions in the post-structuralist/post-modern project. If it was a project, you'd be right.

It was a project. Academics and "thinkers" of the time wanted to refute the essentialist characteristics associated with sex/gender and race and, supposedly, set every one "free" from such constraints. Part of the post-modern/post-structuralist project was that people could and should now "make their own identity" rather than having one placed upon them.

It was deliberate and systematic.

No one calls themselves a post-structuralist, Mistie. There are no post-structuralist organizations or think tanks - as, for example, there are for freemarket libertarians, neoconservatives, discontented Tea Party Republicans, etc, etc, etc.

These are all badge-wearing organizations backed handsomely by rich donors, with well articulated agendas. It’s not a conspiracy - everyone knows who they are. They have money and clubs and meetings and prayer groups. They have connections. They have mass-print magazines, daily  newspapers and even international cable news networks with disciplined editors, columnists, broadcasters and talking heads on the payroll to spread the message.

If you can find one thinker who identifies as a post-structuralist, or more than a handful who identify as postmodernist, I’ll eat my hat. If you can even find any influential post-structural thinkers backing and supporting other post-structuralist thinkers’ ideas, I’ll eat my hat too. As you know, it’s dog eat dog in the Acadame, Mistie.

Communists, in their day, were different. They had leaders who declared "the party line". They had newspapers that followed it. They had members who infiltrated trade unions and student groups and followed their leaders’ orders. For "security" reasons, membership was top secret. Members were told where to live, which jobs to take, and even at times who they could marry.

Most "post-structuralists" don’t even acknowledge the existence of post-structuralism as a school of thought - even less as a "project". How could it be? All those different thinkers can’t even agree on the rules that constitute, as you say, "race, sex and gender".

So feel free to back up your argument with examples. You work in a uni, so you should be used to this - in theory. You teach these skills in your critical and creative thinking class, remember?

The Social Science and Humanities departments all argue from post-structuralist premises (if you could call them premises, since there aren't meant to be any in post-structuralism). They may not specifically call themselves post-structuralists, but they all are. No one argues that there is a fixed human nature in these departments any more. They're all Foucauldians or Derridarians. Occasionally you may get something like Steven Pinker's criticism of the tabula rasa or Richard Dawkins' selfish gene taught, but these are more often held up for criticism or ridicule rather than serious study. No one there will seriously argue that men and women have a fixed nature, or highly instinctual nature inherited from their ancestors, and neither will you find this same argument about race either. All is, instead, viewed as a social construct, myth, language game, or power struggle. For them there are no fixed structures; hence why they're all post-structuralists.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 1^st, 2014 at 9:30pm:

The Social Science and Humanities departments all argue from post-structuralist premises (if you could call them premises, since there aren't meant to be any in post-structuralism). They may not specifically call themselves post-structuralists, but they all are. No one argues that there is a fixed human nature in these departments any more. They're all Foucauldians or Derridarians. Occasionally you may get something like Steven Pinker's criticism of the tabula rasa or Richard Dawkins' selfish gene taught, but these are more often held up for criticism or ridicule rather than serious study. No one there will seriously argue that men and women have a fixed nature, or highly instinctual nature inherited from their ancestors, and neither will you find this same argument about race either. All is, instead, viewed as a social construct, myth, language game, or power struggle. For them there are no fixed structures; hence why they're all post-structuralists.

So this is the source of all the West’s problems?

Forget things like the Project for a New Amerikan Century, or the Worldwide Creation Science Research Centre, or the Charles Koch Foundation, or Benny Hinn Ministries.

We have a sinister network of Social Science and Humanities departments, all singing (out of tune) from the same hymnsheet, poisoning the minds of our youth.

Is that it, Mistie? Is that your central argument?

There is no solution to our problems. Human beings are ceaselessly restless creatures. Any satisfaction is only temporary.

What the post-structuralist do is exacerbate suffering and pity. They do this by bringing all suffering and "oppression" into the foreground. These narratives of suffering and oppression come to dominate all other narratives. They then become the lens in which we view the world. Being happy, proud, courageous, and strong - all those traits which are required for a happy life - become a sin. Every one should pity [insert victim groups] and forget their own pursuits.

The Social Sciences and Humanities department thrive on this foundation. It then attempts to infiltrate every nook and cranny of a populace's consciousness with it. 

There will always be people/groups/nations/tribes striving for power. Thinking this can be done away with is an illusion. It's a more sound approach to simply accept it and deal with it. The Stoics knew about this 2,000 years ago, and they still have a lot to teach us in regards to dealing with suffering (so does the conservative's idea on stability). The post-structuralists have the silly idea that if you make everyone aware of other people's suffering and everyone suffers with them the world will somehow be a better place.

Which one, Mistie? You need to name names, remember?

Creative and critical thinking skills, you see.

Karmal, i'm a simple business man and farmer but there is truth in what mistie says.

As my kids have gone through school, the youngest one is now doing assignments on "the evil of the hoofed animal to the australian environment"  through to calculations on sea level rising as equations in  mathematics.

There is a leftie agenda permeated down through the "national curiculum"

I didnt mind til i had to pay for the youngest to attend a "session" on the "rainbow serpent" as part of a school trip to alice springs.  I wonder if the intellectual elite would be happy to pay for the pope to give the students a lecture on JC on a trip to the vatican. ;) ;)

Mistie didn’t say that, Aquascoot. He’s talking about "post-structuralists" this time.

As a farmer, you think those things shouldn’t be taught at school?

aquascoot wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2014 at 12:36pm:

Karmal, i'm a simple business man and farmer but there is truth in what mistie says. As my kids have gone through school, the youngest one is now doing assignments on "the evil of the hoofed animal to the australian environment"  through to calculations on sea level rising as equations in  mathematics. There is a leftie agenda permeated down through the "national curiculum" I didnt mind til i had to pay for the youngest to attend a "session" on the "rainbow serpent" as part of a school trip to alice springs.  I wonder if the intellectual elite would be happy to pay for the pope to give the students a lecture on JC on a trip to the vatican. ;) ;)

You're saying hooved animals don't tear up our land?

Or changed the land?

Still, Mistie’s not talking about any of that - he’s talking about the post-structural "project" to put a stop to metaphysics.

I think Mistie’s saying this is the cause of "progressivism" and all the worlds problems.

Mistie?

Karnal wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2014 at 1:05pm:

Mistie didn’t say that, Aquascoot. He’s talking about "post-structuralists" this time. As a farmer, you think those things shouldn’t be taught at school?

I think it would create a level of disrespect from children towards their parents.
If the urban trendies want to eat "eye fillet" someone has to grow it.  If they want export dollars to fund things like mental health facilities for Deathridesahorse than someone (like me) has to put in the hard yards (well, my manager does).
I dont benefit from canberra using my tax dollars to tell my son i'm an asshole who is f^^king up the climate.

If all the greenies would go jump off sydney heads, we could sell all their big black SUV's and fix climate change for good.

And death can come plant some trees on my land instead of trolling the hard working conservatives of this sunburnt land ;)

That's nice, dear, but you've met your kids' teachers - how many are urban trendies?

Teachers, on the whole, teach what they want. No one tells them what angle to teach from. There's no mandatory list of topics to teach in schools. With the exception of some Christian and maybe Steiner schools, no one tells teachers what social or political philosophy they should impose. School principles are at arm's length - education departments and teacher's unions even more so.

The school teacher as proponent of politically correct values is the silliest, most paranoid idea I've ever heard. Even if teachers were part of a vast conspiracy to poison our kids' minds, do you think the kids would listen?

Kids, like the rest of us, get their values from the media. Do you want me to tell you how the media spreads "truth"?

I don't think you do.

Karnal wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2014 at 8:55am:

That's nice, dear, but you've met your kids' teachers - how many are urban trendies? Teachers, on the whole, teach what they want. No one tells them what angle to teach from. There's no mandatory list of topics to teach in schools. With the exception of some Christian and maybe Steiner schools, no one tells teachers what social or political philosophy they should impose. School principles are at arm's length - education departments and teacher's unions even more so. The school teacher as proponent of politically correct values is the silliest, most paranoid idea I've ever heard. Even if teachers were part of a vast conspiracy to poison our kids' minds, do you think the kids would listen? Kids, like the rest of us, get their values from the media. Do you want me to tell you how the media spreads "truth"? I don't think you do.

:D :D karmal, i read some study that the average australian teenager spends 90 seconds a day in direct conversation with their father.

