" ... thought any system that produced this linguistic bollox had to be all bad. What has worried me increasingly since is that our own jargon has got as bad - "capitalism through management by objectives" if you like, but more to do with politicians not worth listening to for the same reasons Radio Peking. We have made a religion of "economics" as surely as the worst Marxists, and made control of the means of production as centralised as any state capitalist country. Manufacturing has been given away, something many previous empires did as they got fat-arsed and ripe for the new guys on the block to take over."
Neil, between you and me, can't tell you how enlightened I am to read your views. Indeed, this needs to take the centre - stage and be retained there, as part of the solution we now need. I'd welcome suggestions to take matters forward, in and beyond the web world as needed. I suggest a web parliament of people with ' middle path ' philosophy, who've just decided to change this state of affairs that offers to us a pervasive choice from among bad, worse and worst futures. We can do it, if we want to bad enough ! Sorry, Pat, God may rest in His predetermination. But I have always tried to set Him free ! I'd suggest we be in no hurry to pull down the " perfect " illusion of free will. Freedom will remain the most cherished endowment in our nature. It is true. On Jan 28, 11:22 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Who are our own despotic, over-reaching dictators Fidd? Chavo may be > just another bum in a long history of them, but you have to swallow a > whole load of ideology to think Blair, Thatcher, Reagan and Bush > aren't. Britain is clapped-out and broke because we had centuries of > 'balance of power' economics, though I accept the world might be > speaking French or German if we had not done this. We "drove" about > in our gunboats stealing just as all empires used some form of > military advantage to do the same. The world now speaks English only > as a result of this and on the basis of one vote in the US long ago. > Questions of what we are doing in other countries and what is > dominating the world seem to come before we look at resistance to > this, along with questions about just what our democracies are. These > questions do not necessarily lead to conclusions about laying down our > arms and advantages - indeed one conclusion is that we should strike > now before we lose them (leading to others about why we have given > China such an advantage in manufacturing and production of the raw > materials for smart weapon technology). My view is that we need a new > peace, but this may be hopelessly optimistic, either in my political > form or that of Orn's inner quest. And neither may matter. > Potentially, even the Rapturists may have it right, but I'd rather die > trying to disprove it. > There were academics here, across Europe and in the US who really > thought Stalin was OK, then Mao (both were loonies) and eventually > some stuff called Critical Theory (which accepted they were bums) came > along and said much the same as American pragmatism calling for > genuine democracy. There is similar theorising around the world, > somewhat culturally but not as philosophically different as many claim > - some even fixated in poverty as a blessing. As a kid, my big > brother used to switch on Radio Peking in the middle of the night, and > we laugh every time some Chinese siren came out with the 'running dogs > and lackeys of American imperialism' and 'the great Chinese > proletarian cultural revolution' not knowing Mao had starved 30 > million of his own selling their wheat to build a navy. He was a > leftie at art college back then, but was quite proud to have a kid > brother who thought any system that produced this linguistic bollox > had to be all bad. What has worried me increasingly since is that our > own jargon has got as bad - "capitalism through management by > objectives" if you like, but more to do with politicians not worth > listening to for the same reasons Radio Peking. We have made a > religion of "economics" as surely as the worst Marxists, and made > control of the means of production as centralised as any state > capitalist country. Manufacturing has been given away, something many > previous empires did as they got fat-arsed and ripe for the new guys > on the block to take over. > > We might be looking towards a new, democratic trading block of all the > Americas, Japan and Europe through to the Urals in terms of foreign > policy for all we know. Even this leaves some regimes to take out and > has that over-reaching feel. Peace would be better, but might just > put off the interesting times when all kinds of tin-pots could have > nukes and the means to deliver. It seems we went into Iraq to destroy > a dozen dangerous ice-cream wagons and a crop-spraying Cessna. We may > be mad enough for such to have merely been a trial run. > > On 28 Jan, 01:48, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Did no one ever explain to you that when discussing despotic, over- > > reaching, dictators that other despotic, tyrannical dictators may be > > brought up? Godwins law is for other topics, just so you know. > > > On Jan 27, 12:49 pm, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I think I'm gonna call Godwin's law on this thread. > > > > Ian -- 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.
