Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

News Briefs 15-05-2008

Come fly with me.

Mercy to Rick, Kat and the Gen. of ‘68

Quote of the Day:

“L’imagination au pouvoir” (Imagination to power)

Anonymous (Although psycho-magician Alejandro Jodorowsky claims ownership…)

  1. Kudos
    [quote=red pill junkie]You wanna see a whole room of grown men & women holding a rabbit’s foot and a 4-leafed trefoil on each hand? Head to the JPL headquarters in California, on May 25th.
    [/quote]

    Conjures up a great image RPJ – wonderful work on today’s news, full of interesting links and funny asides. Still not sure whether to file your Randi line under funny or gross though… 😉

    Kind regards,
    Greg
    ——————————————-
    You monkeys only think you’re running things

    1. Thx
      Thanks skipper 🙂

      —–
      It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
      It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

      Red Pill Junkie

      1. The news is a stage
        Must agree with Greg, here, Red. You make the post itself a delight to read. The news becomes a stage. When it’s packaged like this, people come to read again.

        I’m fanatical about moderation

        Anthony North

  2. Can protests make a difference?
    1968 – 40 Years Later

    The bottom line (which is actually in the middle):

    “Now, capitalism, the world system, has benefited from every upsurge against it. If we look at the 1830, 1848, the Paris Commune, even the Russian revolution has strengthened the world capitalist system. So May ’68, like other events, has also worked to strengthen the capitalist system or, as Regis Debray put it, to “Americanize” French capitalism.”

    As I implied on Monday… Marx’s intellectual dissection was twisted and used against the workers. Emotional rants are nothing more than a short-lived escape, similar to the effect of abusing drugs. And the spiritual route of knowing what you truly value, and stubbornly living by those values, really brings the roof down on you. Even Orwell’s 1984 has become more a blueprint than a warning to be heeded.

    K

    1. It’s not enough.
      As the Marx article stated, “Das Kapital” was intended to be descriptive, NOT prescriptive as many people several decades later found out—the hard way.

      I suppose it all comes to values. Human values.

      Without them, even the most well-thought ideology or logical stratagem becomes perverted.

      —–
      It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
      It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

      Red Pill Junkie

      1. predictive
        I thought Das Kapital was supposed to be predictive as well.

        And the problem with the Marxist approach is that even well meaning people, like Castro for example, have failed to make the world better for the oppressed masses. It has led to oppression and tyranny. Out of the well intentioned reformers arises a new class of dictators. Every time. Every stinking time.

        Other times, the theory has been abused by professional revolutionaries, in business for themselves. Lenin, Mao, and others. Then it has led oppression because people like Lenin and Mao wanted to do that in the first place.

        So what is there about this theory that still makes many people believe it is worthwhile? I think it is basically sentimental.

        —-
        if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)

        1. Marxism
          The sentiments of Marxism are valid in many ways, but we must remember Das Kapital was not a work in its own right, but an argument against Smith’s Wealth of Nations, which devised modern capitalism.
          In his work, Marx made three fundamental errors. First of all, he defined his theory through a dialectical interpretation of history. This presumes that each new wave of civilisation is better than the previous. This is bunkum – they all hold the same old problems, but in new clothes.
          Second, he was too specialised, infatuated with economics – which left other areas of society/culture unaddressed and chaotic.
          Third, thinking that a dictatorship could be temporary, and eventually dissolve into a classless society, showed the most incredible naivety. Because of this failure, the world has never, yet, seen a communist society in action. It never gets to the final stage.

          Wise people usually begin as stupid ones

          Anthony North

          1. 3 good points there, Anthony
            I’m definitely no fan of Marx, but I do acknowledge he pointed out many things that were wrong in his society.

            Another problem is that the people who applied his work as the foundation of their utopia-turned-distopia, is that they regarded his books as infallible dogma. Hence they turned Marxism into a fundamentalism religion.

