sean

Are there any other leftists here? 👀

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Taomeow said:

That's the thing about an "intervention."   Once it's unleashed on a population, there's no leaving it alone -- typically there's nothing left to be left alone that is viable.  The term "romantic" originates from the word "Rome" and it's actually pretty ironic that we have come to use it to mean something like "free of Rome."  How can anything "romantic" be free of "Rome?.."  

 

  "Leaving a population alone" post factum, after a comprehensive assault on all its survival/thriving paradigms, is like running someone over by a car and then "leaving them alone" bleeding by the curb "so as not to keep interfering."  Yet the only alternative currently being offered to the victims of this assault is to either bleed to death -- or to hop in that car, get patched up with band-aids and continue on the joy ride to run over someone else.  If you can't beat them, join them.  If you can't join them, be left on the side of the highway to die.  The cars will keep whooshing by with or without you.

 

There's got to be a third way?  But for it to have a chance, people would have to start by actually noticing and acknowledging the sheer existence of the other two.  Of the inescapable "you can't beat them so join them" trap the only alternative to which is comprehensive existential misery -- so "joining" in whatever seems to be its opposite, not because it is but because that flip-over mirror world we all believe in (if this is so bad, its opposite must be amazing) is the only solution being proposed by even the best.  And it's not the best who call the shots in an intervention and post-intervention world we all know and love as civilized.   

 

 

Just reading the word 'intervention'    urks me   - but that isnt your fault  ;

" Ten years on, it’s time we learned the lessons from the failed Northern Territory Intervention

 

With no warning, and no consultation, the federal government moved swiftly to seize control of many aspects of the daily lives of residents in 73 targeted remote communities. It implemented coercive measures that would have been unthinkable in non-Indigenous communities."

 

https://theconversation.com/ten-years-on-its-time-we-learned-the-lessons-from-the-failed-northern-territory-intervention-79198

 

 

 

"  ... An analysis into the speeches and arguments made by the then Prime Minister and Minister for Indigenous Affairs found that the rhetoric used justified the government's extensive and contentious intervention into the remote Indigenous communities. The speech acts implied that the Ministers were the heroes of the situation. However, it has since been documented by several sources that some of the verifying sources that instigated the events of the intervention were fabricated by then-minister Mal Brough and coercive in nature...  " 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Territory_National_Emergency_Response

 

------

 

Some communities are getting better and recovering their culture, spirit and self worth and making great contributions to Australian culture, both in the area of arts and 'science'  ( that is working with government  using their knowledge to improve environment , species protection, bush fire management ,  National parks officers , etc  )     ... still a long way to go regarding agriculture, but the beginnings of this are observable

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/23/2019 at 9:27 PM, Earl Grey said:

Sometimes I wonder if it's worth showing pictures of the places we worked in and how they are a lot different than how Westerners define "rural", because Barstow, California is a lot different than living in the middle of Eastern Indonesia or Cambodia. 

 

The definition of "poverty" in development is better explained at this link: https://www.concernusa.org/story/top-9-causes-global-poverty/

Yes, I would love to see some pictures!  How is the ecology, environment, and native flora/fauna biodiversity in these undeveloped "Global South" regions?  Especially compared to developed global colonies?

 

Meanwhile, another Christian colonialist is burning down the Amazonian rainforest for more development.

KmTvA2J.jpg

Quote

Brazil’s Christian Fascist Bolsonaro Is Burning Down The Amazon For Jesus And Profits
Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro is overseeing the destruction of the Amazon rainforest and the genocide of indigenous peoples.
Environmental organizations and researchers say the wildfires blazing in the Brazilian rainforest were set by cattle ranchers and loggers who want to clear and utilize the land, emboldened by the country’s pro-business president.
The new Brazilian leader called himself “Captain Chainsaw” and mocked environmentalists who feared his pro-clearance policies could decimate the Amazon.

