What would it take for Russia to be #1?
Posted 18 August 2004 - 04:24 AM
<Seems the more they dig up the more confused they become.>
American Raptor though now is known to be particularly dangerous and destructive. It can eat big animals whole. Only little ants drive him crazy, and don't let him sleep or rest.
<Its easy to see why China is at 44, the space programme, to
exalt the state at the cost of the people, true communism. >
China--like the former Soviet Union--is about big show. They may not have bread, but they have big show.:confused:
Posted 18 August 2004 - 09:32 AM
Big show sums up what my son said reflecting on the Games and
all the gold medals. The lion will have kittens instead of his wife
if the chinese just happen to revote without the direct use of force. Mine you so would Woj.
Slavs unite, Coops unite and the British unite!
Media Unite! Michael Jackson unite!
Posted 18 August 2004 - 01:05 PM
Originally posted by Bader
Howdy DonQ; moving target:
Big show sums up what my son said reflecting on the Games and
all the gold medals. The lion will have kittens instead of his wife
if the chinese just happen to revote without the direct use of force. Mine you so would Woj.
Slavs unite, Coops unite and the British unite!
Media Unite! Michael Jackson unite!
I must tell you that people has been giving an *extremely warm welcome* to the flyers, except for a few lions, who I keep away by playful moves. You must take into account that this is the very jungle that voted for Bush, so just figure how it would be in other places...
Venezuela voted against the puppets, but now have a monkey that looks like a lion. So in the end, it may turn worse than before.:confused: They love though the "Arepa Revolution," which I propose. The referendum I put forth is "Do you like Arepa (corn patty) dry and cold (lions' politics) or hot and moist (people's politics)?" And so far people like the latter...
Posted 18 August 2004 - 01:51 PM
The record $55.8 billion U.S. trade deficit for June was further evidence of the nation's growing dependence on the rest of the world for goods, services and capital.
This ungodly trade deficit underscores a gap between consumption (strong) and American production (lagging) a huge unrealized potential for U.S. manufacturers that is being dissipated abroad.''
Add to the trade deficit some other transactions, such as the rapidly growing level of remittances many foreign-born workers in the U.S. send to their families in other countries, and you have a current account deficit that's sure to exceed half a trillion dollars this year.
``At more than $500 billion, the deficits in trade and current account balances are quite large in comparison with aggregate income, ``Financing of the deficits had recently included both large foreign private purchases of U.S. securities and increased foreign official inflows.''
Central banks, particularly in China and Japan -- have quite willingly provided the money to finance the U.S. current account deficit.
Outsized external deficits could not be sustained indefinitely,'' The adjustment won't be pleasant for anyone. Nevertheless, the U.S. can't continue to live beyond its means forever. http://quote.bloombe...sid=abQKZ5WoHi3
Quixote stay in your playful mood.
Posted 18 August 2004 - 02:10 PM
And you are correct Donq; @ When one falls into a pit, he either dies or rises. @ Wisdom of the Dragon)
Please stay in playful mood for much longer. [
Posted 19 August 2004 - 12:13 AM
> > mean you respond to whoever pays you, right?
> Last time I checked, the citizens pay the taxes which become the
> government's operating funds. They work for us.
Do you know what's going on in the real world? I believe powerful
interests buy political campaigns, and thus control politics...
Welfare for Politicians Could Help the Welfare of the Rest of Us
My dear fellow Americans,
A recent New York Times/CBS poll says that 89 percent of us think our
political campaign system should be fundamentally changed. Just eight
percent of us think it needs only minor tinkering. (The option "no
change, our campaigns work splendidly" was not even offered as a
We're not dummies.
According to the poll 68 percent of us do not believe Congress has any
intention of changing the campaign finance laws -- and 53 percent of
us don't think President Clinton does either.
They haven't fooled us.
There are a few items in the poll that bother me, though. That's what
I want to discuss with you here.
First, the poll says we are convinced that campaign money corrupts the
government, but we do not list this problem as a high priority
compared to crime, schools, and the economy.