I spent a lot more than that, fine tuning their minds and readjusting the settings.
If you have a horse and you want it "set up" the way you like it, minimum 1 hour a day of teaching and this has to be mindful and ongoing and done with concentration.
Kids spend a lot longer with a teacher (who i hope is concentrating and mindful and "teaching") than with either parent.
Goughs mad cradle to grave institutional care starting at age 6 weeks rips these kids out from the parents clutches.
Most people, unlike myself, are too LAZY to be bothered retraining what the leftard teachers union lapdogs teach them and park their kids in front of the box whilst they work overtime to buy the kids trinkets (again...leading to a lack of respect as the trinket BUYER is lower in the peck order than the trinket RECEIVER).  honestly, i'm going to write a book on how to raise kids.
My 3 are brilliant.  absolutely first class little confident, patriotic, high achieving, resilient and happy.  But it took a lot of work ;) ;) ;) ;)

aquascoot wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2014 at 9:18am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 3rd, 2014 at 8:55am: That's nice, dear, but you've met your kids' teachers - how many are urban trendies? Teachers, on the whole, teach what they want. No one tells them what angle to teach from. There's no mandatory list of topics to teach in schools. With the exception of some Christian and maybe Steiner schools, no one tells teachers what social or political philosophy they should impose. School principles are at arm's length - education departments and teacher's unions even more so. The school teacher as proponent of politically correct values is the silliest, most paranoid idea I've ever heard. Even if teachers were part of a vast conspiracy to poison our kids' minds, do you think the kids would listen? Kids, like the rest of us, get their values from the media. Do you want me to tell you how the media spreads "truth"? I don't think you do. :D :D karmal, i read some study that the average australian teenager spends 90 seconds a day in direct conversation with their father. I spent a lot more than that, fine tuning their minds and readjusting the settings. If you have a horse and you want it "set up" the way you like it, minimum 1 hour a day of teaching and this has to be mindful and ongoing and done with concentration. Kids spend a lot longer with a teacher (who i hope is concentrating and mindful and "teaching") than with either parent. Goughs mad cradle to grave institutional care starting at age 6 weeks rips these kids out from the parents clutches. Most people, unlike myself, are too LAZY to be bothered retraining what the leftard teachers union lapdogs teach them and park their kids in front of the box whilst they work overtime to buy the kids trinkets (again...leading to a lack of respect as the trinket BUYER is lower in the peck order than the trinket RECEIVER).  honestly, i'm going to write a book on how to raise kids. My 3 are brilliant.  absolutely first class little confident, patriotic, high achieving, resilient and happy.  But it took a lot of work ;) ;) ;) ;)

Good on you for sticking in there, Aquascoot. You've got an advantage being out on the farm - it's much harder finding time in cities, I think.

aquascoot wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2014 at 9:18am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 3rd, 2014 at 8:55am: That's nice, dear, but you've met your kids' teachers - how many are urban trendies? Teachers, on the whole, teach what they want. No one tells them what angle to teach from. There's no mandatory list of topics to teach in schools. With the exception of some Christian and maybe Steiner schools, no one tells teachers what social or political philosophy they should impose. School principles are at arm's length - education departments and teacher's unions even more so. The school teacher as proponent of politically correct values is the silliest, most paranoid idea I've ever heard. Even if teachers were part of a vast conspiracy to poison our kids' minds, do you think the kids would listen? Kids, like the rest of us, get their values from the media. Do you want me to tell you how the media spreads "truth"? I don't think you do. :D :D karmal, i read some study that the average australian teenager spends 90 seconds a day in direct conversation with their father. I spent a lot more than that, fine tuning their minds and readjusting the settings. If you have a horse and you want it "set up" the way you like it, minimum 1 hour a day of teaching and this has to be mindful and ongoing and done with concentration. Kids spend a lot longer with a teacher (who i hope is concentrating and mindful and "teaching") than with either parent. Goughs mad cradle to grave institutional care starting at age 6 weeks rips these kids out from the parents clutches. Most people, unlike myself, are too LAZY to be bothered retraining what the leftard teachers union lapdogs teach them and park their kids in front of the box whilst they work overtime to buy the kids trinkets (again...leading to a lack of respect as the trinket BUYER is lower in the peck order than the trinket RECEIVER).  honestly, i'm going to write a book on how to raise kids. My 3 are brilliant.  absolutely first class little confident, patriotic, high achieving, resilient and happy.  But it took a lot of work ;) ;) ;) ;)

You really are a foolish man. Don't know how old your kids are but sounds like you've set yourself and them up for a big fall.  You sound more of a control freak then anything you imagine about Gough.  The kind of mind control program you have devised for your kids is straight out of the communist handbook.   

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2014 at 9:50am:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 3rd, 2014 at 9:18am: Karnal wrote on Feb 3rd, 2014 at 8:55am: That's nice, dear, but you've met your kids' teachers - how many are urban trendies? Teachers, on the whole, teach what they want. No one tells them what angle to teach from. There's no mandatory list of topics to teach in schools. With the exception of some Christian and maybe Steiner schools, no one tells teachers what social or political philosophy they should impose. School principles are at arm's length - education departments and teacher's unions even more so. The school teacher as proponent of politically correct values is the silliest, most paranoid idea I've ever heard. Even if teachers were part of a vast conspiracy to poison our kids' minds, do you think the kids would listen? Kids, like the rest of us, get their values from the media. Do you want me to tell you how the media spreads "truth"? I don't think you do. :D :D karmal, i read some study that the average australian teenager spends 90 seconds a day in direct conversation with their father. I spent a lot more than that, fine tuning their minds and readjusting the settings. If you have a horse and you want it "set up" the way you like it, minimum 1 hour a day of teaching and this has to be mindful and ongoing and done with concentration. Kids spend a lot longer with a teacher (who i hope is concentrating and mindful and "teaching") than with either parent. Goughs mad cradle to grave institutional care starting at age 6 weeks rips these kids out from the parents clutches. Most people, unlike myself, are too LAZY to be bothered retraining what the leftard teachers union lapdogs teach them and park their kids in front of the box whilst they work overtime to buy the kids trinkets (again...leading to a lack of respect as the trinket BUYER is lower in the peck order than the trinket RECEIVER).  honestly, i'm going to write a book on how to raise kids. My 3 are brilliant.  absolutely first class little confident, patriotic, high achieving, resilient and happy.  But it took a lot of work ;) ;) ;) ;) You really are a foolish man. Don't know how old your kids are but sounds like you've set yourself and them up for a big fall.  You sound more of a control freak then anything you imagine about Gough.  The kind of mind control program you have devised for your kids is straight out of the communist handbook.

Let me assure you they didnt end up communists.
More like george patton crossed with campbell newman

aquascoot wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2014 at 10:06am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2014 at 9:50am: aquascoot wrote on Feb 3rd, 2014 at 9:18am: Karnal wrote on Feb 3rd, 2014 at 8:55am: That's nice, dear, but you've met your kids' teachers - how many are urban trendies? Teachers, on the whole, teach what they want. No one tells them what angle to teach from. There's no mandatory list of topics to teach in schools. With the exception of some Christian and maybe Steiner schools, no one tells teachers what social or political philosophy they should impose. School principles are at arm's length - education departments and teacher's unions even more so. The school teacher as proponent of politically correct values is the silliest, most paranoid idea I've ever heard. Even if teachers were part of a vast conspiracy to poison our kids' minds, do you think the kids would listen? Kids, like the rest of us, get their values from the media. Do you want me to tell you how the media spreads "truth"? I don't think you do. :D :D karmal, i read some study that the average australian teenager spends 90 seconds a day in direct conversation with their father. I spent a lot more than that, fine tuning their minds and readjusting the settings. If you have a horse and you want it "set up" the way you like it, minimum 1 hour a day of teaching and this has to be mindful and ongoing and done with concentration. Kids spend a lot longer with a teacher (who i hope is concentrating and mindful and "teaching") than with either parent. Goughs mad cradle to grave institutional care starting at age 6 weeks rips these kids out from the parents clutches. Most people, unlike myself, are too LAZY to be bothered retraining what the leftard teachers union lapdogs teach them and park their kids in front of the box whilst they work overtime to buy the kids trinkets (again...leading to a lack of respect as the trinket BUYER is lower in the peck order than the trinket RECEIVER).  honestly, i'm going to write a book on how to raise kids. My 3 are brilliant.  absolutely first class little confident, patriotic, high achieving, resilient and happy.  But it took a lot of work ;) ;) ;) ;) You really are a foolish man. Don't know how old your kids are but sounds like you've set yourself and them up for a big fall.  You sound more of a control freak then anything you imagine about Gough.  The kind of mind control program you have devised for your kids is straight out of the communist handbook.    Let me assure you they didnt end up communists. More like george patton crossed with campbell newman

Of course not. Ideology is based on class. Your kids are members of the landed gentry. They're squatters. I imagine you've raised them to be card-carrying protectionists.

It's funny how some things change. Stranger still, is the way things don't change at all.

