What would it take for Russia to be #1?
Posted 22 June 2003 - 07:34 AM
Well under both systems facts and how to think are dictated to
the public. As I have previously said the three main channels are
politics, academia and the media all controlled by money power.
Its up to the individual to accept the responsibility of what they
resign themsleves to believe and how they think, as individuals and parents and fellow citizens.
You aren't the only one on this thread focusing on the shortcoimngs of human nature which is obviously exploited by those who know to exploit the public and the characteristics of human nature having usurped the power of the majority.
My first reaction is to apprehend/render ineffective those who
are exploiting not those who are exploited.
The logical conclussion one comes to when the failings of humans
is deemed to be the cause of the problems is to create an external regime that brings all (except the exploiters) under control - power exercised from above downwards as the communists and capitalists love to have it. No change, the worst
examples of the negative side of human nature remain in charge.
If humans are so anti-social why the huge development of concrete jungles around the world? Why not masses of small communities where locals can chase the trouble makers out of the village?
The military are good at regimenting all and debasing all egos down to one level. What should we contemplate? 1950s China,
all in Mao suites and bauld heads like GIs driving around in Hitlers volkswagons?
Both informal and formal benign dictatotships (capitalism and communism) have already failed. One of the purposes of controlling thinking and knowledge is to make the public/society
more united and less diverse- ie, easily controlled.
How can you adocate freer thinking to discover a better way to
organise society if you can't trust human nature? That's a contradiction isn't it? But mind you there is a bigger issue out there in the minds of people than is realised and that is that many will never trust the masses to determine what is best for society. That is why neither the capitalist politicians nor the communist politicians will ever submit to rule by the people for the people - democracy.
Posted 22 June 2003 - 09:29 PM
That waterhole is a perfect symbal of the western banking system holding everyone under siege.
Russia may well be the only "country" that is capable
of standing up to the lion, meaning too strong for the lion to attack without grave risk. >
Great posting. That's right, Russia better than any other can save the world. Get away from her past and get away from the hungry, stupid lion. She can create a new waterhole, and soon the little animals will follow her. That would be a happy ending indeed...
Posted 22 June 2003 - 09:56 PM
<Mother Earth is in the process of shaking off those demonic humans that create the havoc and control the world behind the scenes, like a wet dog shaking off water & fleas.>
Maybe Gaia is taking revenge for the savage war we have declared on the environment, the flag-waving SUVs leading the march...
The nonviolent monkey shall overcome, or else...
Some interesting stuff...
"When man ceases being determined by his own spirit - which is the spirit of Life itself -, subjecting his will to secondary interests such as money, power etc., - from that moment on he begins to turn into a machine, a robot controlled by an alien force"
These days, more and more people manage to expand their mental horizon and develop a sense of global responsibility. They are coming to realise that the still current world view, based upon violence, hierarchic structures, capital and its temptations, in its effects is more destructive than for example the plague epidemic in the Middle Ages.
Modern civilisation is increasingly being guided by illusory mental concepts the destructive potential of which equals that of the delusions of the insane. They are characterised by compulsiveness, a highly restricted sensibility and mental rigidity. As a consequence of these ideas about life, reality is in the end no longer perceived as such, resulting in a failure to manifest necessary responses to ocurring changes. The response no longer occurs in the framework of the existing requirements but is limited to whatever least disturbs the interest of an elitist minority. Under the cloak of freedom (neo-liberalism), the entire social life is subjected to serving Capital, whatever the cost.
In the process of globalisation, all over the world Capital is chosen as the supreme ruler allowed to transmute the life of landscapes and forests, of animals and humans - the intactness of the entire biosphere - into vast amounts of money. These are then used solely to safeguard the continued self-gratification of a minority group in control of the means of power, the media and the financial centres, rather than in the service of the requirements of a healthy social existence of humanity together with all other life forms on earth. The result of this "progress" is an increasingly desperate situation of a large part of the world's population and the decimation of the diversity of species.
Those individuals who have retained, or else regained, their sensitivity towards Life constitute humanity's sole hope for a future in which many nowadays still rampant ideas - in whichever ideology they may be rooted - will be ostracised as a matter of course. The only chance for a transformation of human society towards tolerance, justice and socio-ecological compatibility lies in an increase as rapidly as possible of the number of truly emancipated individuals.