I ask you to rethink that one. The moneyed interests that buy off our
government are costing us ordinary taxpayers hundreds of billions in
higher taxes and lower benefits. They are the reason our schools have
so little while our Pentagon wastes so much. Their steady pressure to
cut government programs for everyone but the rich is a major reason
why many of us feel we're getting nowhere and some of us give up and
turn to crime. Because of money flows to politicians, our health care
system is increasingly inhumane and unaffordable. Because banking
interests bought off regulators, we had to bail out banks run into the
ground by criminals. Our mineral, forest, and grazing resources are
being given away to tycoons who leave destruction behind them on the
We're being robbed. Systematically. Massively.
Every day we can see in the news some small or large example of our
government working for campaign contributors and against the people.
Last week, for example, the Senate voted down a bill that would have
slapped a hefty tax on cigarettes and used the money to pay for
medical care for 10 million children. This idea was pushed by a
Republican, Orrin Hatch, and a Democrat, Ted Kennedy. Americans are
overwhelmingly in favor of it. But tobacco companies write big checks
and children don't. So the bill was voted down 55-45, as precise a
measure as you'll ever see of the degree to which our Senators are
owned by tobacco companies. (You don't have to buy them all; you only
have to buy more than half.)
We no longer have a democracy.
We have, as one woman said, as she failed to stop a hazardous waste
incinerator next to her children's school, a "wealthocracy." A debate
over clean air standards is raging right now, the coal and auto
companies are bearing down hard and one Capitol Hill staffer told the
Washington Post, "There's no way that the final decision will be made
... solely on the basis of protecting children."
Friends, this is not a low-priority problem. If we need the government
to enforce environmental rules, to help poor people in any way, to
keep bulldozers and ads out of national parks, to defend the country
cost-effectively, to maintain highways and bridges, to enforce the law
even-handedly, to tax us fairly, or to be even minimally competent,
then campaign reform is the top priority, because it's the key to all
When asked how to fix the system, most of us, says the poll, favor
public disclosure of where campaign money comes from and how it is
spent. We think radio and television stations should give free time
for campaign messages. But seventy-eight percent of us oppose public
financing of campaigns.
That rejection of public financing is something else I'd like to ask
you to think about. I too used to wince at the thought of being taxed
for campaigns. "Why pay them to indoctrinate me?" I thought. "Don't
encourage them," some of my friends say. I've heard public campaign
funding called "welfare for politicians." I've heard people say it
would be too expensive.
It wouldn't be nearly as expensive as the present system is. It would
cost us millions and save us trillions. There could be no better
investment. And consider this: if we paid for their campaigns, there
could be no doubt in the politicians' minds that they work for us.
They could concentrate on that work, rather than spend half their time
trolling for funds for their next campaign. Poor folks could actually
run for office; rich folks wouldn't have an automatic advantage. And,
if we were paying for political speech, there's a chance the Supreme
Court would let us set some ground rules for it. No mud-slinging. Tell
us about your actual record, what you've voted for, what you've stuck
up for. Speak to us in full sentences for minutes at a time. We'll
give you enough money to make your case fully, but not enough to hire
PR firms to sell you like fast food.
Our founding fathers warned us that democracy can't last unless we are
willing to fight for it in every generation. Wars are not the only
kinds of fights, and foreign dictators -- or foreign campaign
contributors -- are not the only threats to government of, by, and for
the people. If we want our democracy back, our battle has to be, as
was that of our founding fathers, against the corrupt power structure
that rules us.
We can do it.
Source: The Global Citizen
Posted 19 August 2004 - 01:44 AM
"Governments set up special institutes, scholarships, and training programs for elite athletes in order to increase their chances of Olympic glory. Corporations provide lucrative endorsements to the most promising and successful athletes as the most cost-effective way of obtaining advertising spin-offs."
Design Flaws of the Olympics
The modern Olympics were established with the highest ideals, including fostering international reconciliation. Yet in practice the Olympics have become the plaything of powerful interest groups, especially governments and corporations. So great is the divergence between rhetoric and reality that it makes sense to examine the assumptions underlying the design of the games. Help in explaining the Olympic trajectory may be found by looking for -design flaws-, namely problematical assumptions inherent in the conception of the games.
A casual spectator might be forgiven for thinking that problems with the Olympics are relatively minor. There are scandals involving drug-taking and bribery, to be sure, but this does little to tarnish the overwhelming spectacle involving participation by thousands of dedicated athletes from around the world. A closer look, though, shows that appearances hide a more sordid reality.