Karnal wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2014 at 10:30am:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 3rd, 2014 at 10:06am: ImSpartacus2 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2014 at 9:50am: aquascoot wrote on Feb 3rd, 2014 at 9:18am: Karnal wrote on Feb 3rd, 2014 at 8:55am: That's nice, dear, but you've met your kids' teachers - how many are urban trendies? Teachers, on the whole, teach what they want. No one tells them what angle to teach from. There's no mandatory list of topics to teach in schools. With the exception of some Christian and maybe Steiner schools, no one tells teachers what social or political philosophy they should impose. School principles are at arm's length - education departments and teacher's unions even more so. The school teacher as proponent of politically correct values is the silliest, most paranoid idea I've ever heard. Even if teachers were part of a vast conspiracy to poison our kids' minds, do you think the kids would listen? Kids, like the rest of us, get their values from the media. Do you want me to tell you how the media spreads "truth"? I don't think you do. :D :D karmal, i read some study that the average australian teenager spends 90 seconds a day in direct conversation with their father. I spent a lot more than that, fine tuning their minds and readjusting the settings. If you have a horse and you want it "set up" the way you like it, minimum 1 hour a day of teaching and this has to be mindful and ongoing and done with concentration. Kids spend a lot longer with a teacher (who i hope is concentrating and mindful and "teaching") than with either parent. Goughs mad cradle to grave institutional care starting at age 6 weeks rips these kids out from the parents clutches. Most people, unlike myself, are too LAZY to be bothered retraining what the leftard teachers union lapdogs teach them and park their kids in front of the box whilst they work overtime to buy the kids trinkets (again...leading to a lack of respect as the trinket BUYER is lower in the peck order than the trinket RECEIVER).  honestly, i'm going to write a book on how to raise kids. My 3 are brilliant.  absolutely first class little confident, patriotic, high achieving, resilient and happy.  But it took a lot of work ;) ;) ;) ;) You really are a foolish man. Don't know how old your kids are but sounds like you've set yourself and them up for a big fall.  You sound more of a control freak then anything you imagine about Gough.  The kind of mind control program you have devised for your kids is straight out of the communist handbook.    Let me assure you they didnt end up communists. More like george patton crossed with campbell newman Of course not. Ideology is based on class. Your kids are members of the landed gentry. They're squatters. I imagine you've raised them to be card-carrying protectionists. It's funny how some things change. Stranger still, is the way things don't change at all.

I'm converting 1/2 my land to a wildlife sanctuary and have a lot of rescue horses as well.  Teaching my kids to be good life respecting buddhists.They even help ants stuck on leaves in a puddle. They watch a lot of david attenborrough. I have taught them to hate canberra though....apologies to its residents  ;) ;)
I can teach them better then those fools  ;)

aquascoot wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2014 at 10:36am:

I'm converting 1/2 my land to a wildlife sanctuary and have a lot of rescue horses as well.  Teaching my kids to be good life respecting buddhists.They even help ants stuck on leaves in a puddle. They watch a lot of david attenborrough. I have taught them to hate canberra though....apologies to its residents  ;) ;) I can teach them better then those fools  ;)

That you have, Aquascoot. But you've also trained them to hold the begging bowl out to Canberra whenever there's a fire, flood or drop in commodity prices.

What I find interesting about your political thought is the contradiction between free trade economics and protectionism.

Not that there's anything wrong with it, but I think this will be the dominant narrative of the Abbott government.

Thoughts?

Ah , the paradox karmal.
thats why i like buddhism and have taught it to my kin.
The buddha understands paradox.

paradoxically, some farmers are the greenest minded individuals in australia (why not, we have much to lose)

paradoxically, the more you love on your horses and spoil them, the more dangerous and vicious they become. go to any female dominated equestrian centre in australia and you will see horses being destroyed for kicking, biting etc (all because women refused to MAKE them show respect). this is where i get most of my rescues from.  Retrain them to RESPECT their superior , ie, me and away they go, happy as larry. sure beats the old lethobarb needle from the vet.

paradoxically , teaching your kin to see obstacles as stepping stones instead of obstacles results in EVERYTHING being an opportunity to push through and raise your self esteem.

paradoxically, i think farmers asking for drought relief is a disgrace.  dont overstock , you greedy retards  ;)

aquascoot wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2014 at 10:06am:

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Feb 3rd, 2014 at 9:50am: aquascoot wrote on Feb 3rd, 2014 at 9:18am: Karnal wrote on Feb 3rd, 2014 at 8:55am: That's nice, dear, but you've met your kids' teachers - how many are urban trendies? Teachers, on the whole, teach what they want. No one tells them what angle to teach from. There's no mandatory list of topics to teach in schools. With the exception of some Christian and maybe Steiner schools, no one tells teachers what social or political philosophy they should impose. School principles are at arm's length - education departments and teacher's unions even more so. The school teacher as proponent of politically correct values is the silliest, most paranoid idea I've ever heard. Even if teachers were part of a vast conspiracy to poison our kids' minds, do you think the kids would listen? Kids, like the rest of us, get their values from the media. Do you want me to tell you how the media spreads "truth"? I don't think you do. :D :D karmal, i read some study that the average australian teenager spends 90 seconds a day in direct conversation with their father. I spent a lot more than that, fine tuning their minds and readjusting the settings. If you have a horse and you want it "set up" the way you like it, minimum 1 hour a day of teaching and this has to be mindful and ongoing and done with concentration. Kids spend a lot longer with a teacher (who i hope is concentrating and mindful and "teaching") than with either parent. Goughs mad cradle to grave institutional care starting at age 6 weeks rips these kids out from the parents clutches. Most people, unlike myself, are too LAZY to be bothered retraining what the leftard teachers union lapdogs teach them and park their kids in front of the box whilst they work overtime to buy the kids trinkets (again...leading to a lack of respect as the trinket BUYER is lower in the peck order than the trinket RECEIVER).  honestly, i'm going to write a book on how to raise kids. My 3 are brilliant.  absolutely first class little confident, patriotic, high achieving, resilient and happy.  But it took a lot of work ;) ;) ;) ;) You really are a foolish man. Don't know how old your kids are but sounds like you've set yourself and them up for a big fall.  You sound more of a control freak then anything you imagine about Gough.  The kind of mind control program you have devised for your kids is straight out of the communist handbook.    Let me assure you they didnt end up communists. More like george patton crossed with campbell newman

Yes, the philosophy's different but the methods are exactly the same.  The philosopher John Stuart Mill had a keen interest in education.  You might want to consult him on your methods. I think he'd have something to say about it.   

aquascoot wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2014 at 11:02am:

Ah , the paradox karmal. thats why i like buddhism and have taught it to my kin. The buddha understands paradox.

Actually, the Buddha taught about the end of metaphysics too. The Buddha wanted to remove paradox through understanding.

You can't be a market ideologue and seek protection for your friends, be they tinned fruit or car manufacturers. You can't disallow foreign ownership of pastoral companies, but allow foreign ownership of media companies. 

Well, you can, but then you can't be a market ideologue, right? You can't say, "Australia is open for business" and expect to be taken seriously.

I'm all for paradox, but I'm not a freemarket fetishist. I'm with Milton Friedman: some things require competition, and some require government monopoly. Governments need to decide these things based on their populations and the profitability of delivering them services.

In Australia, for example, it's not profitable to create a fiber-optic broadband network. It is, however, in the national interest. Therefore, I think the government should provide this service - the way we set up postal, rail and air networks.

You known, the tyranny of distance and all that.

But i also think the market is best left to compete where useful to the population. Look at the way low-cost airlines have revolutionized travel to and from Australia. The old nationalized airline, Qantas - once protected with a monopoly - can't compete. Holden, another protected species, can't compete with cheaper and better imports. I think we should let them go.

This is a pivotal question now, with India and China opening up to the world. China protects its currency and most of its big companies. India is rife with monopolies, the legacy of its post-independence affair with socialism and, before that, colonialism.

Within both these countries, people themselves are devout free traders, however their governments see otherwise. This is a huge emerging issue within the developing world, and it links in with the issue of state corruption, which in countries all through South East and Central Asia, is on the top of the popular agenda. In Thailand, for example, it's being played out in a political crisis. The Indonesian elections will also see corruption and state protectionism as the central issue of the campaign.

I'm not a market fundamentalist, but I do see these things evolving in stages - a form of progress if you will. Initially, all countries develop through protectionism and a form of corruption. The US was no different, its government subsidizing and sheltering the robber barons and industrialists of the early 20th century.

Australia was no different, and it was only Keating who began to break the back of the privileged, inefficient, back-room class who used to run Donald Horne's "lucky country" of Australia.

Since Keating, Labor has struggled against this class. This class toppled the Rudd and Gillard governments, and Abbott is now their chief defender. Beneath all the News Ltd-led noise that marked Labor's time in government, this is what has driven politics in Australia for almost a generation: protected species like the miners and banks versus the rest of us. Most issues, from climate change to taxation to the economy, jobs, the environment, economic stimulus, etc etc, etc - are driven by this dynamic.

Ideology, however, is so powerful that we don't even notice it. With ideology, these debates are expressed in a different form. Distractions are thrown in. September 11 was the biggest distraction of recent times, allowing all sorts of civil rights to be revoked in the name of security. With the Cold War over, the most ridiculous ideology was inserted into the popular imagination: the class of civilizations. Wars were waged on a global scale - wars that were about energy security, but were fought under the banner of an international "war on terror".

The real battle behind the scenes, however, is the battle between the protected species and their profit margin, and the rest of us. Such secret propaganda wars were even fought out on the protected species' airwaves. When Alan and john Laws started defending their audience against the bastardry of the big banks, the big banks bought Alan and John Laws' voices back.

When the protected foreign miners were threatened with a super-profits tax, the miners initiated a series of moves that ended in the axing of a first-term PM.

When the heavy carbon polluters got taxed, they got to work on the next PM, and on and on. Even the gambling industry stuck the boot in, ending up with even looser controls on their billion dollar profits after they finished up with the now tarnished "JuLiar".

