Grr-owl

At the same age, I was comparable to Cyril, too. I was the same age.

I saw an article on BBC News in which women who'd met their partners online were asked what had prompted them to go on a second date. The most popular answer was, "He DIDN'T send me a picture of his d*ck." Boys, wake up....

Cheesy, D., this is probably the most sensible post I have ever read.

.

Engage with the argument. You said, "Ask any black person..." Well, those people are black. What, not Black enough for you? Not REALLY black??? I can't be sure, obviously, as I don't know you, but there's some evidence that you have an idea in your head of what it means to be black; possibly the same as BLM define it. Okay, fair enough; a lot of people share that definition. But I don't. It's a definition that ascribes meaning (identity) to skin color, and is therefore ignorant. Skin color doesn't indicate anything about a person except their skin color. It certainly doesn't indicate anything about political allegiance or philosophical outlook or views on abortion or religion or, well, anything. I have directed you to interesting people who have got over the whole binary thinking thing, dividing people into groups based on race or gender or sexual preference etc, but you haven't caught on. This is a shame as society could do with some healing, some uniting, and we could do a little of that here on Demonland it'd be a good thing.

Yeah, man, you're right. And every day I hate my own wife and kids for not being White, and all my students for the last twenty years and almost everyone I'm surrounded by on a daily basis, the guys I play sport with and everyone in my neighbourhood, most of my colleagues, all because they aren't White. Yeah, man, you got me pinned. Your thinking is very limited, Deiter.

Again, as I have tried to make my position clear before, the crime of one person does not cancel out the crime of another. It's the crime that matters, not the identity of the criminal. In this case, Trump is a criminal and so is Uday. From my point of view, it isn't a competition between one side and another to see which is the worst. Once again, you demonstrate the binary thinking that you otherwise rail against. So, to be clear: I absolutely agree with you that the US has done and does deplorable things. It is, indeed, a farcical nation. But that in no way means that the deplorable actions of other countries are in some way mitigated. No comment re Mahdi Obeidi's book? On re-reading my comment, I can see I wasn't quite clear: Dr Mahdi Obeidi was the guy who ran the Iraqi nuclear weapons program. He buried the critical equipment and info under a tree in his back yard. If he and the stuff under his tree had been handed to the inspectors, the situation may have been avoided. Don't take my word for it, read the book. Any black person? No problem. Here are some you might like to listen to: Thomas Chatterton Williams Coleman Hughes Ayaan Hirsi Ali Glenn Loury John McWhorter. John and Glenn appear together regularly on the Glenn Show, Glenn's podcast. Here's an example: And then, if you want to make a leap that very few are yet to make but which must eventually be made if we are to have a post-racial society, ask yourself why you and so many others think race is important. Another insult? Why not make an argument? Calling people names in place of an argument went out after primary school... There's a good reason I don't use my name, and you should be able to guess what that is, given my sensitivities to totalitarianism.

You don't post in good faith, D. Your post was insulting. If you were joking, it would have been a good idea to clarify that with an emoji. I wrote that the war was an ill-conceived fiasco. As for Uday, I can't see how it is possible for anyone to miss the point. You are at least somewhat mistaken about the lies and the propaganda. Try reading this: https://www.amazon.com/Bomb-My-Garden-Secrets-Mastermind/dp/0471741272 As the story unfolds, the author deals with why the US and allies remained convinced that WMD were still in development. It was Saddam's responsibility. For Dr Mahdi and his family, it was a matter of life and death. I remain confident that the form of government that provides the best hope for humanity is liberal democracy. You're not convinced of that. That's okay with me. Otherwise, I'm pretty much done here, Deiter.