The games have long been the tool of governments, both reflecting and fostering nationalism. Competitors are seen as representatives of states. If a country does not participate in the games, then its athletes cannot participate either. Victories are treated as a cause for national rejoicing, with the playing of national anthems emphasising the point.
Because the Olympics are seen as a repository of high moral value, any association with the Olympics tends to have positive spin-offs. Hence, the privilege of holding the games has long been a source of national and civic pride, with the opportunity to showcase a country and especially the host city. The most notorious case of this was the 1936 Berlin Olympics, used by Hitler to demonstrate the achievements of Nazi Germany.
By the same token, governments may use the Olympics to score points against other governments, most prominently by boycotts. To withdraw participation from a high-value event such as the Olympics symbolises a correspondingly high level of moral outrage. The US-led boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics - punishment for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan - and the payback Soviet-led boycott of the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics are recent examples. In earlier years there were intense struggles in the Olympic movement, and sometimes more widely, over participation of the two Germanies, two Chinas, two Koreas, Rhodesia and South Africa.
The Olympic movement has capitalised on the widespread perception that international sporting competitions foster goodwill between countries. In its effort to foster participation at all costs, it avoids making any moral judgment about governments. Hence, even the most repressive regimes are welcomed as Olympic hosts, and government policies in running sports and selecting athletes are not scrutinised. After World War II, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) bent its rules to encourage participation by communist states. In its efforts to promote universal participation, the Olympic movement has sacrificed its moral standards. The IOC-s lack of a moral position is indicated by the eagerness with which both fascists and communists have embraced the games.
Communist governments found international sport a convenient avenue for promoting their image since performance is relatively predictable and controllable through physical and mental training, diet, and drugs. Most governments have adopted the communist model of centralised funding and training.
Boycotts and other sorts of overt politicking are symptoms of the fact that the Olympics have long been tools of governments. The political value of the Olympics to governments hinges, ironically, on international sports being seen as above politics.
The Olympics have also become a tool of commercialism, a trend that has accelerated in recent decades. Companies and products benefit from association with the Olympics, which have an aura of both virtue and excellence. The games are one of the greatest media events on earth, with television broadcasting to billions of people, a marketeer's dream. As a result, companies line up for Olympic sponsorship.
In earlier days of the Olympics, the ideal of amateurism was enforced, though this primarily served to keep out working-class competitors. As the commercial and national exploitation of sport expanded through the twentieth century, amateurism was increasingly undermined by fake jobs (especially in Soviet bloc countries), scholarships and under-the-table payments, for example from running shoe manufacturers. Eventually the pressures for professionalisation became too great, and today the truly amateur Olympic athlete is the exception.
Successful athletes in the most prominent sports now can become rich through sponsorships. Prize money is of secondary importance to those with a media profile. Athletes benefit from their association with the Olympics, which in turn reflects on their sponsors.
With the advent of global television coverage, the IOC has become a major transnational corporate enterprise itself, with hundreds of millions of dollars in income hinging on television rights. Ironically, the IOC has turned the image of high-minded sporting competitions, seemingly above the sordid realm of politics and commerce, into a vehicle for making huge amounts of money. Like any corporation and its trademarks, the IOC jealously guards which companies are allowed any association with the five Olympic rings.
Just as the IOC has avoided any moral judgement of governments, so it has abdicated any moral role in relation to corporate sponsorship. Whether running shoes are made by Third World workers in horrible conditions at low pay or whether a drink is of nutritional value is of little concern to the IOC, except for possible bad publicity. Set up originally as a competition for amateurs not needing commercial support, the Olympics have become a spectacularly successful vehicle for commercialism.
Firstly, the Olympics Games are, obviously, games. One of the important characteristics of games is that they are worlds unto themselves, with rules to define behaviour and an explicit separation from outside concerns. To be sure, many games in practice are marked by racial prejudice, gender discrimination, economic inequality, and numerous other social dynamics. But the ideal of the game involves a bracketing or exclusion of these factors, with all attention on abiding by the artificial reality of the game itself. It is this that makes games such a valuable escape from the oppressive realities of people-s lives. Participants and spectators alike can concentrate on performances and dramas in a miniature social world in which talent, effort and luck combine to produce outcomes.