Mistie's sinister network of Humanities and Social Sciences departments can't compete with such a protected species. Getting this species to contribute to the rest of society is an art not even Keating could master. Howard, of course, never tried. And indeed, it was the folly of the Rudd/Gillard governments that they tried and failed so spectacularly.

Abbott, I predict, will outdo Howard, and it is exactly what he means when he calls himself the love-child of Bronwin Bishop and John Howard. Tony Abbott will not be a free-trader. There is not a skerik of liberalism in Abbott's political DNA. Alas, Australia is hardly open for business, but I think we can safely say this:

Thank heavens the grown-ups are back in charge.

aquascoot wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2014 at 6:49am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 2nd, 2014 at 1:05pm: Mistie didn’t say that, Aquascoot. He’s talking about "post-structuralists" this time. As a farmer, you think those things shouldn’t be taught at school? I think it would create a level of disrespect from children towards their parents. If the urban trendies want to eat "eye fillet" someone has to grow it.  If they want export dollars to fund things like mental health facilities for Deathridesahorse than someone (like me) has to put in the hard yards (well, my manager does). I dont benefit from canberra using my tax dollars to tell my son i'm an asshole who is f^^king up the climate. If all the greenies would go jump off sydney heads, we could sell all their big black SUV's and fix climate change for good. And death can come plant some trees on my land instead of trolling the hard working conservatives of this sunburnt land ;)

We all came from the farm,fella,and thus we all know they ain't all Einstein  :) :D ;D

very good post karmal and well worth a read.

I try to look at thins from a productivity point of view.What we should be trying to do is to make the country "more productive"
Now money is not the be all and end all of productivity.

But , we can all see what needs to be done at a local level.
We can look after the disabled, the homeless, the sick, the kids, the environment, the educational needs etc etc much better at a community level than we will ever be able to co ordinate out of canberra. This is why i reject the place.
I can see very very little that canberra should involve itself in, apart from defence, qaurantine and customs, some national infrastructure.

husbands and wives are now working SO many hours to pay taxes to "feed the beast" that they arrive home , too exhausted to look after the disabled, the sick, the old, the kids, the environment  etc. etc

It is my sense that if we drasticly reduced the size of government and slashed taxation as a result, we could have people working less hours for the same money and given some free time to attend to these areas. It is my sense this would be

1 cheaper
2 more compassionate
3 more productive and more likely to bind communities and create a harmonious society.

Take these areas back to a community level and i think its a win/win./win.

Will tony do this. ie , is tony small or big government.
I think he's big government.  But arent they all. Thats why they are in canberra in the first place. They are all true believers that we, in the community , cant function without their wisdom.  This is BS  ;) ;)

If rupert or alan want to try and influence me, at least i'm not paying for the priveledge.
When the ABC or misties department of humanities try to influence me....i'm funding those pricks....see the difference.

aquascoot wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2014 at 1:29pm:

very good post karmal and well worth a read. I try to look at thins from a productivity point of view.What we should be trying to do is to make the country "more productive" Now money is not the be all and end all of productivity. But , we can all see what needs to be done at a local level. We can look after the disabled, the homeless, the sick, the kids, the environment, the educational needs etc etc much better at a community level than we will ever be able to co ordinate out of canberra. This is why i reject the place. I can see very very little that canberra should involve itself in, apart from defence, qaurantine and customs, some national infrastructure. husbands and wives are now working SO many hours to pay taxes to "feed the beast" that they arrive home , too exhausted to look after the disabled, the sick, the old, the kids, the environment  etc. etc It is my sense that if we drasticly reduced the size of government and slashed taxation as a result, we could have people working less hours for the same money and given some free time to attend to these areas. It is my sense this would be 1 cheaper 2 more compassionate 3 more productive and more likely to bind communities and create a harmonious society. Take these areas back to a community level and i think its a win/win./win. Will tony do this. ie , is tony small or big government. I think he's big government.  But arent they all. Thats why they are in canberra in the first place. They are all true believers that we, in the community , cant function without their wisdom.  This is BS  ;) ;) If rupert or alan want to try and influence me, at least i'm not paying for the priveledge. When the ABC or misties department of humanities try to influence me....i'm funding those pricks....see the difference.

Canberra Canberra the beast the beast  :o

Why don't you try staying out of the sun ya nut job!??!  :D

aquascoot wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2014 at 1:29pm:

It is my sense that if we drasticly reduced the size of government and slashed taxation as a result, we could have people working less hours for the same money and given some free time to attend to these areas. .

Alas, Aquascoot, I don't think you really want this. Drastically reducing government means sacking teachers, nurses and police. It means cutting back things like border protection, health and child protection services. It means cutting funding to prisons and crime-prevention measures.

Maybe people think they can look after the disabled, the homeless, the sick, the kids, etc, but in reality, they can't. In reality, when your son gets in a car accident and requires 24 hour monitoring in order to breathe, you want a hospital to do this. When one of your parents gets Alzheimer's and starts becoming a risk to themselves, you want the nursing home.

When the drug-using family on the end of the street fight at night, you wonder what the police are doing. You wonder why the children haven't been removed. You wonder, and when you're given funding cuts as the reason why things don't get done, it's not good enough. You see this as buck-passing.

You see, we don't just want these things, we expect them. We're used to them. Women don't want to give up their jobs to care for people. Instead, we expect the state to do this. Disability care and maternity leave are the government's next two big extensions, and they aren't coming cheap.

The solution, of course, is to raise taxes, not lower them, and this is exactly what the Abbott government will do. They won't call them tax rises, of course, they'll call them something else. Initially, they'll try to hide the rises, but we'll all know about it when the GST goes up 5%.

Hockey will keep going on about "the age of entitlement" being over, but he'll continue to foster the entitlements of particular social groups. The Abbott government, just like the past 3 governments, will continue to squander any future benefits from mining.

When it comes to their own interests and bug-bears, everyone wants big government, yourself included. remember, your solution to rural indigenous unemployment was to subsidize jobs. Others here want asylum seekers sent offshore. At last count, it cost us over a billion to do just that, and this didn't include the shortfall in funding and the drastic need for increased staffing and services on Nauru/Manus island.

The biggest conservative myth of recent times is small government. Reagan himself expanded government and implemented no significant tax cuts. Ask the knuckleheads what they want, and they'll tell you they want stronger government. You call this efficiency, but efficiency costs money. If you just cut budgets, things generally become less efficient. However, I acknowledge that by raising budgets, things don't necessarily get more efficient either - actually, this can make things worse.

Still, we all want more government, and this is exactly what we'll get.

Kevin Rudd: brought down by global mining incorporated for trying to help the people at large!!

** All heil stockmarkets!!!  :o :o :o :o :o

Karnal wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2014 at 2:14pm:

aquascoot wrote on Feb 3rd, 2014 at 1:29pm: It is my sense that if we drasticly reduced the size of government and slashed taxation as a result, we could have people working less hours for the same money and given some free time to attend to these areas. . Alas, Aquascoot, I don't think you really want this. Drastically reducing government means sacking teachers, nurses and police. It means cutting back things like border protection, health and child protection services. It means cutting funding to prisons and crime-prevention measures. Maybe people think they can look after the disabled, the homeless, the sick, the kids, etc, but in reality, they can't. In reality, when your son gets in a car accident and requires 24 hour monitoring in order to breathe, you want a hospital to do this. When one of your parents gets Alzheimer's and starts becoming a risk to themselves, you want the nursing home. When the drug-using family on the end of the street fight at night, you wonder what the police are doing. You wonder why the children haven't been removed. You wonder, and when you're given funding cuts as the reason why things don't get done, it's not good enough. You see this as buck-passing. You see, we don't just want these things, we expect them. We're used to them. Women don't want to give up their jobs to care for people. Instead, we expect the state to do this. Disability care and maternity leave are the government's next two big extensions, and they aren't coming cheap. The solution, of course, is to raise taxes, not lower them, and this is exactly what the Abbott government will do. They won't call them tax rises, of course, they'll call them something else. Initially, they'll try to hide the rises, but we'll all know about it when the GST goes up 5%. Hockey will keep going on about "the age of entitlement" being over, but he'll continue to foster the entitlements of particular social groups. The Abbott government, just like the past 3 governments, will continue to squander any future benefits from mining. When it comes to their own interests and bug-bears, everyone wants big government, yourself included. remember, your solution to rural indigenous unemployment was to subsidize jobs. Others here want asylum seekers sent offshore. At last count, it cost us over a billion to do just that, and this didn't include the shortfall in funding and the drastic need for increased staffing and services on Nauru/Manus island. The biggest conservative myth of recent times is small government. Reagan himself expanded government and implemented no significant tax cuts. Ask the knuckleheads what they want, and they'll tell you they want stronger government. You call this efficiency, but efficiency costs money. If you just cut budgets, things generally become less efficient. However, I acknowledge that by raising budgets, things don't necessarily get more efficient either - actually, this can make things worse. Still, we all want more government, and this is exactly what we'll get.

Please tell me it isnt so. :D. 
I spend half my life filling in their forms and i'm sure they dont even bother reading them. :D

And for not having JuLiar's cross-support in caucus.

Sieg Heil!