I'm beginning to suspect I'm being trolled.... Quoting Ferguson or linking to him does not mean I agree with him, though I am often interested to hear what he has to say. His learning and experience give him insight that allows him to make predictions that often turn out to be prescient. His China angle is particularly interesting to me, as I have skin in the game re human rights and the CCP. You might have picked up on that about me, and twigged to that as the pivot of my interest, rather than lumping me in with "the neo-imperialist gang." Apparently, "it is the mark of en educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it," a quote wrongly attributed to Aristotle, thus proving its value. Aristotle did say, however, that women had less teeth than men. Proof, again, of the value of the quote, and that it's not wise to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In other words, you don't have to agree with everything a person says to find value in something they say. Personal insults don't make you look good, D. Considering Ferguson's academic achievements and credibility, calling him smug and railing against his failure to mention govt spending on weapons of mass destruction in a discussion on the pandemic makes you look limited, as if he is supposed to bring that subject into every conversation as you do. And then implying that this reflects on me is simplistic and small-minded. Should I insult you back? Perhaps I should say, "You haven't got a full grip on anything; certainly not your mind, though possibly your c@*k." As for support for the Iraq War, Christopher Hitchens, who disagreed with Ferguson in public and more so in private, so I hear, agreed with him on that. Seems people can have intelligent discussions about complicated subjects without taking one political line or another. Insert fake Aristotle quote here, again. You might like to reflect on the behavior of Uday Hussein, who would go to Iraqi weddings and rape the bride. Sometimes he would torture and kill her too. Is that the kind of person who should be running a country? Do you think Iraqi's thought he should be running the country? What kind of father would produce a psychopath such as Uday? I think the war was an ill-considered fiasco myself - eh, if people want to live in a mafia state run by a nepotistic cadre of genocidal psychopaths, let 'em, I say; it's nobody's business but their own - but I can understand why some people with their hands on the levers of power might have thought it was a good idea to turf 'em out on their ear. Okay, cue your reply: A litany of 'what about' historical examples of deplorable western behavior.

Short discussion that raises some pertinent ideas re the pandemic and neoliberalism with Iain Martin and Niall You-know-who from 40:43 here: I can give some informed opinion re certain Asian countries.... ?

Read this one? The Wake-Up Call: Why the pandemic has exposed the weakness of the West - and how to fix it John Micklethwait & Adrian Wooldridge

Try Coleman Hughes's podcast of December 17 with Douglas Murray.

You haven't brought a different perspective at all. Your arguments, though they're really opinions, are based on a few simplistic premises: 1. Western politicians are all bad, all the time. 2. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. 3. Other civilisations are essentially different from and better than the West. It's just the same old self-hating, guilt-ridden, self-flagellation that passes for 'theory' in the humanities these days. It's built on a perverted, fallacious and blinkered understanding of history. While your idea about binary thinking is sound, you omit obvious facts and reveal ignorance when you write things like "the same binary notion of good versus evil as propagated by the Judeo-Christian religions." It isn't just those religions that do it, and the idea doesn't primarily emanate from them. I'd argue that if we're all the same, made from the same flesh and blood, as you say, then the brotherhood of man necessarily includes the multi-billionaires and the poorest of the poor and everyone else, even the politicians you hate and everyone who believes the exact opposite of yourself and every other belief on the spectrum. In other words, YOU don't believe in the brotherhood of man yourself. That's a presumptuous things to write, so I'll admit that I don't know anything much about you, Deiter. Certainly, I'm coming from a position of ignorance when I humbly offer this recommendation: Go get to know the world. You may have already done so but reached opposite conclusions to me, or you may not be in a position to do so -- I don't know -- so it could be dumb for me to say it, but there are many opportunities out there. Why not take them? Leave the West, take on the challenge of living in societies which are organized around different principles to the western societies you are so down on. At least you'll gain perspective. Twenty years ago I could have written your post myself, but time and experience have chipped away at the glass house that I had built around myself, and now it lies shattered at my feet. Nowhere is better than the West. That's the truth. Some countries have have positive features than others - better healthcare, better education, other stuff, you name it - but in combination, the countries that belong to Western civilisation offer the average human far more opportunity to live a meaningful, socially mobile life than others. Just imagine being born into poverty as a female in ruralest Pakistan? What chance? What hope? For me, in my position, with my experience, this about sums it all up: Every human civilisation is schitt, but the West is the least schitt in the history of civilisation. And as long as I can reasonably be assured that there's little risk of being dragged out of my bed at night and tortured for expressing a critical opinion, and I can reliably believe that there are others around me willing to fight against such tendencies in humans, I'm good.

The shift will come. And western dynamism will ensure we move on into another, the next, a subsequent imperfect rendering of a progressive society....