Resistance against Imperialist Globalisation - in favour of Global Justice!
Posted 23 June 2003 - 11:00 AM
Before I forget Donq. getting lost in a reply to so many matters you raise, and I may not get through then in one post- i enjoyed
his last post "some interesting stuff" and I hope you got something out of it Volt. While in passing with that I would like to make the point that regardless of what any leading minds might have left the world to look at reality through, like dialectical materialism or any other theory the elite promote as an opiate
of the masses, just like religion, and all the political correctness
and labels and trends, what ever they may be, the situation the world finds itself in as described in the quote from Donq. it is because of what the elite are doing and what they believe in
which is self interest not anything to do with what they have got everyone else arguing about or the lack of enough people applying what they have programmed through their media, academia and politics.
Now your post Volt.
Yes I am well aware of contradictions and counter-values that create ballance etc and I am aware of many things are not so
and so if one was to only to think in terms of no contradictions is as incomplete as only seeing everything in terms of contradiction,
My point still stands regarding the contradiction in your argument
as I pointed out last time and it isn't made good by referring to the fact that there are contradictions in nature etc. However I am not interested in this being a points-scoring exercise. I am
enjoying an ernest and candid exchange as I expect you are as well.
My philosophical basis is the sovereignty of the individual and the sovereignty of the state is that it belongs to its people and no one else- not its rulers, elite or anyone elses. People existed and then developed systems to aid and facilitate a more secure and prosperous life. Therefore systems are the servant of the people. Society needs leaders yes, not the anarchy of a mass of pushing and shoving individuals, but
the kind and nature of leadership is one of service just like all the other systems.
The values regarding the importance of the individual, the servant at the top not the bottem, balanced education and enlightenment of what can be seen and what can't be seen, justice based on wisdom and equality, recognition of the unique
qualities and gifts of the individual working together with those which others have to create a healthy social mosaic are all
derived from the Christain philosophy.
I have assumed from your comments that you were educated by the Soviet Union education system. I did note you said you weren't locked in.
If you are using the tools thay gave you and they are neutral
in design then you may well arive at a better conception of how society should function than those who have failed (and designed the education system you went through). If the tools are
designed with a bias then they have given you the premises of your argument and you will arrive at a predetermined conclusion
within the range of its variables.
Volt you believe very strongly in dialectic materialism and when you see the (contradiction/conflict/variance between individuals)
world at the level of the individual you want to neutralise the
dialectic relationship (that's opposing it) by the subjection of the individuals to a regime which no doubt you would want to be fair
and pro-social. I on the other hand value the variance of individuals because without it the mosaic cannot be obtained
other than through diversity not conformity. You chose the negative and I the positive- opposite polarities.
In summary can I say Volt it is me who would practice what you
believe and you would over-rule it? Contradiction, yes?
I can find another contradiction, they are evrywhere as you say.
You mentioned ina previous post about what scientists have been discovering and that it revealed how little was known
about what exists. Quite clearly what they are heading for is the realisation that what we see comes from what we cannot possibly see, just as Moses wrote thousands of years ago.
So where does that leave the dialectic material approach that only recognises what it sees and not what it cannot see.
My view is that d.m. is two dimentional in a three dimentional universe. What tangible matter is time and space made up of?
Dialectic materialism will not work it out. Tangible matter expresses joy and love, a value you have introduced but what tangible matter are they made of?
Everything tangible will be bar-coded in time, including peoples bodies with micro-chips. That's the materialists conception of reality, but our hearts and natural instincts like our sense of humour and feelings (you also raised) cannot be bar-coded.
Your list of d.m. values:
item 2- I have just answered.
item3- seeing is believing only fits the tangible side of reality.