            I’m sick of people telling me it’s either capitalism or socialism. Can’t there be a third alternative?
            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          2. Socio-Capitalism
            I’ve thought for a long time that there could be a valid middle way in what I’d call socio-capitalism, an acceptance of basic capitalist mechanisms for financing the State, but with an ethic of thrift and communal responsibility to others.
            Of course, the latter cannot come through politics, for it would have to be imposed, which is wrong in a free society. But it could come from an evolution of the caring side of the religious ethic. The problem comes in how do we interpret this in a secular society?
            I suppose it can only come through a new ‘story’ about ourselves, and a new philosophy showing true connections between us below our individuality.

            It’s late for me. Nite, nite

            Anthony North

          3. unaddressed
            >>Second, he was too specialised, infatuated with economics – which left other areas of society/culture unaddressed and chaotic.

            He planned to write six more volumns. If memory serves, he was distracted by lawsuits, and didn’t have time to write the other six before he died.

          4. never yet
            It is true, the world has never yet seen a communist society in action. It because of what you say, there has not yet been a classless society.

            The problem is, there never will be a classless society. I wish there could be one. I am not a Marxist.

            I am an Egalitarian – I am equal to the Pope, the Queen of Canada, the President of the USA. Also I am equal to the guy, or woman or child, who live in the street or in the ditch next to the street.

            On either side of privilege, I am equally qualified with education or good fortune. Christians say “there, but for the grace of God, go I”. I am sure that Bhuddists have a way of saying the same thing.

            I think Marx’s predictive part, or the interpretaions of his writings, assumed that human nature would change. It hasn’t changed in several thousand years, why would it change now?

            And that goes both for the leaders, who are suddenly enlightened, and also for the followers, who are suddenly less greedy and selfish.

            —-
            if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)

          5. Why?
            [quote]It hasn’t changed in several thousand years, why would it change now?[/quote]

            I don’t know. Perhaps because if it doesn’t change FAST in the next decades, the human race might cease to be.

            How the change could come, I have no idea. Perhaps someone could invent an “empathor” that would let you experience the emotions of another person or being. Imagine what would happen to a rapist if he were to experience the pain and anguish his actions had caused to his victims. Would a hunter ever lift a rifle if he were to experience the fright of a deer at the moment of death?

            (Yeah I know, I’m getting my ideas from movies like “Powder”)

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          6. Higher Stakes
            I can’t help but feel things must change. We can’t continue to dissolve and reform structures indefinately while our material power grows and grows.

            As to alternatives, it’s a while since I’ve been, but I remember some being outlined here, Anxiety Culture , alongside plenty of facts to make your teeth grind.

            As to us pursuing change, I’m not sure I can see it without the intervention of cataclysm or a dictator (you know, one of those mythical friendly ones).

            Matt

          7. progress
            Occasionally there is progress in the revolution business. Consider the Eastern European countries, where the old ruling class just gave up. Except for Ceauşescu, who had to be persuaded somewhat forcefully. But even in Romania, nothing much was smashed like in more traditional revolutions.

            Restructuring as such is not a bad thing. It is just the violence that often goes along with it that I find objectionable.

            None of the structures or systems humans have used for their societies are perfect. External conditions change. So if we stick with one structure too long, it will fail more catastrophically.

            I don’t know what to do about these problems on the economic side. For the governmental side, I do have some suggestions, most of which are not new. Here they are:

            – have a formal constitution

            – have a strong constitutional court that anybody can call upon, not just government entities.

            – most laws should be subject to sunset provisions. To be reviewed every so many years. There should be a default time period for this, in your constitution.

            – the entire constitution should be reviewed periodically, say every 50 years. A built-in revolution if you want. There will be revolutionary tendencies anyway, we might as well plan for it.

            —-
            It is not how fast you go, it’s who gets there first.

          8. Marx, etc
            True, Marx never finished his writing, but it was summarised by Engels after his death. He really WAS infatuated by economic means.
            For the record I, too, don’t think a true communist state can exist. We will always have people who express an urge to hold power. That said, I disagree that we cannot, and have not, changed. But we’ve been over that recently, so I see no point in resurrecting the debate again so soon.
            As for bloodless revolutions, I don’t believe they exist. Yes, they appear to, but they leave all the petty officials in place – and they wait …

            Reality, like time, is relative to the observer

            Anthony North

          9. bloodless
            Yes you are right when you say:

            As for bloodless revolutions, I don’t believe they exist. Yes, they appear to, but they leave all the petty officials in place – and they wait …

            these events are not complete revolutions.