Karnal wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2014 at 2:55pm:

And for not having JuLiar's cross-support in caucus. Sieg Heil!

i used to watch julia and tony together on the morning show with kochie years ago (god knows why). they always looked like 2 peas in a pod. 
awkward, wanting to be liked, actually  i'd call them both a pair of "wannabes" . shocked they both made it to the top.
steven bradbury type characters  ;)

Soren wrote on Jan 28^th, 2014 at 8:40pm:

OP - just stupid. Clive hamilton and Nietzsche  cited as authorities for the same argument means it's a fatally flawed argument.

What is progress to soren?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 12:46am:

Soren wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 8:40pm: OP - just stupid. Clive hamilton and Nietzsche  cited as authorities for the same argument means it's a fatally flawed argument. What is progress to soren?

It is movement toward a goal, most often utopian due to its visions of some idealised, radical perfection (perfection itself being a pretty radical idea).

Soren wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 12:54pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 12:46am: Soren wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 8:40pm: OP - just stupid. Clive hamilton and Nietzsche  cited as authorities for the same argument means it's a fatally flawed argument. What is progress to soren? It is movement toward a goal, most often utopian due to its visions of some idealised, radical perfection (perfection itself being a pretty radical idea).

So you do or you don't believe in progress?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 1:43pm:

Soren wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 12:54pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 12:46am: Soren wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 8:40pm: OP - just stupid. Clive hamilton and Nietzsche  cited as authorities for the same argument means it's a fatally flawed argument. What is progress to soren? It is movement toward a goal, most often utopian due to its visions of some idealised, radical perfection (perfection itself being a pretty radical idea). So you do or you don't believe in progress?

As soon as you tell me what you propose we progress towards/to, I'll tell you if I believe in it or not.



PS.
What happened to your little yellow marching guys??

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 1:43pm:

Soren wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 12:54pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 12:46am: Soren wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 8:40pm: OP - just stupid. Clive hamilton and Nietzsche  cited as authorities for the same argument means it's a fatally flawed argument. What is progress to soren? It is movement toward a goal, most often utopian due to its visions of some idealised, radical perfection (perfection itself being a pretty radical idea). So you do or you don't believe in progress?

He does, Death, he just likes the dystopian kind.

Absolutely, always, never ever - on stilts. We are at war with Eurasia. We have always been at war with Eurasia.

Thank heavens the dystopians are back in charge.

Soren wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 3:59pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 1:43pm: Soren wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 12:54pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 12:46am: Soren wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 8:40pm: OP - just stupid. Clive hamilton and Nietzsche  cited as authorities for the same argument means it's a fatally flawed argument. What is progress to soren? It is movement toward a goal, most often utopian due to its visions of some idealised, radical perfection (perfection itself being a pretty radical idea). So you do or you don't believe in progress? As soon as you tell me what you propose we progress towards/to, I'll tell you if I believe in it or not. PS. What happened to your little yellow marching guys??

You aint the god that judges buddy!

You are the god that failed!!

  :D :D :D

Is that what this 'dystopian' word means perhaps??????????????????????????????????

Oh, well I suppose if the shoe fits  8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

...if you don't beleive in progress just tell us ya yellow chicken you! No one will laugh and if they did you would be too above them to even care so what's stopping you just admitting you hate life and everything in it???

go on, soren: once you say it it loses all it's power over you....   :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :'(  :-[ :-[
** all heil stockmarkets: afterall, kids should be seen and not heard  ::)

Karnal wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2014 at 12:14pm:

Which one, Mistie? You need to name names, remember? Creative and critical thinking skills, you see.

Names eh. Give me a day or so and I'll dig them out. They're all Foucauldians to me; all a pale imitation of their master. Their specific names become a blur after a while.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 4:45pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 2nd, 2014 at 12:14pm: Which one, Mistie? You need to name names, remember? Creative and critical thinking skills, you see. Names eh. Give me a day or so and I'll dig them out. They're all Foucauldians to me; all a pale imitation of their master. Their specific names become a blur after a while.

HaHa: see Tanya Pliberseck give a shout out to the apparently non-existant-yet-somehow-existant postmodernists?!!?

I think she said something along the lines of, "... I know there are going to be a whole  lot of post-modernists out there saying there are no facts but anyways the fact is.."... and then she laughed at the fact she had just said fact!

Oh, I love that woman!! Such a class act all the way!!

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 4:45pm:

Karnal wrote on Feb 2nd, 2014 at 12:14pm: Which one, Mistie? You need to name names, remember? Creative and critical thinking skills, you see. Names eh. Give me a day or so and I'll dig them out. They're all Foucauldians to me; all a pale imitation of their master. Their specific names become a blur after a while.

A day or two? Gee, Mistie, I thought you might know by now, what with working in the uni and everything.

If it takes you 2 days to name names, don’t worry about it.

"Progressives".

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 4:51pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 4:45pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 2nd, 2014 at 12:14pm: Which one, Mistie? You need to name names, remember? Creative and critical thinking skills, you see. Names eh. Give me a day or so and I'll dig them out. They're all Foucauldians to me; all a pale imitation of their master. Their specific names become a blur after a while. HaHa: see Tanya Pliberseck give a shout out to the apparently non-existant-yet-somehow-existant postmodernists?!!? I think she said something along the lines of, "... I know there are going to be a whole  lot of post-modernists out there saying there are no facts but anyways the fact is.."... and then she laughed at the fact she had just said fact! Oh, I love that woman!! Such a class act all the way!!

Me too. I love the way she prefixed her reference to good old fashioned truth. That’s class alright.

Did you notice she succeeded in restraining herself from arguing with Mr News Ltd? She even joined forces with Barnaby to defend people from tabloid hysteria. She didn’t have to either - Barnaby was on the ropes.

But Tanya wanted to lay a quiet on on Rupert’s boy.

I wish she gave more but, as everybody knows - that would be political suicide.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 4:08pm:

Soren wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 3:59pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 1:43pm: Soren wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 12:54pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 12:46am: Soren wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 8:40pm: OP - just stupid. Clive hamilton and Nietzsche  cited as authorities for the same argument means it's a fatally flawed argument. What is progress to soren? It is movement toward a goal, most often utopian due to its visions of some idealised, radical perfection (perfection itself being a pretty radical idea). So you do or you don't believe in progress? As soon as you tell me what you propose we progress towards/to, I'll tell you if I believe in it or not. PS. What happened to your little yellow marching guys?? You aint the god that judges buddy! You are the god that failed!!   :D :D :D Is that what this 'dystopian' word means perhaps?????????????????????????????????? Oh, well I suppose if the shoe fits  8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) ...if you don't beleive in progress just tell us ya yellow chicken you! No one will laugh and if they did you would be too above them to even care so what's stopping you just admitting you hate life and everything in it??? go on, soren: once you say it it loses all it's power over you....   :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :'(  :-[ :-[** all heil stockmarkets: afterall, kids should be seen and not heard  ::)

So whatever YOU say is progress is a good thing -  but  you are not prepared to say what it actually is that you are progressing to 'coz that's kinda judgmental. You ask me if I believe in it without telling me what it actually is.
Toe the party line for  glorious future!!! Hail the leader! http://classicosmania.com/forums/images/smilies/smiley_hitler-t.gif http://classicosmania.com/forums/images/smilies/smiley_hitler-t.gif http://classicosmania.com/forums/images/smilies/smiley_hitler-t.gif

Karnal wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 7:02pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 4:51pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 4:45pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 2nd, 2014 at 12:14pm: Which one, Mistie? You need to name names, remember? Creative and critical thinking skills, you see. Names eh. Give me a day or so and I'll dig them out. They're all Foucauldians to me; all a pale imitation of their master. Their specific names become a blur after a while. HaHa: see Tanya Pliberseck give a shout out to the apparently non-existant-yet-somehow-existant postmodernists?!!? I think she said something along the lines of, "... I know there are going to be a whole  lot of post-modernists out there saying there are no facts but anyways the fact is.."... and then she laughed at the fact she had just said fact! Oh, I love that woman!! Such a class act all the way!! Me too. I love the way she prefixed her reference to good old fashioned truth. That’s class alright. Did you notice she succeeded in restraining herself from arguing with Mr News Ltd? She even joined forces with Barnaby to defend people from tabloid hysteria. She didn’t have to either - Barnaby was on the ropes. But Tanya wanted to lay a quiet on on Rupert’s boy. I wish she gave more but, as everybody knows - that would be political suicide.

She saved Barnaby for sure: even for him he was shocking!! She showed compassion...

