It's funny how the position for boot-licking is so close to the one used for curb-stomping.

Main Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - Honey

Quote from: Cain on January 12, 2013, 11:37:53 AM
So, let's consider...

According to the MLists,

Quote(1) Politics is about struggle between economic classes. The state acts in the interest of the capitalist class as a whole, and arbitrates differences among 'fractions' of capital;

(2) Political ideas (except Marxism-Leninism) are 'ideologies' designed to rationalise class rule;

(3) The masses acquiesce because of 'false consciousness' associated with submission to a dominant or 'hegemonic' ideology.

And according to the PCTists...

Quote(1) Politics is about the struggle between interest groups. The state responds to the pressure of organised interest groups, typically tight coalitions of producer groups. Logrolling between these groups produces an outcome which benefits them collectively at the expense of taxpayers and consumers;

(2) Political ideas (except free-market ideas) are ideologies designed to rationalise policies serving various interest groups;

(3) Voters acquiesce because of 'rational ignorance' which leads them to take little interest in politics and makes them easily subject to manipulation by political interests.

As a consequence:

QuoteIf ideas do not matter, free speech is at best a luxury and at worst a distraction. Even if speech is not actually suppressed, it is debased. When political debate is seen as a charade by its participants, it naturally becomes one. Furthermore, since the system cannot be changed by reason, some form of 'short sharp shock' is required. The result is a cult of ruthlessness (the catchphrase here is 'tough decisions'). Since opposition to one's policies is interpreted as a sign that interest groups are being hurt, it may be taken as evidence of correctness. The correct response is not to persuade one's opponents, but to override them.

And people say I'm strange for considering Neocons the last Leninists.  No, everyone else is for not.

Hi Cain,

I don't think it strange.

Karl Marx wrote: 'Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it." ("Die Philosophen haben die Welt nur verschieden interpretiert; es kommt aber darauf an, sie zu verändern").

I think the Neocons have been very successful in their attempts to change the world.  The last three or four decades have changed the way we look at things.  It's almost a cliche but look at Ronald Reagan.  In today's climate, he would be considered a liberal (almost). 

Maybe I'm naive but I'm not so sure that "since the system cannot be changed by reason ..."

QuoteRobert Dahl has described ways government­s use influence:

• Rational Persuasion­, the nicest form of influence, means telling the truth & explaining why someone should do something, like your doctor convincing you to stop smoking.
• Manipulati­ve persuasion­, a notch lower, means lying or misleading to get someone to do something.
• Inducement still lower, means offering rewards or punishment­s to get someone to do something, i.e. like bribery.
• Power threatens severe punishment­, such as jail or loss of job.
• Coercion is power with no way out; you have to do it.
• Physical force – is backing up coercion with use or threat of bodily harm.

"Thus, we can tell which government­s are best; the ones that use influence at the higher end of the scale. The worst use the unpleasant forms of influence at the lower end."
-Robert A. Dahl

The United States no longer even pretends to use Rational Persuasion.  However I'm still not convinced that "the system cannot be changed by reason ..." 
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 13, 2013, 07:24:47 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 13, 2013, 07:03:40 PM
Quote from: deadfong on January 13, 2013, 03:42:06 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 12, 2013, 07:11:12 AM
The sad thing is, there's more than enough wealth for every single one of us to live a comfortable middle-class lifestyle, and enough left over for some people to be rich. Just not SUPER-rich. But who actually needs to be super-rich? What's the benefit?

I wouldn't mind the super-rich if they actually did something useful or interesting with their money, even if all they did was become stereotypical James Bond villains with death rays and secret bases in extinct volcanos.  Or maybe especially if that's what they did.  But another mansion, another yacht... it's all very boring and pointless.

I would still mind them, because resources are finite and every person who is super-rich is keeping thousands (if not millions) of others in poverty.

Troof! Know what makes not give a passing fuck when Ozzy's mansion gets robbed? "I worked hard for my millions". It's misdirection. how hard they worked is irrelevant. It does not justify the fact that every penny they collect comes from the mouth of some poor starving fuck, with barely a couple of degrees of separation most of the time.

It's a global picture - X resources divided by Y population. Do I eat 99% of the pizza cos I worked the hardest? No, my family get a slice each. Multiply by 7 billion. Draw a line in the sand. Call it a hundred grand? Anyone holding onto more than that, straight to jail, assets in the pot, share it out globally at the end.

You think jail's a bit harsh? How many people starved to death for want of a slice of their pizza? I call it "indirect manslaughter" others refer to it as "Capitalism". Not Capitalism in theory - I mean actual capitalism in practice.

Part of the problem is that the type of Capitalism practiced does not increase the 'pie' - it only succeeds in ensuring that those who already have the largest 'slices' will get more & more slices.  Joseph Stiglitz calls this rent-seeking:

Quote...Even supply-side economists, who emphasize the importance of increasing productivity, should understand the benefits of attacking inequality. America's inequality does not come solely from market forces; those are at play in all advanced countries. Rather, much of the growth of income and wealth at the top in recent decades has come from what economists call rent-seeking — activities directed more at increasing the share of the pie they get rather than increasing the size of the pie itself.

Some examples: ...

I think we've reached some sortof endpoint in economic theory - between rent-seeking activities, the legal fiction 'corporation' being mistaken for individuals, lobbyists directed at increasing the share of the pie rather than the pie itself, et cetera.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on January 12, 2013, 07:27:42 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 12, 2013, 07:11:12 AM
I love this, and I want you to post it on Facebook in a format I can "share", so as to piss a multitude of people off.

I would add that if you weren't BORN with money, you'll never have money. Rags-to-riches happens occasionally, but rarely enough that it has to be considered a freak phenomenon and the result not so much of hard work and intelligence, but of incredible good luck. Consider this: If you just look at the numbers, your odds of starting working-class and EVER having a net worth over two million dollars are higher if you play the lottery than if you work hard and have a genius IQ. Yes, if you work hard and have a genius IQ, you may very well go to a good school, get a PhD, and a job that nets maybe $70-$140k/year. But in order to make much more than that, you have to work in business or finance, and have connections. Most such "connections" aren't just college connections (and if you're a poor kid, you probably won't get into a college where you'll make wealth-making connections, no matter how smart and skilled you are, because you don't already have connections, and if you do, you might make friends from rich families, but remember... you aren't "from a good family", so you aren't anyone the people who are care about "making connections" with), they're family connections. So you, poor kid, will not very likely make any great strides in making a fortune in the financial sector.

Where poor kids can really get ahead, and even become famous after a fashion, in the way that nerds contemplate fame, is in science research. In science, and in academia in general, you can be nobody and excel through hard work and brilliance. If you are a truly remarkable engineer or biochemist you might eventually top $200k/year. That's a LOT of money to a poor kid, but guess what... it doesn't put you in the ranks of the rich. Not even close. You will have enough, in a very real sense... and if the market is in an uptick, you may even invest enough to reap fat dividends from rich people screwing poor people, and leave a sizable inheritance to your kids. It might... MIGHT... even be enough to launch them from upper-middle-class to rich, if they know people and invest it well... but that's incredibly unlikely. They might put it into a retirement fund, and hopefully they followed your lead and have good degrees, and you will have elevated generations of your descendants into the middle class. But that's it.

The sad thing is, there's more than enough wealth for every single one of us to live a comfortable middle-class lifestyle, and enough left over for some people to be rich. Just not SUPER-rich. But who actually needs to be super-rich? What's the benefit?

I thing one of the main advantages of being born rich is that, from day one, you are conditioned with that sense of "entitlement" which is really just a nice way of saying "no qualms about exploiting the poor". It's almost a kind of selective sociopathy. To see most of society as servants or somehow less than human.

In the case of a poor or working class person this would be a pathology.

Again I think of Mr. Vonnegut.  I think he's a Discordian Saint?

Quote"Samaritrophia," which he said meant, "hysterical indifference to the troubles of those less fortunate than oneself."
from God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater by Kurt Vonnegut
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on January 12, 2013, 07:11:12 AM

... The sad thing is, there's more than enough wealth for every single one of us to live a comfortable middle-class lifestyle, and enough left over for some people to be rich. Just not SUPER-rich. But who actually needs to be super-rich? What's the benefit?

Hi Nigel,  I agree with much of what you've written here.  Did you ever do any kind of work in sales?  The reason why I ask is that there is a certain type of mind that is only happy when they feel they are screwing someone else.  If you are trying to sell something to a person of this mind, negotiations will most likely consist of trying to convince the person that you are not getting anything out of the deal - it's really sad.