            There are the lower levels of government, and perhaps more importantly, the teachers. Especially the grade school teachers, who indoctrinate children from a young age.

            These are real problems with the bloodless revolutions – they do not throw out all that was bad with the precious system.

            But how about a periodic review of the system, and a periodic change on some schedule? We know that internal and external conditions will force change on us. So why not institutionalize that to another level?

            We already have that idea with elections. Why not another level? A health check on our system, if you want to look at it another way. Instead of waiting until we are really sick.

            —-
            if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)

          10. Independents
            I’m not sure that tinkering with existing democratic systems is wise. Rather, we should be looking at political parties rather than the system. THEY are the cause of most of the trouble.
            My answer would be to encourage and elect Indepdendent Parliamentarians to whittle away at the power of the party – all parties.

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

          11. yes interesting
            True, political parties are a big part of the problem. They are just private clubs, not everyone can join and have any influence.

            I tried to do something, by persuasion, in a small party locally. But that party is dominated by fanatics. And the smaller local party organizations use it to party – as in drink and live music.

            Big parties are like big governments, big companies, big labor unions. They are eventually dominated by big ego, of a few people or families. Aristocrats all over.

            Voting for intelligent independents can be a good way to counter that.

            On the other hand, would it not be useful to reverse the encrustation of old structures, that no longer deal with present problems?

            —-
            if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)

          12. Old structures
            Blair did that in Britain. He banned hereditary peers from the House of Lords and resolved to change the upper chamber.
            Now, okay, privilege is not the ‘in thing’ nowadays – aristocrats are a big no no. But the fact was, the Upper House was a marvellous think tank, full of thousands of years of experience in all walks of life, and seemed to capture the mood of the public when in conflict with the politicians in the other chamber.
            Since the change, it is inept, and we have a one house parliament. Not a good idea.

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

          13. mix
            Yes anthonynorth, I do realize that mixing old ideas with new ideas is often a good thing.

            There is the classic structure of government with the 3 parts. Parliament, Government, Judiciary. All independent and checking each other. That concept came from England, and was formalized in the US.

            The government and parliament(s) are elected, the judiciary is not.

            Perhaps we need a fourth entity, a counsel of experts on various technical issues. This entity could have a strong voice, advising the elected bodies. Of course a hard question is – how do we pick the experts.

            But back to one of your points of objection: yes I do think we should tinker with existing democracies. They do not work perfectly, they can be improved. We should try. Carefully.

            —-
            if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)

          14. How
            [quote]Of course a hard question is – how do we pick the experts.[/quote]

            Based on their merits, and picked by their own peers, I think.

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          15. Tinkering
            The problem with tinkering too much is, who does the tinkering, and what is their motive? We’ve seen a lot of it in the UK recently, and it all ended up bad.
            One of those bits of tinkering was with the Civil Service – a permanent appointed body of administrators and experts who were totally non-political and served whatever Party were in government.
            Thatcher began the process of whittling away at them, replacing top Civil Servants with government appointees. Blair went further.
            That WAS our group of experts, and gave continuity to the country. Now, they’re just powerless clerks.
            The sit com, Yes Minister, was all about the antagonisms between a Parliamentarian and senior Civil Servant – if you’ve seen it, and look beyond the humour, you can see how it worked.

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

          16. yes prime minister
            indeed I did see many of the episodes of “Yes Minister” and “Yes Prime Minister”.

            It was a delightful and funny criticism of how most governments work, not just the UK.

            Continuity is very important. And a lot of the newly elected officials are rank amateurs. A lot of newly born kings or queens are rank amateurs.

            I am just proposing that an independent body of counselors, similar to the House of Lords, but based on expertise instead of family relations, could help.

            Note that I suggested to review the constitution every 50 years or so. A little sooner than when there will be a revolution, to cut down on the violence. And to remind people that things will change, inevitably.

