Jump to content
The Corroboree

Yeti101

Trusted Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,172

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Yeti101

    trump minus bannon

    in Chill Space

    Posted

    He's not the only one saying similar things - not that I'd take anything Cernovich said seriously. 

    The Deep State connection in that article is interesting though - I think there's quite a bit of consensus  from otherwise opposing sides of politics on the involvement/existence of the deep state in world events and the presidency. 

     

    Deep State: sometimes seen as a state within a state, one that does not respond to the visible civilian leadership of democratically elected bodies, and that exists in a complex relationship within a transnational 'Deep System' of global finance and organised crime, all of which "are covert or suppressed, outside public awareness as well as outside sanctioned political processes.” Or something like that. 

     

    The author of this article: How the Trump regime was manufactured by a war inside the Deep State has an interpretation of events that portrays the Trump regime as not being an 'outside' this global elite. Rather, he's supported by one faction (or group of factions) of the deep state against another. By this analysis, the Deep State knows it is facing an environmental/resource/financial crisis (because they are all really linked), and the disagreement is between those factions that have differing ideas on how to respond to this problem. On one side there is a nationalist corporate-military nexus favouring a 'Fortress America' response, on the other there are those who think everything can be fixed with technology and a bit of regulatory and philanthropic tinkering. You can probably guess which faction Trump is supposedly linked to, likewise no prizes for seeing where Hillary Clinton fits into this model. 

     

    I don't know if the analysis absolutely works, but it's an interesting (but quite long) read - especially the section on the Deep System and the crisis facing it. Even if you disagree with the rest, and maintain that Trump is a relative outsider, rather than being 'a tool to re-organize and restructure the Deep State', the Deep System and its crisis are worth being aware of. If Trump actually is the person that good people (as opposed to numb-nuts like Richard Spencer) who support him hope he is, then I think this gives a sense of the enormity of challenges ahead of him.

    • Like 3

    Post a random picture thread

    in Chill Space

    Posted

    https://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-MO48uEsmIIw/WIsTaCzLXmI/AAAAAAAAB2c/QMwX2uSUrHkP_64oYD9vmqbv9jPGbNwKwCLcB/s1600/water_scarfolk-blogspot-com.jpg&key=10149babeb791de046bf5607498d17716e9cc51c62d8b849152c6378a3e9d7fe

    • Like 2

    Favorite Quotes

    in Chill Space

    Posted

    You aren't the first person to make these observations about Russell. The task of writing the Principles of Mathematics, and then Principia Mathematica, are said to have taken such a toll on him that he was never quite the same. The 6 months jail time he did for speaking out as a conscientious objector to WWI probably didn't help much either.

     

    The best interpretation of the quote itself hinges on the fact that 'cocksure' is not just being sure, it's being excessively and arrogantly sure without sufficient grounds to do so. On that, despite the paradoxical nature of his statement, we have to ask ourselves, is it better to be confident (and hence convincing), but wrong, or be right, but admit that it's possible you might be wrong (which the average voter finds unconvincing)? 

     

    The best online version of the whole essay ( and I use the word loosely) is here: http://russell-j.com/0583TS.HTM

    It's not my favourite of his work - even of his later work  - I thought Power, Marriage and Morals, or Why I am Not a Christian, were all better. But the historical context and ideas he expressed are interesting in our current climate - even if his analysis is not as precise as it could be.

     

     

     

    • Like 1

    Favorite Quotes

    in Chill Space

    Posted

    Russell was beset by doubt about many things, except for his desire to alleviate the suffering of his fellow humans. He could never find an adequate argument to support his moral position that satisfied his high standards, leading him to separate his advocacy and activism from his 'pure' mathematical philosophy. So, to answer your question, it's probably more intelligent than cocksure. 

    • Like 3

    Favorite Quotes

    in Chill Space

    Posted

    The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt. - Bertrand Russell, 'The Triumph of Stupidity' in: Mortals and Others: Bertrand Russell's American Essays, 1931-1935, v.2, p.28

    trump minus bannon

    in Chill Space

    Posted

    So much to cover - seeing as I'm so late to this little corner of the worldwide party that's carved out a territory, even here. 

