Mike wrote:
Really

"Talk doesn't cook rice."

Afghan and Chinese presidents sign trade agreements...

Mr Hu also said both countries would "actively strike at terrorism, separatism and religious extremism".

Mr Karzai vowed to guarantee the safety of Chinese companies and personnel.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8584331.stm
www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/04/us-ch...dUSTRE79324R20111004

dogsmilk wrote: To make it easier to get the gist.
Plus I don't fancy typing several paragraphs of philosophical debate about sentience
Did you know that such aspects can be educated in or out of a person too?

Thats a fair and accurate response.
It'll take some time to dig it up, check the 'fknnews'
www.fknnewz.com/

His whole intent was to show how pointless it was to try and create a decent political party.
He succeeded there alright
Daft thing to say really, especially considering I've never said vote tory
I'm afraid there is no answer other than to go out and kill some key people.

If people get poor enough and have enough welfare services removed then they do indeed start dying you know.
You don't think the likes of Malthus and Erlich didn't know that?

Also what makes you think the labour MP's and the libdems aren't also ideological fanatics? I actually see no difference at all.
You can add the BNP, and UKIP to that list too and yes including nigel farrage.

Could and perhaps should have been a good thread this...in a sense I spose tiz but very abstracted from the op no?

andyh wrote:
Fair enough

I'd say they are to a significant degree.


Might check it out, ta.

But it's the same kind of logic - just wait and something will will happen. Somehow, for some reason, because of someone else. Seriously - what do you imagine will happen? Because history tells us social change only ever occurred because people fought for it.
If you killed some key people, they would simply be replaced by some other fresh-faced public school boys. The people don't really matter - it's the system and ideology that drives it that does. Though who wouldn't like to see Cameron torn apart by wild horses?

Well yeah. Though I'd say Labour are kinda less fanatical as they adhere to a slightly less fundamentalist view of the neoi-liberalism the Tories do. It's a sort of good cop, bad cop routine.
But do you see any familiarity in this notion that poor people have simply failed to get ahead because they're stupid and it's their own fault for not doing so?

"The structural deficit is an abstract economic concept that cannot be observed with certainty"
Davey Stock Brokers, "Ireland and the Fiscal Compact"

knobmeup wrote:
Well it certainly hasn't gone the way I'd intended.

But anyone is welcome to explain how this responsible government some people seem to believe is possible is supposed to work. Myself, I think it's a utopian fantasy.

dogsmilk wrote:
Don't most people whether in government or not serve their own interest...Just a Thought.

dogsmilk wrote: Be warned, a sense of humour is deffo required whenever watching Deek.
Pinch of salt n all that, he's kind of well...hard hitting I suppose is the word.
The landless peasants party was what he setup to run with himself.
I'm still impressed with 57 votes actually
Things always change, sometimes for the better, sometimes not but generally speaking I have faith humanity will evolve, just not in a month or two is all
As for the key people, put it this way, if you got rid of someone who can be replaced then they're not key people are they?
Good luck finding them though!

Hmmm nope, have to disagree there I see no difference between labour or tory...or ukip or bnp or libdem.
As for the word stupid it simply means ill informed. What do you think the media's job is?
Garbage in, garbage out. Simple as. 'Stupefied' 'unable to act rationally'.

The whole point to keeping power is to withhold knowledge, secrecy is actually tantamount to maintaining the current societal paradigm.

It must surely be better to live in a dictatorship.
There's no illusion with the likes of Mugabe. Everyone in Zimbabwe knows to do as your told.

In a western representative democracy you are sold the lie that you have choices and your leaders are just trying to juggle all the balls to do what's 'best' for the whole.
If it weren't for the pesky global crises, our leaders would have us in the land of milk and honey.
If it weren't for diminishing oil reserves and global warming, granny steggles wouldn't die of hypothermia.
If it weren't for the horrid terrywrists, we could live in peace.
If it weren't for nasty single mums, all kids would be polite, respectful and have a bright future.
If it weren't for global pressures, our manufacturing sector would be fine and dandy....