We're just monkeys.  We haven't evolved in important ways - or maybe we have but not in self-sustaining ways although it does appear to be self-perpetuating. 
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on January 11, 2013, 08:33:19 PM
There's a certain type of person who, while residing at the bottom of the shit heap, will support the worst depredations of those on the top, even when those depredations directly fuck him/her over.  They do this because they have been sold on the idea that they are "pre-rich", that anyone can get wealthy in America™, and they don't want to fuck things up for when THEY somehow get wealthy.

They won't ever get rich, of course (and their idea of HOW to get rich is pretty nebulous, and can be summed up by the word "innovation", by people who have never had an original idea in their lives.), but that isn't what makes them losers.  What makes them losers is that they want to be rich OR poor in a system in which the rich needlessly fuck the poor.

This is Pinkdom, and all Pinks are losers by definition.

The people I want around me are the people who want to help those further down the shit heap than they are, that sometimes DO help those less fortunate than themselves.  I can even tolerate people that don't even do THAT, but at least don't deliberately piss down the heap, though I don't really consider such people "friends".

Humans are a pack-oriented species, and thus we built society.  But society has, over the last few thousand years, fallen into the hands of primates that believe that having enough bananas isn't good enough.  No, they must have ALL the bananas...And they must see the other primates starve, or the bananas just don't taste as good.

And while they may be losers on a certain scale, they aren't stupid.  No, they have managed to sell a great number of less successful losers on the "free market", the idea that if they abolish what rules DO exist to protect the poor, then the poor will all get rich...Or at least THEY will.  They all consider themselves The Survivor Type.

If they WERE The Survivor Type, of course, they'd already be rich.  The system is rigged in such a manner that there has NEVER been a better time to get rich, and it must be noted that some people DO go from poverty to wealth.  But the losers braying about the free market aren't rich, because they believe in a free market, while the people that DO get rich do so because they see the market for what it really is and deal with it accordingly.  Under no circumstances will the former group ever be rich because, in addition to being losers, they are schmucks.  Suckers.  Marks.

And while they may dream great dreams of getting rich and fucking the little guy, that's all they'll do...Dream.  Oh, and they'll do so while they're being fucked by people who actually ARE what they think they are.

Or Kill Me.


God Bless You, Mr. Good Reverend Roger.

This reminded me of a passage from Kurt Vonnegut:

QuoteI think it's terrible the way people don't share things in this country. The least a government could do, it seems to me, is to divide things up fairly among the babies. There's plenty for everybody in this country, if we'd only share more.

"And just what do you think that would do to incentive?"

You mean fright about not getting enough to eat, about not being able to pay the doctor, about not being able to give your family nice clothes, a safe, cheerful, comfortable place to live, a decent education, and a few good times? You mean shame about not knowing where the Money River is?

"The what?"

The Money River, where the wealth of the nation flows. We were born on the banks of it. We can slurp from that mighty river to our hearts' content. And we even take slurping lessons, so we can slurp more efficiently.

"Slurping lessons?"

From lawyers! From tax consultants! We're born close enough to the river to drown ourselves and the next ten generations in wealth, simply using dippers and buckets. But we still hire the experts to teach us the use of aqueducts, dams, reservoirs, siphons, bucket brigades, and the Archimedes' screw. And our teachers in turn become rich, and their children become buyers of lessons in slurping.

"It's still possible for an American to make a fortune on his own."

Sure—provided somebody tells him when he's young enough that there is a Money River, that there's nothing fair about it, that he had damn well better forget about hard work and the merit system and honesty and all that crap, and get to where the river is. 'Go where the rich and powerful are,' I'd tell him, 'and learn their ways. They can be flattered and they can be scared. Please them enormously or scare them enormously, and one moonless night they will put their fingers to their lips, warning you not to make a sound. And they will lead you through the dark to the widest, deepest river of wealth ever known to man. You'll be shown your place on the riverbank, and handed a bucket all your own. Slurp as much as you want, but try to keep the racket of your slurping down. A poor man might hear.'

From "God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater," by Kurt Vonnegut

I enjoyed reading the OP & responses to this thread!  The concept of 'Stockholm Syndrome' is very interesting to me.  I've thought of this phenomenon more & more in recent times.  Fr'instance its relationship to the global financial imbroglio.  We've seen various supposedly sovereign Countries & Governments held captive by the global financial sector.  Seemingly unaware of their kidnapped state, they bail out the same sector with no strings attached.  Ensuring the same scenario to be played out again - the only question is when?  Mussolini said "Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate & government power."  It's not really fascism though because the various Governments are clearly submissive to the financial sector.
Literate Chaotic / Re: Favorite Song Lyrics/Poetry
November 09, 2009, 11:42:15 AM
The Question Answered by William Blake

What is it men in women do require?
The lineaments of Gratified Desire.
What is it women do in men require?
The lineaments of Gratified Desire.
Literate Chaotic / Re: Favorite Song Lyrics/Poetry
November 02, 2009, 12:14:27 PM
by Kurt Vonnegut

I don't know about you,
but I practice a disorganized religion.
I belong to an unholy disorder.
We call ourselves,
"Our Lady of Perpetual Astonishment."
You may have seen us praying
for love
on sidewalks outside the better
eating establishments
in all kinds of weather.
Blow us a kiss
upon arriving or departing,
and we will climax
It can be quite a scene,
especially if it is raining
cats and dogs

Or Kill Me.

Kai?  I didn't mean people cannot read, I meant people most likely will not read what I'm posting here anyway, so why bother? 

& I did specify there is a difference between something approaching peer review & tedious pettiness (here in this thread & in others). 

This is getting tiresome for me.  I'm losing interest in this whole forum.  I'm not trying to be nasty here (god knows there's enough people here with that area of expertise), just trying to express how I feel.

I know you're familiar with Flow by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi?  I'll try to express what I sometimes feel here by using flow metaphor?  Conversation, dialogue, communication, etc. (to me) is like the element of water.  Water has different forms, freely flowing water (rivers, streams, etc), all types of wavy, jumpy water (Oceans, waterfalls, etc.), stagnant water (ponds, swamps), blocked water (dammed & pressured), forced water (made to go through conduits, etc.) ice (frozen water, etc.), snow (similar to ice,), steam (hot, moist, steamy).  All of these forms & still the same substance.  What makes them different?  Lots of things, temperature, the way the molecules are "stacked" & more.  For me the most important is the movement or motion.

Comparable (to me) to conversation, dialogue, communication, etc.  Some flow & some don't.  Some types appeal to some & some types appeal to others, & maybe this is dependant upon the individual's nature & innate preferences, etc.

I find the control quotient & OCD quality to some of the discourse here to be oppressive.  Makes me want to bolt.
Quote from: Ratatosk on July 01, 2009, 07:01:11 PM
Quote from: LMNO on July 01, 2009, 06:51:54 PM
Um...  I think you've completely sailed past the point here.

To put it plainly: My post was a mocking finger-pointing at anyone who believe that confirmation bias in such a grotesque manner no longer exists.

Bias as blatant as the OP is as strong today as it ever was, in all walks of life, including Discordianism.

I hope I made that as plain as possible.

Yes, this is the correct motorcycle... and I think Honey is riding the same one. On some topics, I find some Discordians rather dogmatic and closed minded, on other topics I find other Discordians rather dogmatic and closed minded. The difference between Discordians and the rest of the spags running around dogmatically hanging on to this or that idea... is that they can occasionally mock themselves.

... in some sense!


I agree with this, however imho, Discordians have an extra hurdle to leap because they often factor in the ever present Chaos (ie life) rather than ... .

Starting with something simple, ok?  Rigid, literalist, dogmatic thinking is NOT compatible with the ever present Chao.

Not absolutely against mind altering substances however in my experience, people addicted to anything are the most rigid, literal thinking, dogmatic people I have ever encountered.  'nuff said?

Exceptionalism.  2 different notions here:

When someone mentions a theory, concept, idea, notion (makes an off-the cuff remark) or whatever, there's the irresistible (on HERE it seems) urge for some (black sheep) to come up with sort of scenario which is the exception.  Fine & dandy.  How unusual too.  Being different just to differ.  A whole herd of black sheep (or headless dancing chickens).  NOT talking about peer review.  Talking about the kind of stuff that makes some people too anxious to even mention one goddamn sentence for fear of the .0001% scenario that will invariably bring your original thought to its knees.   :roll:  Similar to the notion of the lazy pessimist that I've mentioned before.

Exceptionalism in the historic sense:  Americans use this friggin' one to this very day.  When YOU (they) do it, it's (fill in the blanks) fr'instance, terrorism, blankism, whatever-the-hell you wanna say-ism.  HOW-THE-FUKKIN'-EVER when WE (I) do it, IT'S A (waaay) DIFFERENT STORY.  Why so?  WE (I) are/am exceptional!  :roll:   

I could say more but who even reads?  & I have go now. 

So long.
Fine sailing here!

QuoteI hope I made that as plain as possible.

Hope I did the same.
Quote from: LMNO on July 01, 2009, 01:34:18 PM
Hence, the use of what was intended to be heavy sarcasm.

Well.  Lemme put it this way.  There seems to be certain *buzz words* on this very forum (oh my!).  Start talkin' about magic (any fukkin' way you spell it) & all the blood sucking (not to mention attention whoring) ensues.  Magic is just one of the buzz words.  It is a safe subject however.

Question a neo-confederate about their Orwellian double speak, sophistry & rhetoric?  Wo ho ho!  & THIS becomes an untouchable subject.  Too fukkin' close to the American home base.

& I thought it was pretty much well understood the main purpose of the Sub Genus offshoot was to make Discordia more palatable for rednecks?   

(While I'm at IT) the obsession with the bloody idiotic internet traditions?  I thought that was for assholes who worship the internet as a god?  THAT fukkin' notion is even more stupid than the Sub fukkin' genius rednecks.

Oh & Robert Anton Wilson et al are not gods (nor do I think they set themselves up to be).  There's a difference between the writings of the Principia Discordia & the Illuminati/world-domination conspiracy jokes of the Illuminatus written (again I thought THIS was pretty much well understood?) to separate people who "get it" from the gun toting, neo-confederates, right-wing assholes et cetera (who don't).

Just call me baffled.  (Please understand I've been called a lot worse & right here on this forum as a matter of fact & easily discovered upon exploring the terrain.)

Chaos is everywhere.
Literate Chaotic / Re: Favorite Song Lyrics/Poetry
June 30, 2009, 11:54:24 PM
Where Are You Tonight? (Journey Through Dark Heat)
-Bob Dylan

There's a long-distance train rolling through the rain,
tears on the letter I write.
There's a woman I long to touch and I'm missing her so much
but she's drifting like a satellite.
There's a neon light ablaze in this green smoky haze,
laughter down on Elizabeth Street
& a lonesome bell tone in that valley of stone
where she bathed in a stream of pure heat.
Her father'd emphasize you got to be more than street-wise
but he practiced what he preached from the heart.
A full-blooded Cherokee, he predicted to me
the time & the place the trouble would start.

There's a babe in the arms of a woman in a rage
& a longtime golden-haired stripper onstage
& she winds back the clock & she turns back the page
Of a book that no one can write.
Oh, where are you tonight?

The truth was obscure, too profound and too pure,
to live it you have to explode.
In that last hour of need, we entirely agreed,
sacrifice was the code of the road.
I left town at dawn, with Marcel and St. John,
strong men belittled by doubt.
I couldn't tell her what my private thoughts were
but she had some way of finding them out.
He took dead-center aim but he missed just the same,
she was waiting, putting flowers on the shelf.
She could feel my despair as I climbed up her hair
& discovered her invisible self.

There's a lion in the road, there's a demon escaped,
There's a million dreams gone, there's a landscape being raped,
As her beauty fades & I watch her undrape,
I won't, but then again, maybe I might.
Oh, if I could just find you tonight.

I fought with my twin,
that enemy within,
'til both of us fell by the way.
Horseplay & disease is killing me by degrees
while the law looks the other way.
Your partners in crime hit me up for nickels and dimes,
the guy you were lovin' couldn't stay clean.
It felt outta place, my foot in his face,
but he should-a stayed where his money was green.
I bit into the root of forbidden fruit
with the juice running down my leg.
Then I dealt with your boss,
who'd never known about loss
& who always was too proud to beg.

There's a white diamond gloom
on the dark side of this room
& a pathway that leads up to the stars.
If you don't believe there's a price
for this sweet paradise,
remind me to show you the scars.
There's a new day at dawn & I've finally arrived.
If I'm there in the morning, baby,
you'll know I've survived.
I can't believe it, I can't believe I'm alive,
But without you it just doesn't seem right.
Oh, where are you tonight?

Copyright © 1978 Special Rider Music