Soren wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 7:48pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 4:08pm: Soren wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 3:59pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 1:43pm: Soren wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 12:54pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 12:46am: Soren wrote on Jan 28th, 2014 at 8:40pm: OP - just stupid. Clive hamilton and Nietzsche  cited as authorities for the same argument means it's a fatally flawed argument. What is progress to soren? It is movement toward a goal, most often utopian due to its visions of some idealised, radical perfection (perfection itself being a pretty radical idea). So you do or you don't believe in progress? As soon as you tell me what you propose we progress towards/to, I'll tell you if I believe in it or not. PS. What happened to your little yellow marching guys?? You aint the god that judges buddy! You are the god that failed!!   :D :D :D Is that what this 'dystopian' word means perhaps?????????????????????????????????? Oh, well I suppose if the shoe fits  8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) ...if you don't beleive in progress just tell us ya yellow chicken you! No one will laugh and if they did you would be too above them to even care so what's stopping you just admitting you hate life and everything in it??? go on, soren: once you say it it loses all it's power over you....   :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :-* :'(  :-[ :-[** all heil stockmarkets: afterall, kids should be seen and not heard  ::) So whatever YOU say is progress is a good thing -  but  you are not prepared to say what it actually is that you are progressing to 'coz that's kinda judgmental. You ask me if I believe in it without telling me what it actually is. Toe the party line for  glorious future!!! Hail the leader! http://classicosmania.com/forums/images/smilies/smiley_hitler-t.gif http://classicosmania.com/forums/images/smilies/smiley_hitler-t.gif http://classicosmania.com/forums/images/smilies/smiley_hitler-t.gif

You're a small target wimpo  :o :o

Karnal wrote on Feb 4^th, 2014 at 7:02pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 4:51pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 4:45pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 2nd, 2014 at 12:14pm: Which one, Mistie? You need to name names, remember? Creative and critical thinking skills, you see. Names eh. Give me a day or so and I'll dig them out. They're all Foucauldians to me; all a pale imitation of their master. Their specific names become a blur after a while. HaHa: see Tanya Pliberseck give a shout out to the apparently non-existant-yet-somehow-existant postmodernists?!!? I think she said something along the lines of, "... I know there are going to be a whole  lot of post-modernists out there saying there are no facts but anyways the fact is.."... and then she laughed at the fact she had just said fact! Oh, I love that woman!! Such a class act all the way!! Me too. I love the way she prefixed her reference to good old fashioned truth. That’s class alright. Did you notice she succeeded in restraining herself from arguing with Mr News Ltd? She even joined forces with Barnaby to defend people from tabloid hysteria. She didn’t have to either - Barnaby was on the ropes. But Tanya wanted to lay a quiet on on Rupert’s boy. I wish she gave more but, as everybody knows - that would be political suicide.

NOOOOOOOO karmal, i enjoy reading your posts but PLEASE take back any comments praising Miss Plibosek. 
If you look up condescending , up herself , lecturing, hypocritical, manipulative bitch in the dictionary, there you will find a picture of Miss Tanya.

Barnaby may not have the gift of the gab , but he is authentic.
She is the very definition of a phoney.

F minus,  pathetic karmal, just pathetic

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 2:44am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 7:02pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 4:51pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 4:45pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 2nd, 2014 at 12:14pm: Which one, Mistie? You need to name names, remember? Creative and critical thinking skills, you see. Names eh. Give me a day or so and I'll dig them out. They're all Foucauldians to me; all a pale imitation of their master. Their specific names become a blur after a while. HaHa: see Tanya Pliberseck give a shout out to the apparently non-existant-yet-somehow-existant postmodernists?!!? I think she said something along the lines of, "... I know there are going to be a whole  lot of post-modernists out there saying there are no facts but anyways the fact is.."... and then she laughed at the fact she had just said fact! Oh, I love that woman!! Such a class act all the way!! Me too. I love the way she prefixed her reference to good old fashioned truth. That’s class alright. Did you notice she succeeded in restraining herself from arguing with Mr News Ltd? She even joined forces with Barnaby to defend people from tabloid hysteria. She didn’t have to either - Barnaby was on the ropes. But Tanya wanted to lay a quiet on on Rupert’s boy. I wish she gave more but, as everybody knows - that would be political suicide. She saved Barnaby for sure: even for him he was shocking!! She showed compassion...

She did - she showed she's more interested in the "truth" than political point scoring. I was surprised.

Poor Aquascoot doesn't know anything about Tanya Plibersec. She's one of the most popular MPs in Sydney - she'll do anything for her constituents. 

I think Plibersec's a morning person though. She always seems a bit drained on Q&A. Some politicians are energized by the presence of cameras - Turnbull, Joyce, Julie Bishop - definitely Crag Emerson.

I don't think Plibersec is one of those people.

Karnal wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 9:29am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:44am: Karnal wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 7:02pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 4:51pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 4:45pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 2nd, 2014 at 12:14pm: Which one, Mistie? You need to name names, remember? Creative and critical thinking skills, you see. Names eh. Give me a day or so and I'll dig them out. They're all Foucauldians to me; all a pale imitation of their master. Their specific names become a blur after a while. HaHa: see Tanya Pliberseck give a shout out to the apparently non-existant-yet-somehow-existant postmodernists?!!? I think she said something along the lines of, "... I know there are going to be a whole  lot of post-modernists out there saying there are no facts but anyways the fact is.."... and then she laughed at the fact she had just said fact! Oh, I love that woman!! Such a class act all the way!! Me too. I love the way she prefixed her reference to good old fashioned truth. That’s class alright. Did you notice she succeeded in restraining herself from arguing with Mr News Ltd? She even joined forces with Barnaby to defend people from tabloid hysteria. She didn’t have to either - Barnaby was on the ropes. But Tanya wanted to lay a quiet on on Rupert’s boy. I wish she gave more but, as everybody knows - that would be political suicide. She saved Barnaby for sure: even for him he was shocking!! She showed compassion... She did - she showed she's more interested in the "truth" than political point scoring. I was surprised. Poor Aquascoot doesn't know anything about Tanya Plibersec. She's one of the most popular MPs in Sydney - she'll do anything for her constituents.  I think Plibersec's a morning person though. She always seems a bit drained on Q&A. Some politicians are energized by the presence of cameras - Turnbull, Joyce, Julie Bishop - definitely Crag Emerson. I don't think Plibersec is one of those people.

do anything....like get her hubby to score them some cheap crack  ;) ;).

look karmal, her surname is useful for scrabble but thats about it. as health minister she made roxon look good.  and thats something i never thought i'd say ;)

aquascoot wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 9:49am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 9:29am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:44am: Karnal wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 7:02pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 4:51pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 4:45pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 2nd, 2014 at 12:14pm: Which one, Mistie? You need to name names, remember? Creative and critical thinking skills, you see. Names eh. Give me a day or so and I'll dig them out. They're all Foucauldians to me; all a pale imitation of their master. Their specific names become a blur after a while. HaHa: see Tanya Pliberseck give a shout out to the apparently non-existant-yet-somehow-existant postmodernists?!!? I think she said something along the lines of, "... I know there are going to be a whole  lot of post-modernists out there saying there are no facts but anyways the fact is.."... and then she laughed at the fact she had just said fact! Oh, I love that woman!! Such a class act all the way!! Me too. I love the way she prefixed her reference to good old fashioned truth. That’s class alright. Did you notice she succeeded in restraining herself from arguing with Mr News Ltd? She even joined forces with Barnaby to defend people from tabloid hysteria. She didn’t have to either - Barnaby was on the ropes. But Tanya wanted to lay a quiet on on Rupert’s boy. I wish she gave more but, as everybody knows - that would be political suicide. She saved Barnaby for sure: even for him he was shocking!! She showed compassion... She did - she showed she's more interested in the "truth" than political point scoring. I was surprised. Poor Aquascoot doesn't know anything about Tanya Plibersec. She's one of the most popular MPs in Sydney - she'll do anything for her constituents.  I think Plibersec's a morning person though. She always seems a bit drained on Q&A. Some politicians are energized by the presence of cameras - Turnbull, Joyce, Julie Bishop - definitely Crag Emerson. I don't think Plibersec is one of those people. do anything....like get her hubby to score them some cheap crack  ;) ;). look karmal, her surname is useful for scrabble but thats about it. as health minister she made roxon look good.  and thats something i never thought i'd say ;)

She's one of the best on the Labor front bench, and she beats most in the Libs hands down.

I don't know what you mean about her short stint as health minister. Maybe you know something I don't.

Unfortunately, names don't count in Scrabble. If they did, crack-dealing hubby Couts-Trotter would be worth a few points too.

aquascoot wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 7:03am:

Karnal wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 7:02pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 4:51pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 4th, 2014 at 4:45pm: Karnal wrote on Feb 2nd, 2014 at 12:14pm: Which one, Mistie? You need to name names, remember? Creative and critical thinking skills, you see. Names eh. Give me a day or so and I'll dig them out. They're all Foucauldians to me; all a pale imitation of their master. Their specific names become a blur after a while. HaHa: see Tanya Pliberseck give a shout out to the apparently non-existant-yet-somehow-existant postmodernists?!!? I think she said something along the lines of, "... I know there are going to be a whole  lot of post-modernists out there saying there are no facts but anyways the fact is.."... and then she laughed at the fact she had just said fact! Oh, I love that woman!! Such a class act all the way!! Me too. I love the way she prefixed her reference to good old fashioned truth. That’s class alright. Did you notice she succeeded in restraining herself from arguing with Mr News Ltd? She even joined forces with Barnaby to defend people from tabloid hysteria. She didn’t have to either - Barnaby was on the ropes. But Tanya wanted to lay a quiet on on Rupert’s boy. I wish she gave more but, as everybody knows - that would be political suicide. NOOOOOOOO karmal, i enjoy reading your posts but PLEASE take back any comments praising Miss Plibosek.  If you look up condescending , up herself , lecturing, hypocritical, manipulative bitch in the dictionary, there you will find a picture of Miss Tanya. Barnaby may not have the gift of the gab , but he is authentic. She is the very definition of a phoney. F minus,  pathetic karmal, just pathetic

Barnaby aint authentic: his performance was not only very odd but very fake! Typical country boy hot-shot shyster!!

many blessings ,

human progress you say ?

explain this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXRj0GQvI2k

Big Money Is Feeding Us Plastic

Published on Feb 4, 2014
Vani "The Food Babe" Hari discovered that Subway makes bread with an ingredient called azodicarbonamide. It can be found in almost all the breads at Subway restaurants here in North America, but not in Europe, Australia or other parts of the world.

http://foodbabe.com/2013/09/23/are-you-eating-this-ingredient-banned-all-over-the-world/

http://foodbabe.com/wp-content/themes/foodbabe/assets/img/widgets/tabs/about_foodbabe.jpg

FOOD BABE TV: Are You Eating This Ingredient Banned All Over The World?
By Food Babe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_mZm_BMiIg

Azodicarbonamide 101
Azodicarbonamide is a yellow orangish powder, more commonly used commercially in the creation of foamed plastics – like yoga mats, shoe soles, floor mats and window gaskets.
The FDA allows food companies to use azodicarbonamide as a flour bleaching agent and dough conditioner in any food product giving it a status of GRAS or “Generally Regarded As Safe”.
But, the FDA doesn’t even keep track of the companies who use azodicarbonamide as an ingredient. The lack of information leads the FDA to not update or include an toxicity information about this ingredient in its EAFUS or “Everything Added to Food in the United States” database.
When a truck carrying azodicarbonamide overturned on a Chicago highway in 2001, it prompted city officials to issue the highest hazardous materials alert and evacuate people within a half mile radius! Many of the people on the scene complained of burning eyes and skin irritation as a result. (Source: Pandora’s Lunchbox by Melanie Warner)
The U.K. has recognized azodicarbonamide as a potential cause of asthma if inhaled, and advises against its use in people who have sensitivity to food dye allergies and other common allergies in food, because it can exacerbate the symptoms.
The World Health Organization (WHO) studied azodicarbonamide, and also linked it to asthma and other allergic reactions.
When azodicarbonamide partially degrades with the heat of processing, it forms trace amounts of semicarbazide, which shows carcinogenicity that can result in tumors over time.
The United States is one of the only countries in the world that still allows this ingredient in our food supply. It is banned as a food additive in the U.K., Europe, and Australia, and if you get caught using it in Singapore you can get up to 15 years in prison and be fined $450,000. I’d like to see the head of the FDA put in jail for allowing it, wouldn’t you?

Popular Products That Contain Azodicarbonamide
Sara Lee (many of their breads, bagels, etc.)

http://media.foodbabe.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Sara-Lee.jpeg

http://media.foodbabe.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/McDonalds.jpeg

http://media.foodbabe.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Subway.jpeg

http://media.foodbabe.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Wendys.jpeg

http://media.foodbabe.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Arbys.jpeg

http://media.foodbabe.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Starbucks.jpeg

These are just a few examples, but there are many more companies that use azodicarbonamide in their products (Pizza Hut, Publix Grocery Store, Jason’s Deli, etc)

Why The Heck Are Companies Using This Ingredient?
Dough conditioners allow companies to pass off chemically processed cheap food as “freshly baked” because it recreates perfect, evenly packed air pockets within the dough, improving the texture after coming out of large industrial machines from processing. If a company uses azodicarbonamide as a flour bleaching agent it speeds up the processing, making bread larger and whiter than normal. Faster processing with cheaper ingredients = more money in Big Food pockets.

The Next Time You See Your Friends or Family, Ask Them:

http://media.foodbabe.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/doyoueatyogamat.jpg

Remember to buy organic bakery goods that prohibit the use of highly questionable chemical ingredients like azodicarbonamide and other dough conditioners. Please spread the word and share this video with everyone you know… no one should be eating yoga mats, their shoe sole or a floor mat. Yuck.
Till next time…

Food Babe

im interested in what you are eating

namaste

- : ) =

ॐ

Whats the LD50 for azodicarbonamide

Mmm not sure when the last time I half a kilo of azodicarbonamide or placed 50 grams of it on my skin or even inhaled bread.

many blessings

the message has been delivered

carry on regardless

namaste

- : ) =

ॐ

it_is_the_light wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 3:28pm:

many blessings the message has been delivered carry on regardless namaste - : ) = ॐ

What? That the food babe has no f***ing idea what she is talking about?

many blessings ,

" When a truck carrying azodicarbonamide overturned on a Chicago highway in 2001, it prompted city officials to issue the highest hazardous materials alert and evacuate people within a half mile radius! Many of the people on the scene complained of burning eyes and skin irritation as a result. (Source: Pandora’s Lunchbox by Melanie Warner) "

and you are fine eating this toxic substance?

one such as I am does not need your approval

or limp wristed ignorance to inform beings

whom prefer to eat non toxic foods..

be at peace

namaste

- : ) =

ॐ

it_is_the_light wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 3:35pm:

many blessings , " When a truck carrying azodicarbonamide overturned on a Chicago highway in 2001, it prompted city officials to issue the highest hazardous materials alert and evacuate people within a half mile radius! Many of the people on the scene complained of burning eyes and skin irritation as a result. (Source: Pandora’s Lunchbox by Melanie Warner) " be at peace namaste - : ) =

I'm guessing that food babe has no qualis in chemistry otherwise she would know theres a vast difference in being exposed to highly concentrated forms of any chemical and highly diluted forms of any chemical.

E.g. we drink chlorinated water all the time because the water dilutes the chlorine. However we do not drink more concentrated forms.

Quote:

It is banned as a food additive in the U.K., Europe, and Australia

That is nice to know -
at least we aren't eating it.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 3:38pm:

it_is_the_light wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 3:35pm: many blessings , " When a truck carrying azodicarbonamide overturned on a Chicago highway in 2001, it prompted city officials to issue the highest hazardous materials alert and evacuate people within a half mile radius! Many of the people on the scene complained of burning eyes and skin irritation as a result. (Source: Pandora’s Lunchbox by Melanie Warner) " be at peace namaste - : ) = I'm guessing that food babe has no qualis in chemistry otherwise she would know theres a vast difference in being exposed to highly concentrated forms of any chemical and highly diluted forms of any chemical. E.g. we drink chlorinated water all the time because the water dilutes the chlorine. However we do not drink more concentrated forms.

may blessings your ignorance shines through ,

I and many other beings do not absorb

chlorinated water so you overstep your understanding

and presume everyone drinks and eats the same slop

as you do ..

this is not so dear one ...

your altered state of awareness is now validated

as you admit you eat and drink rubbish

and are quite fine with that ... so be it

however

others can and do eat foods full with life force

living foods and drink fresh clean water .

without approvals or permissions

you are forgiven

namaste

- : ) =

ॐ

Bobby. wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 3:38pm:

Quote: It is banned as a food additive in the U.K., Europe, and Australia That is nice to know - at least we aren't eating it.

many blessings ,

you misinterpret the data .

Australians are eating it

one such as I am would suggest research

namaste

- : ) =

ॐ

Plus upon further reading, theres something else Foodbabe is not saying. I guess because shes an idiot.

When azodicarbonamide is put into bread hen azodicarbonamide reacts with flour, it behaves as a hydrogen acceptor and it is rapidly and completely converted into biurea, which is stable under baking conditions. Reaction between azodicarbonamide and flour only occurs on wetting. Forty-five minutes after treatment
of a flour with 8.25 ppm of azodicarbonamide, less than 0.1 ppm of azodicarbonamide could be detected in the dough. When 14C-labelled azodicarbonamide was used for breadmaking, the activity remained in the bread and there was no liberation of labelled carbon dioxide.


In other words, even accounting for the low dose of azidocarbonamide put it into bread, it very quickly decomposes into another chemical anyway and before its ingested. And being urea, our body very quickly excretes through the urine.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 3:44pm:

Plus upon further reading, theres something else Foodbabe is not saying. I guess because shes an idiot. When azodicarbonamide is put into bread hen azodicarbonamide reacts with flour, it behaves as a hydrogen acceptor and it is rapidly and completely converted into biurea, which is stable under baking conditions. Reaction between azodicarbonamide and flour only occurs on wetting. Forty-five minutes after treatment of a flour with 8.25 ppm of azodicarbonamide, less than 0.1 ppm of azodicarbonamide could be detected in the dough. When 14C-labelled azodicarbonamide was used for breadmaking, the activity remained in the bread and there was no liberation of labelled carbon dioxide. In other words, even accounting for the low dose of azidocarbonamide put it into bread, it very quickly decomposes into another chemical anyway and before its ingested. And being urea, our body very quickly excretes through the urine.

many blessings ,

you simply repeat inaccuracies printed by the same

criminal elements that are poisoning you .

so by all means take their word for it if you believe them

without researching the data for yourself as you

admitted you were clueless until the post appeared

in love and light

namaste

- : ) =

ॐ

it_is_the_light wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 3:47pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 3:44pm: Plus upon further reading, theres something else Foodbabe is not saying. I guess because shes an idiot. When azodicarbonamide is put into bread hen azodicarbonamide reacts with flour, it behaves as a hydrogen acceptor and it is rapidly and completely converted into biurea, which is stable under baking conditions. Reaction between azodicarbonamide and flour only occurs on wetting. Forty-five minutes after treatment of a flour with 8.25 ppm of azodicarbonamide, less than 0.1 ppm of azodicarbonamide could be detected in the dough. When 14C-labelled azodicarbonamide was used for breadmaking, the activity remained in the bread and there was no liberation of labelled carbon dioxide. In other words, even accounting for the low dose of azidocarbonamide put it into bread, it very quickly decomposes into another chemical anyway and before its ingested. And being urea, our body very quickly excretes through the urine. many blessings , you simply repeat inaccuracies printed by the same criminal elements that are poisoning you . so by all means take their word for it if you believe them without researching the data for yourself as you admitted you were clueless until the post appeared in love and light namaste - : ) = ॐ

So when I repost some science without studying it myself I am clueless, when you repost some non-science without studying it yourself, you are exposing the evils. Got you. By the way ever been drug tested?