     

    Knowledge: People throw that word around, but rarely think hard about what it means to say that you 'know' something. What counts as evidence for your belief? If you have an idea of what counts as evidence, do you apply this rule equally well to all things, or do you move the bar to suit your political agenda? If you know that information and opinion can be used to manipulate people, why do you trust some sources more than others? In this community, we don't even take always 'seeing as believing' for granted, so why accept what your chosen news source tells you? 

     

    Here's a real kicker: What would it take for you to change a particular, deeply held, belief? Do you struggle to think of something, or do you have an excuse for any conceivable evidence? If this is the case, then your belief is based on faith, not facts. This is fine, but don't pretend - to others, and to yourself, that you made an evidence-based or rational choice. (For example, I think the truth is an inherent good, but can't muster much of an argument to defend this idea). 

     

    Are you aware of how much identity-signals - the signs we send to others, and that we read in others - can influence your preferences? 

     

     

    A.  How is this going to go down

    B.  How to defy the enemy

     

    Take the above phrases. What if I said that they could have come straight from the mouth of a stridently anti-capitalist anti-fascist (I'm not kidding, they really could), would you feel better or worse about them? Hold that thought. If it changed you opinion, can you say why?

     

    We emulate the behaviours and attitudes of individuals/groups we identify with, or groups we aspire to be like. But we can't emulate what we can't see or hear. This is why left groups try so hard to no-platform & shut down right groups and their speakers. It's also why the alt-right was so into accusing people of virtue-signalling: it aimed to re-frame opposing signals, and to have a chilling effect on people sending those signals. (Ironically, accusing someone of virtue signalling is itself an identity signal). If your opposition can't be heard, or it's members can't signal their identity, you control social normative influence. Most people want to fit in, but they can only fit in with what they are aware of.

     

    Importantly, people will deliberately diverge in behaviour and identity signalling from groups that they do not approve of, or do not wish to be identified with. The way that these signals are bundled together, IMHO, leads to a great deal of the identity-driven bullshit on all sides of politics. For example, a person may disapprove of religious fundamentalism, but so does a political group that they wish to differentiate themselves from - so they find themselves defending behaviours that they would otherwise actually oppose. Or maybe someone can't stand hippies, and this leads them to argue against protecting the environment. Most people don't often realise they are being influenced by these techniques. If you really hate an idea, is it because you rationally disagree with it, or do you just hate the group that promotes it? If you do hate that group, why is that? Did one of them just rub you the wrong way? Or does the group you identify with oppose them, so you've uncritically gone along with the vitriol to be part of the crowd, and them made up some excuses later, (so that you don't have to confront that nagging doubt that occasionally makes you think you've fucked up, but that you have to double down, lest your whole existence be confirmed as pointless - honour that sunk cost!)

     

    Politicians, and those leading political pressure-groups/cheer-squads know how all of this works though. This is why they try to package things a particular way - to try to make choosing the other side seem unreasonable or immoral. (For the record, I'm no relativist, so I do think some choices are actually irrational, unethical and/or immoral etc.) 

     

    (And yes, most, if not all, ideologies can be used to support one elite or another. But everyone says this with someone else's ideology/elite in mind.)

     

    As for wealth redistribution, that depends on what you mean, and why you are doing it. Yes, it seems confronting to have a bit of your money taken away and given to someone else who didn't work for it. But there's a number of ways to look at this. 

     

    Do you think what level of wealth or poverty a person is born into is a relevant moral consideration when deciding what their level of wealth or poverty should be throughout their life, particularly if an upward change in wealth allows them better access to basic liberties? If you answer 'no', then you are either committed to some wealth re-distribution, or you are an economic wizard whose managed to overcome the idea that modern economies rely on a certain amount of unemployment in order to function. If one person does not deserve to be born into a lower socioeconomic situation, along with all of it’s disadvantages, then there is a sense in which another person who is born into relative privilege does not deserve the advantages they have access to. This is not a popular idea, and the difficulty some people have in accepting this is probably related to our attachment to preserving our way of life, albeit at the expense of the vulnerable and less fortunate. This sort of thinking is associated with the idea that inequality is not morally neutral - that it requires some justification. Typically, this justification has been that inequality is allowable, so long as it raises the standard of living of the most vulnerable, and the benefits are potentially accessible by all. For example, it's OK to pay brain surgeons way more than average, because it's hard work, so long as even poor people with brain tumours can get an operation if they need it. Importantly, you don't get to be as rich as fuck without contributing to the society that has made you (or, more likely, your family) as rich as fuck.These ideas are hardly Stalinist, and yet are criticised by the right for being too socialist, but also by the left for not being socialist enough - go figure.