            —-
            if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)

          17. indoctrinating children
            >>There are the lower levels of government, and perhaps more importantly, the teachers. Especially the grade school teachers, who indoctrinate children from a young age.

            Quote from Spiritual balance, not the nation-states’ notion of ‘freedom’, is the goal of American Indian people:

            “Nation-states have a vested interest in educating their citizens to develop loyalties and commitments to the central government. Of all of the methods used to accomplish this, formal education is the most critical. Leaders like to believe their citizens are in agreement with the cultural and political rules of the nation, and therefore most citizens will not resist education that interprets history and supports the culture of that nation.”

            Of course, the educational system isn’t the only method of indoctrination. The ubiquitous boob-tube babysitter also plays its part. To paraphrase Gravediggers of the world unite!:

            With television providing the seductively addictive medium for the cult of consumerism, far too many of us have been sucked into the spiritually comatose state of blind pursuit of a lifestyle of ‘things’, with rarely a thought about the effect this is having on the rest of Earth’s sentient beings.

            K

          18. quite true and relevant
            It is quite true and relevant that native north american societies have been subjugated by means of educating small children with different ideas.

            However that does not mean that the old ideas, of the Native cultures are any better. In Canada, we call them the First Nations. They deserve the respect that anyone does, but some of their cultural ideas really suck. They have to involve in discussion just like the rest of us.

            If they only insist on their original ideas, with the reasoning that these ideas were the law of the land in 1440 AD, that is not a very good argument.

            I think we should move towards a more just, more tolerant, society. Not move backwards, to what romantics make of less just, less tolerant societies from the past.

            —-
            if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)

          19. Take a pause
            This conversation and what’s beng said is truly brilliant, but… for those of you who hadn’s already done so, I STRONGLY recommend you to watch the newest video Greg has linked at the top of the TDG page.

            Then come back to these ideas we’re been proposing, and try to see them in a new light. Maybe the solution lies in what that Dr. lady says in the video.

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          20. Insisting on old ideas?
            >>…that does not mean that the old ideas, of the Native cultures are any better. …If they only insist on their original ideas, with the reasoning that these ideas were the law of the land in 1440 AD, that is not a very good argument.

            From the article:

            “Still, when indigenous communities have some control over education, their children do not graduate at high rates and generally are not well prepared for college. We have not yet learned how to create successful, culturally supportive education programs in which the history, culture and well-being of the indigenous communities are the central goals.”

            And…
            “The challenge for the future is not in returning to traditionalism and rejection of nation-states. Rather, indigenous nations may be better served by establishing cultural agreements and differences democratically and consensually with nation-states and the international community, while developing economic self-sufficiency in ways that support greater cultural and political realization of indigenous ways of life.”

            ‘Indian Country’ is the biggest website ‘by Indians, for Indians’ — and it sure doesn’t sound like they’re insisting on old ideas from 1440 to me. I’d say they’re doing a pretty good job of looking at their own shortcomings, and trying to find new ways of overcoming them.

            As for their tradition of maintaining a balance with nature, isn’t that the very thing many of us are now bemoaning our loss of?

            K

          21. balance with nature
            Well ok, I should be talking to some of the native people here in my neighborhood about what they want. There are quite a few here, they just don’t interact much, I don’t know why. I should go find them.

            But the “balance with nature” stuff that you want – I think that is a myth, from our modern point of view. The wise and noble savages, and all that.

            A central point is the stable population count in these stone age societies. That is not because of a balance with nature, it is because of high infant mortality.

            —-
            if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)

          22. Why
            >>Well ok, I should be talking to some of the native people here in my neighborhood about what they want. There are quite a few here, they just don’t interact much, I don’t know why.

            Here’s one reason — out of the multitude.

            K

          23. I live
            I live in a small city of about 140,000 people. There are First Nation people in this area, we have agriculture, manufacturing, small trade, you name it.

            We DO NOT keep the First Nation people locked up on reservations here. They are free to go anywhere they want.

            Also, where ever I go, I will talk to anyone.

            But I am sure, Kat, that you are not accusing me of neglecting the health care of children.