Always some external reason why government's hands are tied and life for the masses has to be shitter than our leaders would like....honest.

I think if we are to have government we should install Vinnie Jones as supreme dictator of Britain. Fuck all would change for the better but at least some of the total bullshit about leaders having good intentions could be dispensed with.
We'd also be able to drop the farce of voting being somehow capable of changing things.

knobmeup wrote:
Good Choice





Cheesy foreskin/knob me up/ lesley pumpshaft ...

LightGiver wrote:
Interesting observation.

I guess you could look at it in a couple of ways. So it's in the self interest of the working class to engage in class struggle to overcome those who exploit them out of their self-interest. And the only rational way to approach that is to oppose exploitation of a segment of the populace. Which is in the collective self-interest. Either you accept some people have the right to exploit others and try to become one of them or you recognise it's in your self-interest not to have exploitation and oppose that of others in a reciprocal non exploitation pact stylee.
You don't exploit my ass, I won't exploit yours.

Some people operate from a moral standpoint irrespective of their self-interest - it wasn't in Barry Horne's self-interest to hunger strike himself to death over vivisection, but he did it anyway. Some religious people sacrifice their self-interest to the will of God. Indeed, I think a lot of people feel compelled to do what they feel is just - I'm no fucking saint but I abandoned my first job in the defence industry because I decided what I was doing was immoral - but it would have been in my pure self-interest to carry on as my next step was to do the AAT and I'd probably have ended up earning lots of money - yet I'm not sorry I rejected that path. You can argue this is also self-interest as feeling guilt or shame or feeling generally pissed off with what we're doing make us feel bad and thus it's in our interest to avoid feeling that way. But it's also intrinsically human to act that way and alien to us not to - which is why we label those who can think only of themselves psychopaths and find them weird and fucked up.

I think our current society is totally incoherent. On one hand benevolence, generosity and selflessness are celebrated, on the other hand pure self-interest and the desire for vast personal wealth gained from the exploitation of others are simultaneously lauded. It's fucking crackers. No wonder mental health problems are through the roof,

dogsmilk wrote:
KInd of reminds me of the governments allowing the banks to become corrupted,and most hardworking honest people paying for their mistakes,and bankers actually still being rewarded with bonuses and the like...

indeed upside down..I think its all part of a long term agenda, especially on the mental health front as well...seeing the pharmaceutical industry makes mega bucks out of living beings suffering...

andyh wrote:
Based on what though? Change happens because people fight for it, not by some kind of abstract evolutionary force. The only 'evolution' that's going to happen on its own is some kind of social collapse followed by who knows what. If left to its own devices, the current system will simply continue until it falls apart, taking millions of people with it.

You think there's some kind of master controllers actually running everything or something? Nah. Everyone is expendable. It's the structure that people believe in that runs everything. It's not like all that conspiracy stuff where there's some evil cabal and if we just got rid of them everything would be dandy. It's a machine - churning out tomorrow's career politicians and bankers.

I agree they're not fundamentally different - the point is that it's a blag.
I also agree people are constantly bombarded with a consistent message that this is the way things are and it's inevitable that they are - and I can't blame people for believing it. It's a struggle not to.

But do you see any familiarity in this notion that poor people have simply failed to get ahead because they're stupid and it's their own fault for not doing so?

dogsmilk wrote:
THat reminds of the miners strike etc etc,thing is with all this class struggle etc the miners/arthur scargill I recall did not really care when others had not got a job or were struggling to make ends meet...I suppose there is only so much coal in the ground...

dogsmilk wrote: Based on history.
Mostly via violence.
That said technology and general human knowledge has progressed, its only a matter of time before what you and I know now becomes common knowledge and that can't be long really.
There are always key people acting in certain ways that maintain important aspects of the way things are.
You might have heard of the butterfly effect for example.
They do not need to be people who you would expect actually...
Like I said, good luck finding them

Jesus, just poor people?
Quite the contrary I believe rich people to be even more stupid imho.

andyh wrote:
Unwise yes. Unwitting no.

They're along for the ride with the rest of us.
And by holding us all back they hold themselves back.

Agreed and what I intended to say