So when I repost some science without studying it myself I am clueless, when you repost some non-science without studying it yourself,

__________

many blessings and sour grapes for you .

do not presume that other beings drink and eat

toxic rubbish and are as ill informed as you literally are .

this is ok and cool yet you may aspire to be

your highest expression if you have the care ,

this would entail eating and drinking non toxic

and researching ..

imagine saying , " oh  its only alittle toxin thats ok drink it

eat it its ok " listen to yourself ...

in love and light

namaste

- : ) =

ॐ

it_is_the_light wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 3:35pm:

one such as I am does not need your approval

And yet, one such as you feels compelled to fill up pages on this site.

This thread was about to die after Mistie's lack of names, Light.

Thanks for reviving it.

many blessings ,

sarcasm will get you only so far ...

so while we watch I will continue to inform

without your permissions or approval..~♥~

be at peace

namaste

- : ) =

ॐ

I don't know what the story is but I worked at a subway and the bread is weird.

They are frozen logs and you put them in a dehumidifier I think for a set time and then they go into another oven or warmer...

...also the sauces are very greasy and never unstain from the plastics container when washing but that is probably relatively normal...

I dunno but I always did think the bread was funny and since I worked there never really ate there again.. a few times but basically I avoid it. I never ate there much but probably more before than after I worked there.

many blessings ,

you do not know the story ?

here it is ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXRj0GQvI2k

Big Money Is Feeding Us Plastic

Published on Feb 4, 2014
Vani "The Food Babe" Hari discovered that Subway makes bread with an ingredient called azodicarbonamide. It can be found in almost all the breads at Subway restaurants here in North America, but not in Europe, Australia or other parts of the world.

http://foodbabe.com/2013/09/23/are-you-eating-this-ingredient-banned-all-over-the-world/

http://foodbabe.com/wp-content/themes/foodbabe/assets/img/widgets/tabs/about_foodbabe.jpg

FOOD BABE TV: Are You Eating This Ingredient Banned All Over The World?
By Food Babe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_mZm_BMiIg

Azodicarbonamide 101
Azodicarbonamide is a yellow orangish powder, more commonly used commercially in the creation of foamed plastics – like yoga mats, shoe soles, floor mats and window gaskets.
The FDA allows food companies to use azodicarbonamide as a flour bleaching agent and dough conditioner in any food product giving it a status of GRAS or “Generally Regarded As Safe”.
But, the FDA doesn’t even keep track of the companies who use azodicarbonamide as an ingredient. The lack of information leads the FDA to not update or include an toxicity information about this ingredient in its EAFUS or “Everything Added to Food in the United States” database.
When a truck carrying azodicarbonamide overturned on a Chicago highway in 2001, it prompted city officials to issue the highest hazardous materials alert and evacuate people within a half mile radius! Many of the people on the scene complained of burning eyes and skin irritation as a result. (Source: Pandora’s Lunchbox by Melanie Warner)
The U.K. has recognized azodicarbonamide as a potential cause of asthma if inhaled, and advises against its use in people who have sensitivity to food dye allergies and other common allergies in food, because it can exacerbate the symptoms.
The World Health Organization (WHO) studied azodicarbonamide, and also linked it to asthma and other allergic reactions.
When azodicarbonamide partially degrades with the heat of processing, it forms trace amounts of semicarbazide, which shows carcinogenicity that can result in tumors over time.
The United States is one of the only countries in the world that still allows this ingredient in our food supply. It is banned as a food additive in the U.K., Europe, and Australia, and if you get caught using it in Singapore you can get up to 15 years in prison and be fined $450,000. I’d like to see the head of the FDA put in jail for allowing it, wouldn’t you?

Popular Products That Contain Azodicarbonamide
Sara Lee (many of their breads, bagels, etc.)

http://media.foodbabe.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Sara-Lee.jpeg

http://media.foodbabe.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/McDonalds.jpeg

http://media.foodbabe.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Subway.jpeg

http://media.foodbabe.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Wendys.jpeg

http://media.foodbabe.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Arbys.jpeg

http://media.foodbabe.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Starbucks.jpeg

These are just a few examples, but there are many more companies that use azodicarbonamide in their products (Pizza Hut, Publix Grocery Store, Jason’s Deli, etc)

Why The Heck Are Companies Using This Ingredient?
Dough conditioners allow companies to pass off chemically processed cheap food as “freshly baked” because it recreates perfect, evenly packed air pockets within the dough, improving the texture after coming out of large industrial machines from processing. If a company uses azodicarbonamide as a flour bleaching agent it speeds up the processing, making bread larger and whiter than normal. Faster processing with cheaper ingredients = more money in Big Food pockets.

The Next Time You See Your Friends or Family, Ask Them:

http://media.foodbabe.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/doyoueatyogamat.jpg

Remember to buy organic bakery goods that prohibit the use of highly questionable chemical ingredients like azodicarbonamide and other dough conditioners. Please spread the word and share this video with everyone you know… no one should be eating yoga mats, their shoe sole or a floor mat. Yuck.
Till next time…

Food Babe

im interested in what you are eating

namaste

- : ) =

ॐ

it_is_the_light wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 3:44pm:

Bobby. wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 3:38pm: Quote: It is banned as a food additive in the U.K., Europe, and Australia That is nice to know - at least we aren't eating it. many blessings , you misinterpret the data . Australians are eating it one such as I am would suggest research namaste - : ) = ॐ

If it's banned then how are Australian companies getting away with using it?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 2:45am:

You're a small target wimpo  :o :o

And that's progress!!!
http://classicosmania.com/forums/images/smilies/smiley_hitler-t.gif

Soren wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 5:16pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 2:45am: You're a small target wimpo  :o :o And that's progress!!! http://classicosmania.com/forums/images/smilies/smiley_hitler-t.gif

You're a wimpo... ;) ;)

hay light , i think youre wide of the mark with that one.
but i'm interested in your thoughts on fructose.

from memory, ALL the wheat used in subway bread comes from one mega mega mega wheat farm in canada. so the bread is the same taste all over the world

many blessings ,

forget fructose

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2013/oct2013_Are-You-Suffering-from-Fructose-Poisoning_01.htm

eat an apple

namaste

- : ) =

ॐ

mmm drugs are bad mkay

it_is_the_light wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 6:34pm:

many blessings , forget fructose http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2013/oct2013_Are-You-Suffering-from-Fructose-Poisoning_01.htm eat an apple namaste - : ) = ॐ

Yeah, endocrinologists i know regaularly check its level.
medicare offers a rebate on serum fructose.
Its gone beyond wild conspiracy theories like your reserve bank.
its mainstream now.
I'm surprised bIg food has been able to keep a lid on it.

One of the favourite foods of my local maori and samoan community is fanta or coke in a bowl with white bread , like a soggy fructose soup.  just awful

aquascoot wrote on Feb 5^th, 2014 at 6:01pm:

hay light , i think youre wide of the mark with that one. but i'm interested in your thoughts on fructose. from memory, ALL the wheat used in subway bread comes from one mega mega mega wheat farm in canada. so the bread is the same taste all over the world

I doubt that. The wheat might taste the same, but it would still need approval to be sold here so thus would have no azodicarbonamide added to it. Even if it did, so what? As I stated the dose is extremely low and its converted to something less toxic and quickly excreted as soon as water is added to it.

aquascoot wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 7:10am:

it_is_the_light wrote on Feb 5th, 2014 at 6:34pm: many blessings , forget fructose http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2013/oct2013_Are-You-Suffering-from-Fructose-Poisoning_01.htm eat an apple namaste - : ) = ॐ Yeah, endocrinologists i know regaularly check its level. medicare offers a rebate on serum fructose. Its gone beyond wild conspiracy theories like your reserve bank. its mainstream now. I'm surprised bIg food has been able to keep a lid on it. One of the favourite foods of my local maori and samoan community is fanta or coke in a bowl with white bread , like a soggy fructose soup.  just awful

many blessings ,

yet my people are destroyed

for lack of wisdom

and so it is , however

divine light resides in all ways

within all beings

so be it

namaste

- : ) =

ॐ