Scientists have yet to catch up to Moses who didnt see with his tangible eyes. The Bible is not a scientific book but when it has made scientific statetments they have proved to be true- sometimes thousands of years later. Isaiah knew the earth
was round is just one of them. Science has been tampered with
just as religion. The claim that science makes a mockery of
religion is phoney. In regards religion a new world religion is in the making to go with the new global society being created, by the same elite. There is a society of scientists who reject the
main-stream view of science.
item4- speaks in the direction that there is a side of reality that we cannot comprehend with our minds, which the d.m. believer
is limited to. Item 7 confirms what I just said.
item 5- is a contradiction as is 7 to the claims of d.m. I put 5
this way- you cannot reduce or subject the three dimentional
universe down to two dimentional theory. The spiritual dimension
and the unseem dimension that is the transition between matter
through energy to the spiritual dimension cannot be visualised
by brain or imagination or intuition but only by revelation. That's is the only way Moses or Isaiah and other "saw" what they
saw. It's beyond seeing by reason or by sight so d.m. cannot
go beyond two dimensions.
item8- science is only beginning to realised that there is the greater part beyond matter as we have known it. Like sseing the tip of the iceberg and thinking that's all there is to it when in fact
the greater part is out of sight. 4% of reality we see is made up of what we have known as matter, you said was in that article.
I would go along with that.
Could it be then that four percent of d.m. conception and theory is right? Food for thought, eh.
Posted 23 June 2003 - 06:51 PM
for survival, and no need to kill anyone to survive."
<Ah, but you do misapprehend survival of the fittest. Organisms are generally subject first and formost to the laws of conservation of energy. That means that motivations must be provided to induce those organisms to engage in species-sustaining behavior. In other words, they don't do what they do because they reason, ah, this is good for the species. They do it because it feels good, or avoid it because it hurts. Their offspring survive. Aside from which, humans haven't really been "competing" to survive for a very long time.>
In this day and age, under capitalism, you better compete for survival or else. There's no room for friendly competition. We can safely say that the dice are loaded in favor of the predator, since every kind of cooperative behavior is resisted by him...
True natural balance would allow for both competition and cooperation, perhaps the dice being loaded in the other direction if we are to survive...
Posted 24 June 2003 - 08:34 PM
Yes coming from opposite sides of the big questions and issues
we have to put up with the initial postering and adjusting position like two wrestlers shaping up before they actually
get into a hold on each other.
This initial sorting out usually involves getting a better appreciation of the other as fellow humans not as talking heads
and sorting out common understanding of expressions,
definitions etc and probably recognising those areas where
there has to be a agreement to differ and carry on.
You aren't alone in feeling the other hasn't been listening or
miffed at what is dismissed with little respect.
The selling of d.m. if I can put it that way is like pushing the proverbial up hill given that it was a centre piece of Soviet thinking
and the fact that that empire has collapsed. To suggest that it
is needed to make Russia number one (that is the focus of this thread) is rather bold. But I must admire the strength of your convictions.
d.m. is not an innocent approach to natural science or human science, it is a factor for ideology building. True it may have
been the means of understanding much about the natural world
and aided science in that field but it was sellected for ideological
reasons which included the creation of a new society that was atheistic- purely materialistic. In fact in the early days they boasted that one of the reasons they would leave the rest of the world behind was because they wouldn't be shackled by religious beliefs.
So by association and the results of history and its huge crimes against humanity, you have a big job ahead of you.
I have no big argument in its regard in the field of science other than that those who have a faith regards a creator are more likely to progress further and quicker, but as in all departments of society there are both believers and non-believers working in the same field and they should be free to do so.
When it comes to the social/political field I am naturally opposed to a scientific approach as though we are mere nuts and bolts
for three main reasons - it is a recipe for an elite to tell us what we want and it excludes democracy and accountablility.
- it reduces us to digits on a budget much as the societ system
and three it inevitably will create a dictatorship with centralised control. Recognise that from recent history.
d.m. is an international ideology tool. I don't believe it is Russian.
I know which cultural stables it fits. I don't believe it is Russian.
Can you show it is Russian? Because I advocated earlier that one of the things the Russians need is a cultural revival and shake out these foreign squaters (beliefs).
Posted 24 June 2003 - 11:00 PM
Don't mean to barge in like this, but I have a comment about culture in Russia. During the life of the Soviet Union, and I'm confident it has continued well beyond that life, the culture in Russia has been one of the deepest and best known in the world.