            —-
            if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)

          24. why they tend not to interact
            >>But I am sure, Kat, that you are not accusing me of neglecting the health care of children.

            No, I certainly am NOT accusing you of that, or anything else.

            The article I linked is about the discovery of 28 mass graves of First Nation children who were forced to go to state schools many decades ago.

            This aspect of their history is one of the many reasons why First Nation peoples tend not to interact with non-natives.

            K

          25. indeed
            I did read the article. These sorts of things are consistent with my conviction that innocent, well behaved people actually do have a reason to be afraid of governments. Even well behaved, civil governments, not just totalitarian ones.

            Also, perhaps I am mistaken in saying that “they”, the First Nation people, don’t talk to me. In all the places I have lived in North America there has been a mix of different looking people. Almost certainly, a few of them are First Nation people, they just don’t make a point of it. You can’t really tell by looking at their faces. Most people are mixed race, even if they don’t know it.

            One thing I don’t understand is why many of the First Nation people stay on reservation, living on government handouts. And not living particularly well. There is nobody keeping them there, these places are not jails or refugee camps. Anybody can leave.

            —-
            if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)

          26. Attachment
            Maybe because they feel a spiritual attachment with their land, and they teach about that attachment to their children. That’s why they find it hard to leave the place of their ancesters; they might feel they belong there.

            A simmilar case might be found among the palestinians…

            It would be great if a First-Nation person would provide us with input about this topic. We at TDG need to grow more to include more cultural diversity.

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          27. Spiritual differences
            I don’t know whether this would explain it, but there may be a vital spiritual difference. Modern people come from a definite religious impulse based upon society. Native American spirituality is based upon nature, still within the pre-societal religious expression.

            Reality, like time, is relative to the observer

            Anthony North

          28. Sunset Provisions
            Hi earthling,

            I have pondered the idea of improvements/revisions of the US Constitution and I think that the idea of sunsets built into all laws would be a real breakthrough. What is missing now is that law and civics cannot be taught in school anymore. It is too complicated and mongrelized. My idea would be to have a “100 Rule”. This Amendment would force a sunset on all legislation (and the ponderous regulations derived from it) in, say, ten years. After that time only 100 laws would be allowed on the books and these laws would have to be debated from scratch every decade or so (serially, to even out the debate). Additionally, each of the 100 would have to be stated in no more than, say, 50 words. The fundamental idea which is completely missing today is that children could learn the 100 in school and actually manage to understand them. As society progresses, we would anguish over some new problem and codify its resolution by deciding what other issue can now quietly be dropped off the list. (Spitting on sidewalks, anyone?)

          29. notwithstanding
            I like the idea of constitutions being kept alive.

            In Canada, we have a weak constitution, that even includes a feature for governments to ignore said constitution. All a province has to do is say a law is passed “now withstanding” the constitution. In other words, a province can say, we know it is unconstitutional, but we don’t care.

            —-
            if everything is under control, you are not going fast enough (Mario Andretti)

            it’s not how fast you go, it’s who gets there first

  3. Blort
    I’m with the chorus — your style mints smiles, Red Pill Junkie!

    Re: jetpacks — waaay cool, those jet-powered wings are the real deal. Now just add a solid-fuel rocket motor for takeoffs and…as the Rocketeer said after his first flight, “I Liike it!!”

    Re: Mr. Fort — heh heh, so glad he’s returning to public consciousness (how about Philip Seymour Hoffman assaying another biopic?) The link, btw, leads to one of the better reviews I’ve ever read. Damian Thompson manages to sum up Fort and his work in one page of crisp, droll prose that’s truly worth reading. Great find.

    Awesome TDG Online Store idea: I’ll buy a T-shirt that says “May You Live In Fortean Times” or “May Your Grail Be Filled Today”…I’ll even design ’em.

    1. Gracias
      Thanks to all you guys who enjoyed the newslinks. After all, I have really good mentors to immitate 🙂

      The T-shirt ideas is definitely worth considering. I wouldn’t mind shouting to the world that I’m a Grailer—and damn proud of it!

      —–
      It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
      It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

      Red Pill Junkie

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal