I've often preached that classism would re-establish itself. The "White Poor" will be the ones to revolt in the end. Statistically, there are more of them (us) than any other measurable social demographic, and in a liberal government, their (our) needs will be ignored, because the "whiteness" counters the poverty, according to the flawed ideology the equates skin color with advantage/disadvantage.
Last disenfranchised group standing, wins. On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:09 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > Chinese fingers are indeed in lots of pies - have a look at what they > are doing in Peru. The situation in Zimbabwe again really supports > what Pinker is saying and most of us know - humans are pretty crap > without law that can be relied on. There is something horribly tribal > about some of the goings on on the estate around me. The cruelty of > some of the bureaucrats involved frankly beggars belief too. They > have no idea how cruel they are and could not possibly see what is > Nazi in their attitudes, especially in the way they cannot report > truth, only write-up what their political masters want to hear about > success. Key in this, appears to be a lack of integrity - not > personal, but in the system in terms of fair investigation. Personal > virtue is now seen as something to cast out of systems, admittedly > under the pretence that it is there. I have seen no one who could > compete with Chris, Ian or Craig in any of the dross Sue and I have > been swept up in - no Mollies, Orns, Vams, Slips or broadly the rest > of us. Maybe a couple of cops. > > There is a lot of open, racist talk in our pubs now. This isn't based > on the old colour prejudice (possibly itself a middle-class myth), but > on harder facts of resource allocation and discrimination against > 'white poor' (a very old story) that I believe are real - though not a > solution. I have a guess, that somewhere in Pinker, is something > about trying to find what we can be proud of in civilisation - a very > difficult thing to do in terms of rationality. > > On 24 Feb, 03:35, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: >> "...I cannot and will not believe that the majority of even the most >> outspoken Nationalist Nazi's would have condoned the Holocaust had >> they actually been aware of what was going on. ..." - DJ >> >> Yes, it is difficult to accept. And, in fact, it was mostly the >> bureaucrats who came to the 'final solution'. Having done this, it >> could never have happened without at least the tacit acceptance of the >> general populous...let alone the Nazis. Hitler was voted in because he >> spoke to the minds of the people...they wanted jobs, he gave them >> jobs. They, for a long time, had this nationalistic pride, he helped >> it to manifest in the world. They felt the Jews were not only >> outsiders, but less than human. He supported that view. >> Here, in no way am I blaming the Germans. There were a lot of people >> here in the USA that shared these views…a lot. >> >> On Feb 23, 5:14 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > I haven't seen the movie. From what I've heard however, situations >> > such as Rwanda and Darfur come about due to tribal hatred and mob rule >> > violence. Very different from the calculated Hitler plan of Jewish >> > extermination. I cannot and will not believe that the majority of >> > even the most outspoken Nationalist Nazi's would have condoned the >> > Holocaust had they actually been aware of what was going on. It's one >> > thing to believe one's self superior and quite another to believe a >> > whole race of people should be murdered and made into book covers, >> > lamp shades and soap. >> >> > Mob rule is mob rule. Anyone is capable of anything when under this >> > spell. The few that might voice restraint or caution are silenced >> > with fear that they might be the next victim. Or their families. >> > Think the Crucible. >> >> > dj >> >> > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 4:15 PM, frantheman <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> > > I've just finished re-watching "Hotel Rwanda." It makes me a bit >> > > sceptical about Pinker's arguments. I don't know how much further it >> > > brings us to compare Genghis Khan with Hitler or the Thirty Years War >> > > with Rwanda and then claim, all in all, we're getting better. How much >> > > sense is there really in comparing the different circles of hell? >> > > There is progress, as Richard points out, but we still have a very >> > > long way to go. >> >> > > Francis >> >> > > On 21 Feb., 03:47, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> I do have this tendency to throw public notables out on a bed of nails >> > >> to see which of you are inclined to take some steps across them. >> > >> Ouch! However, this is not just about curiosity but evaluation of my >> > >> views for either reinforcement or modification. >> > >> Steven Pinker, the Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of >> > >> Psychology at Harvard University has a lecture video in which he >> > >> asserts humans to be peaceful by nature and merely corrupted by modern >> > >> institutions and concluding that we are living very peaceful lives by >> > >> historical comparisons. >> > >> Pinker writes, "Now that social scientists have started to count >> > >> bodies in different historical periods, they have discovered that the >> > >> romantic theory gets it backward: Far from causing us to become more >> > >> violent, something in modernity and its cultural institutions has made >> > >> us nobler." >> > >> This approach is a combination of empirical and biological study in >> > >> contrast to former assertions formed upon human cultures and >> > >> socialization without regard to biological recognition. >> > >> Steven Pinker concludes that violence in the world has actually >> > >> decreased, and conveys this idea in his "A History of Violence" >> > >> lecturehttp://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/163 >> > >> I for one never conceived of the notion but have tossed some bones >> > >> around with my good friend gruff, who also asserts that mankind has >> > >> made significant strides in the quest for a more peaceful existence in >> > >> contrast to my view that man is as violent now as ever and desires >> > >> aggressive conflict in perpetuity. >> > >> I think Pinker's inclusion of such behaviors as cat burning in 16th >> > >> century Paris is a stretch to expand the degree of historical >> > >> violence, as is reference to human sacrifice, slavery, governmental >> > >> conquests, real estate acquisition via genocide, torture and >> > >> mutilation as routine punishment, the death penalty, assassination, >> > >> massacres, conflict resolve through killing, all of which still take >> > >> place in our time. Pinker also references Biblical examples of >> > >> genocide and stoning deaths for any number of infractions, also >> > >> attributing the same and similar torturous behaviors to historical >> > >> accounts of Hindus, Christians, Muslims, and Chinese, etc. >> > >> Pointing to a "change is sensibility" Pinker writes: "Violence has >> > >> been in decline over long stretches of history, and today we are >> > >> probably living in the most peaceful moment of our species' time on >> > >> earth." >> >> > >> Somehow I can't seem to dance to the tune. >> >> > >> Please take the time to view this lecture, only 19 minutes and respond >> > >> as to........... >> >> > >> Truth or Wishful Thinking? >> >> > >> State your Stance!- Hide quoted text - >> >> > - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