The top ballet troupes, the top operas, the top classical musicians, painters, and artists of all kinds would strut their stuff in the Soviet Union. The people were very culturally minded, I think to the point that the viewed sciences as more of a philosophy than a way to generate newer technology. In this regard I am speaking more of the sciences like Astronomy, Mathematics, Physics, etc.
I sure hope that hasn't changed.
Posted 25 June 2003 - 02:16 AM
I sure hope that hasn't changed.>
I don't think there's much room for that under capitalism. They probably watching now American sitcoms and talkshows...
Posted 25 June 2003 - 02:24 AM
Whatever joke you were aiming for, you missed.
1. The Russians have been too cultural too long to be very interested in boring TV about others. I'm not negating the influence of American TV, but from what I've heard in Europe, British TV is far superior.
I'm sure they have access to many different countries on the boob tube. I'm also fairly certain that the still spend a lot of their time in social dealings, e.g., The theater, the movies, concerts, fairs, etc.
2. They aren't exactly crashing down the doors of the New York Stock Exchange to spend all their money. They still have many festiges of the old Soviet government in place, and from what I understand, they are trying very hard to avoid the pitfalls of a more capitalistic system that have plagued current capitalistic systems.
Posted 25 June 2003 - 06:37 PM
<1. The Russians have been too cultural too long to be very interested in boring TV about others. I'm not negating the influence of American TV, but from what I've heard in Europe, British TV is far superior.>
That's why we propose the BBC as a model of an *independent* media (see original posting of this thread).
<I'm sure they have access to many different countries on the boob tube. I'm also fairly certain that the still spend a lot of their time in social dealings, e.g., The theater, the movies, concerts, fairs, etc.>
Don't understimate the power of globalized trash media to undermine culture, and so break peoples' identities.
<2. They aren't exactly crashing down the doors of the New York Stock Exchange to spend all their money. They still have many festiges of the old Soviet government in place, and from what I understand, they are trying very hard to avoid the pitfalls of a more capitalistic system that have plagued current capitalistic systems. >
New sitcoms try to find Russia's elusive funny bone
MOSCOW (AP) - When this country's first sitcoms set off in search of the elusive Russian funny bone, they took along some supplies: gales of canned laughter.
It's easy to see why the creators of these two new shows thought they might need the pre-recorded guffaws: They're going where no one in Russian TV has ever gone before.
Their lavish use of that irksome American invention, the laugh track, is about all they have in common. ''Funny Business, Family Business'' and ''Cafe Strawberry'' have very different ideas about what's funny in Russia.
Liberated by the demise of stodgy Soviet TV, broadcasters have been importing shows for several years and have taken a few whacks at adapting stock formats such as the game show.
There is a Russified ''Wheel of Fortune,'' a ''Dating Game'' and a ''Name That Tune.'' One producer has an idea for a ''What's My Line?'' spinoff. Contestants would try to guess which guest is the mobster and which the honest businessman.
Late-night TV also arrived in the form of a David Letterman wannabe complete with the city-at-night backdrop, the banter with the band, the ''Top Ten'' lists and the host flinging cue cards over his shoulder.
But no one here ever has tried a series, especially one that's supposed to be funny. A lot of people think it's a radical, even doomed, idea. ''No one believes they can pull it off,'' said Inga Ugolnikova at TV Park, a sort of Russian TV Guide.
For one thing, Russian audiences might not accept low-budget homemade shows after the rich diet of glossy imports they've been enjoying.
For another, no one's quite sure what makes Russians laugh anymore.
In Soviet times, funny was easy: You mocked the system, its foibles and failures. The trick was to be sly, to use metaphors or hints. ''It was the humor of a totalitarian regime,'' says ''Cafe Strawberry'' director Yuri Belinky.
Things aren't so simple now.
On the set of ''Cafe Strawberry,'' everyone's in summer clothes, despite the snow and sub-zero weather outside sprawling Mosfilm studios.
The creators of ''Cafe Strawberry,'' a slick place on a cobblestoned plaza with a tinkling cherub fountain, seem to think the Russian funny bone can now be found in the vicinity of, say, Spain or Italy.
The improbable setting is a dead giveaway. When it comes to gritty, real-life Russia, this show's creators are not amused.
''We agreed at the outset: No politics. None. No huge social problems,'' Belenky says.
Each half-hour episode is a generic comedy of errors in which the cafe's proprietors and their friends, neighbors or patrons get hopelessly entangled in a mixup or misunderstanding.
''Funny Business, Family Business'' frlohcenters on a middle-class family trying to get by in today's changing, corrupt and often just plain crazy Russia.
Posted 25 June 2003 - 08:34 PM
The collasping Soviet system which couldn't pay the U.S. banks
were bailed out by the the US banks creating more debt of the backs of the US taxpyer to give the Societs so they could honor their debt in exchange for opening the pantry so the US banker could extract some of the choice goodies. Who paid and got nothing- the US taxpayer. Who lost the resources thatbelonged to future Russian generations/who didn't avoided the pitfalls of the capitalist system- the Russians. Who won- boring!
Famour Russian culture is still famous, thanks The Beat, but I would be more interested in the thinktank nursuries called
Gulags where many of the brightest thinkers and writer swopped notes. A whole generation has perhaps been lost can anyone
bring us up to date on that lost treasure?
Come back Volt. Move on to what you think dialectic materialism has to offer it obviously has some merit. What outcomes can we
expect from its good side?
Posted 25 June 2003 - 11:41 PM
Our banks have been loaning, and forgiving loans, to other countries for years. Yet, we aren't broke. I don't see a thrid world country outside my window.
I realize that what they do, what they did, is/was wrong. But why are we still the most powerful?
They have GIVEN away billions, perhaps trillions, of our tax dollars and yet, we're still number one.
Let's see if you can figure that out. Obviously the banks have.
Posted 26 June 2003 - 09:37 AM
One of the arguments put forward for setting up of the Fed. Reserve was that it would prevent the possibility of a serious
financial crash. Twenty years later, hello, all fall down.
Little wonder it was postulated that is was caused by sun spots
to keep the blame well away from man.
You may feel bulletproof taxpayer or not but
when the bank writes off bad debts it writes it off the taxes it would otherwise pay leaving more burdon on you again.
The principle is never paid by your Gov just the interest. Eventually the interest burdon becomes larger than the U.S.
economy, after bleeding the rest of the world to stay on top,
is capable of producing a surplus.
My understanding is that five out of the eight banking corporations that own the Fed are actually European who have there own new currency which no doubt they would like to see
a world centre-piece some day soon. So it would be interesting to check out Fort Knox to see firstly how much gold there is remaining and secondly whose title deeds are attached.
With a debt money system the money supply has to keep expanding in order for debts to be paid otherwise it all crashes.
Once the U.S. has reached the limit of what bleeding the rest of
the world affords where next do they turn- space purchance
there is a civilisation out there some where to exploit? The
European Union is growing nations, accumulating mass. The U.S. is growing enemies and the likes of Bush and his no limit war budget which you and your children will carry is King Conute
Even extending the fantacies of futures and options to new suffisticated obsurdities on top of the banks computer figures only buys time. The real economies of the world and the unused resourses are merely their fractional reserve but when they effectively are legally owned many times over by those who hold the pieces of paper the bubble will burst as soon as several claimants arrive at the same time. Prices have to be controlled
to protect the huge derivatives market to protect the banking system, so "?nvestment" has to happen and failing that- war.
Take Japan, when they reached 600 yen unsecured to one
yen secured, it effectively collapsed and because if is falsely proped up it isn't recovering. dealing to symptims is not the same as dealing with causes.
Where does Alan Greenspan go once he gets interest rates down to zero to try and re-spark your economy, negative interest rates-
pay people to borrow?
It has taken the North Korea shakedown by the U.S. to justify Japans return to war industry. So war and the threat of war are once again part of the false propping up of a sick system.
Check out the fineprint behind the fed, state and council debt.
Banking is a business, not a charity. You will find that as a last resort private property is legally held by someone else besides you.
I suggest you also check out the Biodiversity Treaty and their plans for the real estate of the U.S. Where you happen to live
right now may be where it has been designated for animals
to roam as in the wild.
Depressions like wars are the best means for major changes to
civilisations, everyone moves quickly where they directed and no
one asks questions and a new world always begins. So don't think that certain persons at the top as more interested than us
regards keeping the old systems going.