Ironically, because games are experienced as separate realities, they are ideal for exploitation by groups that would like to use them for their own purposes. Any enterprise that is perceived as autonomous and apolitical - sport, science, art - is all the more effective as a political tool when it can be subtly tied to vested interests.
It is not widely known that the Olympics from 1912 to 1948 included events such as sculpture and writing. These events did not last, perhaps because they do not sufficiently match the image of the game as being autonomous of social interests.
Secondly, the games are competitive. There are winners and losers, with the assumption that winners are superior in some way because these are games of skill rather than luck. The competitive element makes the games mesh nicely with the interests of states, which themselves are in a type of competition for power and status. The victories of Olympic athletes are commonly seen as victories for their respective countries. Thus, Olympic competition can easily become a vicarious competition between governments. The tallies of medals are testimony to the importance of victory.
Competition in sports is also congenial for commercialism. By dividing participants into competitors who can be identified, marketeers can attach products to identifiable individuals and teams. So dominant has competition become in sports that the alternative of cooperative sport is submerged. If, for example, a player who scored in soccer immediately joined the other side, the clarity of the team as well as the conception of competition would be destroyed. If swimmers were given handicaps, any participant would have a roughly equal chance of winning, reducing its significance. This is not to mention cooperative games such as a group that tries to keep a ball in the air or a "fun run" in which no times are kept.
Thirdly, the Olympics are a competition of elite performers, thereby giving them great symbolic value. Olympians are presented as the best that their countries have to offer, and gold medallists are feted as world champions. Governments and corporations are alike in their eagerness to be associated with those who are seen to be the world-s best.
Because the number of Olympic athletes is relatively small, it is possible for governments and corporations to reap large symbolic returns through a relatively small investment. Governments set up special institutes, scholarships, and training programs for elite athletes in order to increase their chances of Olympic glory. Corporations provide lucrative endorsements to the most promising and successful athletes as the most cost-effective way of obtaining advertising spin-offs.
Posted 19 August 2004 - 10:57 AM
The US has for years followed the policy of exporting industry, so its not unrealised potential but exported potential.
If a nation exports its industry it has to import for consumption.
THis is the Lima Declaration which was introduced in 1975 which is nearly thirty years ago. The alleged moral motive was to help the third world to industrialise. It wasnt. Industrialists arent into charity, they are into profits and the banks who keep them going
and thus have a say in what they do would not be promoting charity.
They went there for cheap labour, lower taxes and other similar subsidies/incentives etc for greater profits for the shareholders
who are probably mostly US citizens. So the well off are getting richer off the whole world while the US economy slowly shrinks
under the govt. Cheaper goods imported fobs the general public
off in a fools paradise. Now the public sector has to compete with the coroprate influence on govt, especially those who are
thriving on war which means the Pentagon has a big call on the
govt funds compared with social policy.
NOw the central banks of China and Japan are giving the US
"money" for securities and the US can only buy Chinese and Japanese goods for consumption with the "money" which keeps their own industry bouyant.
AS the deficit gets worse they will have a bigger interest in protecting their securities and customer so the vicious circle grows a bigger hold on all three. They all become dependant on a global regime and especially the US, the biggest target becomes stripped of it sovereignty, the NWO is now possible.
If the Dollar collapses, the remaining industry in the US will collapse along with that in other countries. The US consumer market will disappear and the US multi-nationals will suddenly find they have huge stocks to try and sell elsewhere and there is no trade vacuum. The securities will be worthless making the Chinese and Japanese currencies grossly over valued making their exports altra cheap-low income and imports very expensive.
Populations will deminish from famine and the new industrial
base of the new world will be dictated on a greatly deminished scale as planned in these global meetings. Bit like rubbing it all out and starting again. The Chinese will be ok they can eat their gold medals and spaceships. The US will have McD catburgers
subsidised by the Foundations of the big-hearted super-rich who subsidised the Chinese govts social policy by paying chinese workers 50c a day in US factories in China.
Ten thousand years from now, they will dig up the bones of these malnourished Chinese and it will confuse them because they will be inferior bones to humans but have traces of gold in them. Those found on coop land will be thought human because they had a decent standard of living, eh DonQ.
Posted 19 August 2004 - 11:50 AM
Posted 19 August 2004 - 01:26 PM
"If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of journalists is to destroy the truth; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell this country and this race for their daily bread. We are the tools and vessels for rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
-John Swinton, Chief of Staff of the New York Times and the "Dean of his Profession", in a toast before the New York Press Club, 1953
Posted 19 August 2004 - 01:41 PM
Bader; I see that you want solve the problem of the thief who has stolen so much that now he has nobody left to steal from
Posted 19 August 2004 - 06:15 PM
He was trying to come to terms with the fact that one of his charges, Richard Faulds, the defending Olympic champion, had just failed to make the final of the double trap competition for which China and India provided three of the six finalists.
The eventual winner was a member of Dubai's ruling family who until four years ago was the United Arab Emirates' squash champion.
The gold medal won by Ahmed al-Maktoum was the first of any colour in the history of the UAE. .
The silver taken by Major Rajyavardhan Rathore ., while Zheng Wang's bronze helped keep his country at the top of the Athens medals table.
China - for whom Athens is a dry run of the Beijing games - are breaking into areas where they have not previously been strong, such as swimming.
Earlier this week Jacques Rogge, the International Olympic Committee president, asked the organisers of the Beijing games to slow down their building work, an unprecedented request in the history of the games. http://news.ft.com/c...000e2511c8.html ?????
Posted 19 August 2004 - 06:22 PM
Australia is already puppet, "American dingo"...
(published at soc.culture.australian)
Say, your PM is a loyal puppet...
I think he's an American dingo.
Monday, August 16, 2004; Page A16
HAVING SENT a contingent of troops to Iraq, Australia is having its
own debate about the merits of intervention. A week ago, 43 former
diplomats and military chiefs denounced the prime minister, John
Howard, for fighting a war over weapons of mass destruction that
turned out not to exist; Mr. Howard retorted that, during the time
leading up to the war, his critics accepted the reports of Iraq's
sinister arsenal. All of which may sound drearily familiar to American
ears -- except that the language used was rather fruitier. "I think we
have to ask the question, these doddering daiquiri diplomats, would
they have done any different?" demanded De-Anne Kelly, the
parliamentary secretary for transport.
Even though Teresa Heinz Kerry has a feisty turn of phrase and Vice
President Cheney got caught recommending an anatomically impossible
act to a Democratic senator, the American striving to be "bipartisan"
engenders different rules of courtesy. Different not just from
Australia, what's more. China's leadership excels at pungent
put-downs. It called Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong
Kong, a "liar," a "snake," a "prostitute," a "tango dancer," a "sinner
of 1,000 years" and a "turtle egg," concluding that, in view of the
above, he was "condemned for a thousand generations."
Britain, the country whose world view may be closest to that of the
United States, is also known for bruising rhetoric. Winston Churchill
described Clement Attlee as "a modest little man, with much to be
modest about," and "a sheep in sheep's clothing." Denis Healey, the
Labor Party's 1970s finance minister, sneered that criticism from one
bland opponent was as frightening as "being mauled by a dead sheep."
The Labor leader Michael Foot described another Conservative as "a
What can the United States offer to match that? There have been some
good jabs from politicians not noted for wit, as when Gerald Ford
observed that Ronald Reagan's hair was "prematurely orange." But the
truth is that America's political system would convulse if there were
too much of this. No other country takes the principle of separate
powers to such extremes. As a result, nothing gets done in Washington
unless its protagonists are at least outwardly polite. The flip side
of gridlock is un-Australian civility.
<In time of financial crash nobody would try to object. And why?: the human and historical rights on Chinese sides. Japane might be also join China, don-t you think so.?>
Of course, Slavs will also join China. Slavs unite!
<Different power balance is not end of the world. Your Jewish kibitzes will stay intact, nobody would bother to touch the hornet nests. >
The last source of power is the human being, particularly in association with likeminded groups, be it economic or military. Most powerful army has big problem fighting the will of small groups--fighting coops--in Iraq. Likewise China may be powerful but not stronger than its weakest links: the will of its people. Chinese unite!
Posted 19 August 2004 - 06:36 PM
The long-running efforts of the Nigerian government to recover money deposited in Switzerland by Sanid Abacha, the former military ruler, reached a decisive point yesterday as the Swiss authorities decided to unfreeze most of the $500m) funds.
The Swiss authorities decided that "the greater part" of the $500m Abacha funds frozen were "clearly of criminal origin".
The Swiss Federal Office of Justice said that if there was up to the Swiss Supreme Court to decide whether the funds should be returned to Nigeria.
The Swiss authorities said that they would monitor the use of the returned funds, to ensure they were dedicated to healthcare and education, as well as infrastructure projects, as Nigeria has promised.
Officials have pointed out in the past that an estimated $1.3bn of money linked to Gen Abacha was processed through the UK's banks..
Switzerland banks safety is any more. ha, ha ha. Swiss soon might be forced to clean their garbage by themselves.
Posted 19 August 2004 - 07:17 PM
Poland, Russia and all other Slavs countries were joining China in their socialist struggle, so it would be nothing new.
Poland was never in bad relation with China , until our stupid president Kwasniewski under Vatican pressure switched for Taiwan recognition.
China. And we all Slavs have some Mongoll blood from Genghis Khan invasion in 1241. Trough the Mongol Muslim dynasty that ruled most of northern India from the early 16th to the mid-18th century, we are might say, we are related to Indian as well.
We have Polish
Posted 20 August 2004 - 12:23 AM
Until then Slavs unite!>
Now I see that you don't want a lion, but a dragon, or whatever can rule like a tyrant.
But let me tell you, if you accuse me of "racist," then the Russian revolution must be based on Russian thinkers. Kropotkin and Emma Goldman come to mind...
Ridley's vision of an alternative is also one with which Anarchists may have some sympathy...'But I do believe there have been glimpses of a better way, of a society built upon voluntary exchange of goods, information, fortune and power between free individuals in small enough communities for trust to be built.'
In the same chapter he also gives qualified support to Kropotkin's Anarchist vision ...'If we are to recover social harmony and virtue, if we are to build back into society the virtues that made it work for us, it is vital we reduce the power and scope of the state. That does not mean a vicious war of each against all. It means devolution: devolution of power over people's lives to parishes, computer networks, clubs, teams, self-help groups, small businesses - everything small and local. It means a massive disassembling of the public bureaucracy. Let national and international governments wither into their minimal function of national defence and redistribution of wealth (directly without an intervening and greedy bureaucracy). Let Kropotkin's vision of a world of free individuals return.'
Posted 20 August 2004 - 07:30 AM
I agree Olympic games and the like, world cups etc do promote nationalism. I made the point sometime back - tongue in cheek-
that if globalism was the right and nationalism/racism wrong, how come we still have olympic games? Just shows how people can entertain two contradictory thoughts at the same time and not even bat an eyelid. If you really listen and observe it is very common.
You possed the question of what then for the thief who has no one left to rob.
Simple my dear Watson:
You then move (re-educattion) from stealing (capitalism) to slavery (communism) which China did and now because they have too many slaves to keep they want them to work for the
capitalists so they can go back to robbing them.
My question to you: How many times will the Chinese authorities re-educate the nation before they wake up to the fact they have been around the block more than once?
You said that re-education benefited China and would be good for the US. They are being re-educated right now into accepting increasing centralised powers which takes theirs away- moving from Thievery (capitalism) to slavery (communism).
You say human and historical rights are on Chinsa side. Let me say this: everything is on Chinas side until she is world leader then she is the worst thing that ever happened to the world.
Ask any American. And further more Woj let me say this: China is your best hope at uniting the Slavs; name your pick of barbed wire. I know you will not mind the barber wire, but you will be
torchered by the coop conditions of your new Slavic heaven.
A new change in the balance of power is not the end of the world
is true, we know that from Hegel and Marx and Kissinger. Just new contestants (puppets) in the ring under the same puppeteer.
Coops run their own show. Very different from living like a block booking for Slavs taking up a whole section of the theatre where the puppet show is. Better get your bookings in early Woj, the Chineses may fill the theatre alone. In fact you might need a gold medal to get in: slavs unite outside please.
Commander Bush called Australia the Sherriff of the northern Pacific, well I asume its the northern Pacific given that it arose out of the Aussies joining them in their exercise of the Task Force which was supposed to paralise Nth Korea with fear.
If China attacks Taiwan it may be merely to use it to practice its
capture of Australia and Indonesia.
I sort of get the feeling Woj that by the time China marches into
Eastern Europe the Poles will have already been eating by chopsticks.
"The Russian revolution must be based on Russian thinkers"
I said some time back the Russian revival must be based on Russian thinkers.
By the way DonQ, a client yesterday showed my a pictorial book of St Petersburg from his trip to Russia about ten years ago.
I would have to say- Rome and Greece eat your heart out. He has travelled the world, I put it to him that surely the best Europe has to offer couldnt come near this and he agreed.
Have you ever been there?
Posted 20 August 2004 - 09:08 AM
Any understanding of human cooperation must be grounded in sound evolutionary theory.
Animal to human provide an examples of cooperation.
Cooperation is seen in ants, fish, naked mole-rats, baboons and various human societies across time and space. (Lee Alan Dugatkin)
for example; dinosaurs Allosaurus walked on its two hind limbs and probably used the much smaller forelimbs for grasping. Equipped with powerful, flexible jaws, allosaurs likely preyed on medium-sized dinosaurs; they were possibly scavengers that hunted in groups (!!!!) or the raptors birds of the order predators that
Posted 20 August 2004 - 11:35 AM
This scientist makes a correction on Kropotkin cooperative theory (otherwise he's sympathetic), but I'd respond to him that all human being are also genetically related, and that there may be another common benefit in cooperating: AVOIDING THE LION, who surely has a very different genetic make up, recognizable by his aggressiveness.:confused:
In other words, COOPERATIVES MAY NOT ONLY BE BOUND TOGETHER BY BROTHERLY-LOVE AMONG MEMBERS, BUT OUT OF REJECTION OF THE LION.
"Co-operation is not something we share with a largely co-operative natural world. Humans who co-operate are very frequently not genetically related. Ridley argues that it is the capacity for strangers to co-operate as well as to compete that makes us truly human, and that this capacity for strangers to cooperate marks the difference between humans and much of the rest of the living world."
Book Review: The Origins of Virtue
Matt Ridley studied Zoology at Oxford before becoming a journalist and author. He currently lives in Northumberland and is chair of The International Centre for Life. His recently published book 'The Origins of Virtue' (l.) is a well written and erudite examination of the origins of both co-operative and competitive behaviour within human societies. His work is very much a continuation and development of the debate prompted by the works of Darwin, Huxley and Kropotkin in the late l9th century.
Ridley's prologue gives an account of Kropotkin's escape from the St. Petersburgh military hospital jail, and how the help he received in so escaping was in part one of the inspirations behind his writing of Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution'. (2). Ridley describes , Kropotkin's book as a prophetic '. work. Kropotkin's Mutual Aid ' owed its genesis to his decision to counter the arguments of Thomas Henry Huxley, who argued that nature was an arena for pitiless struggle between self interested creatures. This intellectual tradition goes back to the likes of Malthus, Hobbes, Machiavelli and St.Augustine and viewed human nature as basically selfish unless controlled by culture. Kropotkin's 'Mutual Aid', on the otherhand, viewed cooperation as an ancient animal legacy and one with which humanity was also gifted.
Ridley's own book draws not only on biology and sociobiology, but also on game theory, evolutionary psychology, anthropology, history, economics and political philosophy. He develops an argument, which while not in agreement with Kropotkin's attempts to establish mutual aid as a factor in evolution, does come to see mutual aid as a factor in human evolution. The distinction is not pedantic. Ridley argues that Kropotkin was being anthropomorphic in his development of mutual aid as a theory as there are in fact few examples of true altruism in the natural world. Many examples of co-operative behaviour within insect and animal societies are in fact effectively co-operacion within large families, related individuals and not unrelated strangers. Bee-hives, ant colonies termites nests, meerkats, prides of lions, troops of monkeys are all examples of such. As Ridley points out, all, worker bees are sisters, they share half their genes and the motivation for their behaviour is most likely genetic, the same applies to most other examples of co-operation in the natural world. According to Ridley there are some genuine examples of Mutual Aid in nature, but they are few in number and not anywhere near as widespread as argued in Kropotkin's 'Mutual Aid'. Ridley argues that Kropotkin got it the wrong way around. Co-operation is not something we share with a largely co-operative natural world. Humans who co-operate are very frequently not genetically related. Ridley argues that it is the capacity for strangers to co-operate as well as to compete that makes us truly human, and that this capacity for strangers to cooperate marks the difference between humans and much of the rest of the living world.
There is much else in this work which will be of interest to Anarchists. However, it will not always make comfortable reading for ideologists and dogmatists. Primitivists and Green Anarchists may be surprised to learn that the peoples of the world of huntergatherers lived a life not in peaceful harmony with the natural world, but were responsible for mass extinctions of native wildlife on every continent which humans reached. At the same time Anarchists who do not reject modernism; monetary exchange and the freedom to participate in the market can find support for their position in Ridley's argument that even the earliest hunter gatherers, predating both the state and modern capitalism, lived in societies which made use of and benefited from divisions of labour and trade between individuals and groups on a market basis. Peace activists may be alarmed at Ridley's claim that hostility to outsiders and even war itself is a byproduct of our evolutionary tendency to co-operate.
[I have my own theory: humans come broadly in two bands, predators and prey, or easy-going people. It's the predators who always dragged the peaceful people into conflict. For example, it's not America that launched war on Iraq, but Bush and a small clique of lions.]:confused:
Like many other contemporary biologists and anthropologists Ridley sees the driving force behind evolution as being developments which directly benefit the individual rather than the group.
However, Ridley does arrive at conclusions, which while not Anarchist, do lean in an Anarchist direction. In his final chapter titled 'Trust' he makes a statement about the negative ', effects upon both community and society of State provision of social and other services, a critique which echoes that of Colin Ward in Anarchy in Action ..'In Britain, the welfare state and the mixed-economy 'corpocracy' replaced thousands of effective community institutions - friendly societies, mutuals, hospital trusts and more, all based upon reciprocity and gradually nurtured virtuous circles of trust - with giant, centralised Leviathans like the National Health Service, nationalised industries and government quangos, all based on condescension. Because more money was made available through higher taxes, something was gained at first. But soon the destruction wrought to Britain's sense of community was palpable. Because of its mandatory nature the welfare state encouraged in its donors a reluctance and a resentment, and in its clients not gratitude but apathy, anger or an entrepreneurial drive to exploit the system. Heavy government makes people more selfish not less.'
[This last point I agree with: welfare is better taken care of within coops or similar small institutions. However whatever falls outside must be taken of by the goverment.]
(cut off, quoted before)
Posted 20 August 2004 - 01:38 PM
The Narcissistic-Aggressive Type
Also known as: Cyclothymic, histrionic, hysterical or hypomanic-depressive personality. "The ambitious predator"..
The Narcissistic-Aggressive Type (NA)
He would synergistically combine the mottos, "I am the most glorious" and "I am the most powerful". Thus, lacking the behavioral complex of perfectionism, his life is ruled by the unbridled ambition of the behavioral complexes of narcissism and aggression. We surmise that these two traits, as expressed separately in the N and A personages, would be found together in this individual.
The synergistic drives for both power and glory must produce an extroverted, hyperactive individual. Given the pride invested in "I am beautiful" and "I am powerful," one would expect this individual to be domineering, sometimes with an almost megalomanic drive for ambition, in power, glory and sexual domination. This individual lacks concerted perfectionist qualities, hence his search for power and glory is likely to be superficial, spasmodic and lacking in direction.
When reduced to the subdued state NA- this individual strongly resembles the self-flaunting unaggressive narcissistic personage N. Of course, he "plays the game", and with his hyperactivity and tendency toward "hypersexuality" he would involve himself in many compulsive dependencies, usually as the subjugator but sometimes as the subjugated individual. As is often the case in the dependency of subjugation, he may become overtly sadistic, especially in frustrating and in playing on the emotions of his subjugated companions, of which there may be several at one time. And he too, if opposed, seeks retribution in the self-justified vindictive triumph.
This individual when frustrated can be incited to a narcissistic rage, an aggressive-vindictive rage, or a combined narcissistic-aggressive rage (NA rage). In the latter, the aggressive-vindictive component usually appears first, followed by the narcissistic rage of withdrawal as the individual leaves, slamming the door behind him.
Finally, as in all character types, he is liable, when frustrated to a point of relative hopelessness, to enter an abject state of depression. In such a hyperactive individual, with ambition unchecked by the lack of perfectionism, we are drawn to propose that he is in some cases the histrionic, cyclothymic, or hypomanic-depressive personality of the psychiatric literature.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users