Thing is, both of you express simplistic ideas. You fail to engage with the argument, and that is frustrating for those of us who post in good faith assuming that, in some way, you might be interested in learning something.

I'm with you.

Name some. You can criticize a litany of mistakes of western civilization, but none of them means that other civilisations should not also be criticized for their mistakes. Yeah, except he got voted out, proving that he had a minority fooled, not most. And he had a minority to begin with. The fact that he could be voted out is heartening given the behaviour of some who can't: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55355401 , https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55463241

I'm married to a Wong, mate, and have Wongy kids, so shove that lazy thinking where it fits.

Okay, finished the book, and in short I agree. I previously read An Economy Is Not A Society by Dennis Glover and was moved, and together I think these two texts provide a reason and a method to reinvigorate the sense of social responsibility that is so lacking in the business community of the neoliberal era. I don't mean to be facetious here, but I'm just old enough to have encountered tea ladies and company picnics, and I always wondered why it was that down-sizing and casualisation of the workforce went hand in hand with record profits. Where did all that profit go? Shouldn't it have meant there were more tea ladies and company picnics rather than less? Neo-liberalism simply removes money from the bottom and allocates it to the top. So, yes, I agree, though with a couple of caveats: 1. Nationalisation of the financial sector, banks in particular, needs to be done very carefully. I'd want to see them remain nimble in some way, perhaps responsive is a better way to put it, or significantly open to initiative in some areas. I'd want them to remain in some way able to swing with international trends, but with a core that remains steadfastly devoted to society. I'd also want very strict rules to prevent nepotism and favoritism at all levels, so that there is an way for talent and energy to receive rewards. 2. I like the JG, but I'd want to see UBI go hand in hand with it, the reason being that there would always be those who refused to do a job well, who refused to cooperate with JG admin. There needs to be somewhere for those people to go, so UBI is for them. They would receive less than JG, but they would still get what they need to play a part in society, with the door open should they change their tune. I fear a great rash of jobs badly done and rorting of the system. There needs to be some accountability at all levels. What's missing, I think, is the stimulus for the change. Neo-liberalism has to collapse before the opportunity will come to rebuild the economy with a more responsible edge. And with that, many neo-liberals will have to come to see the error of their ways. I think that means an awful lot of very rich Aussies will have to go broke first and not be able to afford private education for their kiddies. Then everyone will be screaming for govt investment in education. I think this is needed across the board: Compelling reasons to change course. For instance, loss of China iron ore business + climate change may compel Aus to adopt the clean-steel/hydrogen idea as outlined in a previous post. Should such a major realignment in the national interest be left to private corporations to organize for themselves and their shareholders? Would that be possible? I don't think so. There is a natural coordination and admin role for nimble and responsible govt there and the interest of Aus society at large should be the no.1 priority in such an endeavour. Another reason may be CCP encroachment on Australian society, as I have outlined in previous posts, especially in academia and politics. I come across a little paranoid, but my reading has revealed that a little paranoia is probably prudent. I have lived in a Chinese society, and while that was not ruled by the CCP, my long term experience - long enough to clear my glasses of rose color - taught me that there is no aspect of Confucian society which, if adopted by the West, would improve people's lives. Thanks for putting me onto the book. What do you think of Biden's chances getting through ideas on jobs, money, climate change and renewables?: https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53575474

By the way, the CCP took over all of China, which in their definition includes the homelands of the only colonial powers to rule China - Mongolia (Yuan) and Manchuria (Ching or Jin) - and additionally claiming all other territories belonging to those empires. Those include Inner Mongolia, Tibet, Taiwan and Xinjiang. Quite a neat trick. It’s as if France had invaded the UK in 1650 or so, then 350 years later, an army of highland Scots rose up against them, beat off the English and an outsider, say Germany, then claimed the right to rule not only all of the UK but France too and all its territories. They also invaded Vietnam in 1979. Anyway you look at it, an awful lot of bombing and invasions. If you are interested, try Great State: China and the World by Timothy Brook.

Not wrong, but I’m not sure why you’re asking the question. If you want to understand a little about the CCP, read Jung Chang’s books. Note that they are in English and published in the West. You won’t find anything with credibility published in China. Many tens of millions of innocents murdered, so stop with the ‘the West is so evil’ stuff. It’s not a defence. Here’s a good analogy of the way you are looking at it: Judge: Mr Xi, you stand before the court today accused of murder. What do you plead? Mr Xi: A westerner once murdered somebody. Judge: Mr Xi, the court only accepts a plea of guilty or not guilty. Mr Xi: A westerner once murdered somebody. Judge: Mr Xi, this trial is about your behaviour, not someone else’s. D, it’s not the race or nationality or ethnicity or identity that matters, it’s the behaviour. Murder, killing, torture, suppression of dissent... you fill in the list for me.... it’s bad. The identity of the people doing it is not relevant. My posts are trying to make a point that neo-liberalism has empowered the CCP, but now that the CCP threaten Australia’s sovereignty, the reclamation of that requires state intervention in the form of administration of and investment in education and infrastructure, similar to that we used to know in eras before corporations took it upon themselves. If we want to remain free and democratic, we gotta reclaim the state so it serves the national interest, not the interest of an elite section of the population. The elitism of neo-liberalism plays into the CCP’s hands. So I think that the necessity to steer away from economic dependency on China that COVID has brought into stark relief marks the beginning of the end of neo-liberalism. It’s got a way to go yet, but I can’t see a way for the democracies to retain sovereignty without the passing of neo-liberalism. I realise my ideas are not quite sorted out. I guess what I am trying to do is sort them out here. I’ll get there. If you were to watch the links I posted, I think you’ll get what I mean. Yes, they concentrate on the relationship of the CCP to Australia, but you’ll find many markers of neo-liberalism referred to in the conversations.

Actually , that’s the wrong clip.... .. the clip I am looking for is in the long version beginning around 40m actually the whole long version is very much relevant to our conversation here. It seems to me that there is no end to neo-liberalism without a turn away from the CCP toward a state-led business culture of the kind Mitchell is on about.

Along the same lines, this clip sums up how neo-liberalism’s promotion of an elite plays into the CCP’s hands....:

AF, would love to know your thoughts on John Lee’s assessment of the Chinese economy and what that means re pivoting away from China, iron ore/clean steel opportunities, renewable energy, trade barriers etc... and the end of neo-liberalism, if you have the time ?: I sense a great confluence of ideas happening in this space...

I’m not quite as down on the poppies as Dieter. They are, after all, ordinary humans like the rest of us, and they reflect and respond to movements of ideas within society at large. They have to do so, otherwise it wouldn’t be a representative democracy. And we should remember that long before they become candidates on a ballot they are chosen to be a candidate by their party branches, so anybody who wants to represent an electorate has to first represent the people in the party branches, who are also ordinary humans with interests and ideas and things to care about like the rest of us. It’s best to think of candidates as the top block on a pyramid, like the head of a faction, a group, a bunch of people who are the supporting blocks. The fact that Australian polices have been so useless in climate policy I think reflects the fact that most Aussies actually just want more money anyway they can get it so they can pay their absurd mortgages and get their children a decent education. I am yet to meet a businessman who cared about what they sold or where it came from or how it was made; they just want to sell more of whatever it is they sell. Maybe that’s me being cynical, but that’s my experience. Thing is, these dynamics within society actually work in the favour of climate change mitigation, because as soon as it makes economic sense to save the climate, it will be saved. Coal is already on the way out. Oil is too useful to go out entirely, but it’s role in climate problems is changing as I type. As soon as this is the case, the pollies will suddenly support it because that’s what their supporters will want; they will reflect that ideological change. Shallow and fickle as that is, it’s probably not a good idea to expect pollies to ideologues. Then we end up with Hitlers. Better to just accept the bar on the conga line will always be set low, so only the slipperiest, most flexible can get through. Then they can join each other for punch, while the rest of us get on with actually making change. Sooner or later the neo-liberal economy will go bust and its ideas will be shown up once and for all to be a great con. When that happens and everyone is broke, even those who benefitted most from neo-liberalism, maybe people will realise that you need to pay people well if you want them to spend, rather than forcing everyone to borrow at interest. I think Henry Ford worked this out way back in.... oh, 1910 or something. Basically, you want people in reliable employment. Once the population gets it, the pollies will follow. They’ll have to if they want a job themselves.