     

    From a different angle, you could take a small-government or even 'night-watchman state' justification for wealth re-distribution. Say we want government to tax us the minimum, and do the minimum that allows for us to exercise our liberties. Basically, the state is there to stop us from committing rape, physical assault, theft and murder etc., as well as protect contractual obligations - and that's about it. If it's the case that inequality above a certain level leads to societal problems - civil unrest, outbreaks of socialism, and so on, then you have to keep a lid on things one way or another. A range of options would be available, but small government will chose the one that is cheapest (too minimise tax) with the minimum interference in people's lives. The more concentrated wealth becomes, the more expensive keeping things under control will become, especially if the people at the bottom start to get a bit hungry. Keeping people housed, fed and entertained might be an expensive proposition, but it's cheaper than putting down a revolution. If you aren't going to limit inequality, tax becomes the price you pay to stop the ordinary folk from breaking out the guillotine. 

     

    And that's without even considering what you might do if automation reduced the number of available jobs. 

    • Like 5

    Bicycle Day, Tripping on the Steps of Parliament House and My Imminent Arrest.

    in News & Notices

    Posted

    Part of it is a matter of scale, isn't it. 1 person taking acid on the steps of a legislature is an opportunity to make an example of someone, 10 is a nuisance, 100 - Daily Telegraph/ACA feature (on a slow day), 1000 - politicians start to worry, 10,000 - full 'moral panic', 100,000 - ? 

     

    My reservations (now, as opposed to 3 years ago) are not so much about the value of non-violent direct action, it's that, in my sketchy understanding, his legal argument will just not fly. 

     

    Greg is undeniably actually trying something. The least we could do is write to our various pollies to argue for a more reasonable legal framework. But actions that actually enhance social currency of psychedelic legality might be more constructive in the long run.

     

    As to whether cannabis legalisation will lead to a greater chance of psychedelic legalisation - I think it's too soon to tell. Most people seem to think that it can't hurt - though the commercialisation of cannabis is contentious. The reformist approach has it's critics though, not least Julian Buchanan, who considers most reform as a 'Metamorphosis of Prohibition'. 

    • Like 1

    Watch this space

    in News & Notices

    Posted

     

    Do you study law to escape it, or implement?

     

     A little from column A, a little from column B :) . Personally, I'd rather change the law than break it - not just because I'm too soft to go to jail. If we have to have laws (and whether or not we do is a discussion for the philosophy sub-forum), I just think they may as well be fair and reasonable. 

     

    It's a funny situation in the US, and increasingly in Canada, in that lots of people and businesses seem to be openly breaking the law (as it's on the books anyway) - like Marc Emery in Montreal. That's the sort of thing that really scares the shit out of governments - when lots of people just decide they are going to do what they think is right, in a perfectly orderly and businesslike fashion. 

    • Like 5

    Watch this space

    in News & Notices

    Posted

    I've read that it's a 'clarification rather than a new law' - basically CBD (or any cannabis deriviative) is and always was considered by the DEA to be a (US) Schedule I substance. What this actually means for the industry, and for those who benefit from the CBD products remains to be seen.

    • Like 1

    Watch this space

    in News & Notices

    Posted

    Don't need to convince me :) Yep, its a sad day when a party is branded as radical because they formally drop their commitment to keeping illegal drugs illegal and want to look at actual evidence. 

     

    In other news, The Final Report of the Task Force on Cannabis Legalization and Regulation in Canada is out: http://www.healthycanadians.gc.ca/task-force-marijuana-groupe-etude/framework-cadre/index-eng.php Looks to be interesting reading. 

    • Like 2

    Post a random picture thread

    in Chill Space

    Posted

    https://www.shaman-australis.com/forum/applications/core/interface/imageproxy/imageproxy.php?img=http://68.media.tumblr.com/cdd0254aebe09c451d3c7f1bc2cdc568/tumblr_ohpx25ttcy1td9f37o1_500.jpg&key=ec28495c813afa6ace4c0d8033caeea9711119039af7a8c80b0d096ed6d3ad33

    • Like 3
×
×
  • Create New...