There are only two major hurdles to a one world government.
They are Islam and the Constitution of the U.S. as it sits in the
hearts and minds of the people. The written one can be and is being ravaged. Where is the most forced changes going on
all from one very controvercial event on Sept 11?
When the U.S. has finished setting up Greater Israel (roadmap +)and Britain is moved across to the Euro reread this post because I would suggest that a unipolar world will then be surplus to requirements and the quickest way to totally change the U.S. is to collapse (stop propping up) its dollar.
But this won't make Russia number one should it happen although they mighten't feel so bad with their lot.
Posted 26 June 2003 - 10:55 PM
Some add ons:
President Nixon took us off of the Gold Standard in (my gray matter doesn't function like it did, so excuse me) 1970, or so. There was a big TO-DO about it, but we went forward.
Also, you are absolutely right when you say that Depression changes nations. There's nothing like being poor and destitute to get one moving in a particular direction. And if the government says "Go left," we will go left, if for no other reason than the fact that our neighbor is going left.
What we need to help all world economies grow, and grow out of this sickly cyclical circle of sickness (say that ten times real fast) is to have everyone so worried about their children's education, their past due credit card bill, car payment, house payment and keeping up with the Akhmeds, that they won't have time to worry about blowing themselves up for "The Cause."
This is also valid for South America, Africa and the greater part of Asia. If they have wealth, well, ..... we have this brand, new, snazzy thingamabob that is sure to go twice as fast as the thingamajig that their neighbor bought just last week.
Posted 27 June 2003 - 04:22 AM
Posted 27 June 2003 - 04:36 AM
A better capitalistic ploy I haven't seen in a long time. Masterfully done!!!
And Putin deserves all the credit. The ex-chief of the KGB has demonstrated that he is a world-class diplomat as well.
Posted 27 June 2003 - 08:44 AM
They then leaned on OPEC and since all OPEC customers couldn't buy oil without dollars there was a big demain for dollars- all those over-printed little bastards which had no parents (gold).
Soon soaked up the surplus and for good measure the price was manipulated up, the Arabs got the blame. The price-rise (manufactured oil shock-crisis) served as a double wammie since it effectively meant that the U.S. was also exporting its inflation into every other economy importing OPEC oil.
The result of the inflation problems through the seventies meant
that governments become over-burdoned with public debt
setting the world up for debt for equity swaps. Russia and Argentina could tell us all about that. Today the plunder still goes on, out of the economies you suggest, The Beat, should be helped
into the multi-nationals whom often carry bigger debts to international bankers than many countires. Little wonder they
One other outcome of the OPEC contract, now expired which will
have some relation to the Iraq invasion, is that the pool of oil dollars was so great that it was able to be used on the high return short term loans through merchant bankers that went to
the build up of Israeli forces that put them into the upper class
as a world military power.
Shows what can achieved when player at the top put their minds to it. Just think if they cared about mankind the world could
become a nice place to live in a short period of time.
Posted 28 June 2003 - 06:28 PM
Passionate due to love of one's nation and unpleasant by criticism unacceptable by one. i believe this thread is to provide suggestions of making russia, or even the world, a better place for people to live, play, experience life.
without finding the root of the problem, the problem cannot be solved. it will accumulate, simple as that. so what is the root of the problem?
let's us take a good look of the suggestions provided.
donquijote gave very good system ,eg curitiba, swiss democracy, scandinavian model, mondragon cooperatives. these are fine examples to better our lifes. BUT, why arent it being implemented across the globe? let ask ourselves this question. why isnt it adapted by the rest of the world? is it due to ignorance or acceptance by governments? or is it too idealisitic like communism and confuciusnism? the main point here is who created and controlled governments and ideas and systems. humans.
so, here we see that humans are the creator and controller. where do the problems lie? i shall not elaborate as it's blatantly clear for every one to see.
if we cannot reached a compromise and common understanding for the better in a small scale. how can it be achieve in the bigger scale?
i shall my view with volt and mach. you dont pluck the root , you cant get the plant out. otherwise, it will only be fanciful dreams and ideas.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users