Brazil’s Christian Fascist President Jair Bolsonaro is overseeing a campaign of calculated genocide and environmental destruction.Indeed, Bolsonaro is a dangerous Christian fascist who has promised to remake Brazil into a Christian theocracy.
God above everything. There is no such thing as this secular state. The state is Christian and the minority will have to change, if they can. The minorities will have to adapt to the position of the majority.
a big part of Bolsonaro’s dream of a Christian theocracy entails the eradication of non-Christians, in particular, the indigenous peoples of Brazil currently making the Amazon rainforest their home.
Bolsonaro was inaugurated on New Year’s day 2019, and immediately began to set into motion his deplorable plans to remake Brazil into a Christian theocracy. In his acceptance speech, Bolsonaro promised to govern according to the Bible…And at the top of his list was the extermination of uncontacted tribes, and the persecution of indigenous groups.

The Guardian notes that Bolsonaro “has expressed open disdain for the indigenous peoples of Brazil, and it is no exaggeration to say that some of the world’s most unique and diverse tribes are facing annihilation.”
Bolsonaro himself has declared:

    It’s a shame that the Brazilian cavalry wasn’t as efficient as the Americans, who exterminated the Indians.

Yep, ~600 years of Christian colonialism is STILL ALIVE & WELL!!!!  R.I.P. EARTH!

Edited by gendao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, gendao said:

Yes, I would love to see some pictures!  How is the ecology, environment, and native flora/fauna biodiversity in these undeveloped "Global South" regions?  Especially compared to developed global colonies?

 

Meanwhile, another Christian colonialist is burning down the Amazonian rainforest for more development.

KmTvA2J.jpg

Yep, ~600 years of Christian colonialism is STILL ALIVE & WELL!!!!  R.I.P. EARTH!

 

Are you even able to read and comprehend that you're making false comparisons of the capitalistic businesses such as mining firms versus development organizations being the same thing, which is what was just explained thoroughly how they are not the same thing? 

 

Anyway, this is for you and everyone to read: https://www.rappler.com/views/imho/237729-humanitarian-worker-frontlines

Edited by Earl Grey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Earl Grey said:

Are you even able to read and comprehend that you're making false comparisons of the capitalistic businesses such as mining firms versus development organizations being the same thing, which is what was just explained thoroughly how they are not the same thing?

Uh, that post was about Brazil's Christian colonialist President...not development organizations. 

And I also asked you some specific questions, of which you all ignored...in your overzealous defense of development organizations.
But, development organizations are not my focus - they're yours.

Edited by gendao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, gendao said:

Uh, that post was about Brazil's Christian colonialist President...not development organizations. 

And I also asked you some specific questions, of which you all ignored...in your overzealous defense of development organizations.
But, development organizations are not my focus - they're yours.

 

Ah, thanks for clarifying. 

 

As for photos and ecology, let me get clearance from my old employers before I post as these belong to them. 

 

And yes: Bolsonaro to me is more dangerous than Putin or Xi or Trump because of what he can do to the Amazon rain forest...Sorry to any of his supporters, but he's a populist piece of shit and a homophobe. 

Edited by Earl Grey
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a different note, here's something very interesting to discuss: 

 

http://evonomics.com/no-productivity-does-not-explain-income/

 

Excerpt: 

 

Quote

Did you hear the joke about the economists who tested their theory by defining it to be true? Oh, I forgot. It’s not a joke. It’s standard practice among mainstream economists. They propose that productivity explains income. And then they ‘test’ this idea by defining productivity in terms of income.

In this post, I’m going to show you this circular logic. Then I’ll show you what productivity differences look like when productivity is measure objectively. They’re far too small to explain income differences.

Marginal productivity theory

The marginal productivity theory of income distribution was born a little over a century ago. Its principle creator, John Bates Clark, was explicit that his theory was about ideology and not science. Clark wanted show that in capitalist societies, everyone got what they produced, and hence all was fair:

It is the purpose of this work to show that the distribution of the income of society is controlled by a natural law, and that this law, if it worked without friction, would give to every agent of production the amount of wealth which that agent creates. (John Bates Clark in The Distribution of Wealth)

Clark was also explicit about why his theory was needed. The stability of the capitalist order was at stake! Here’s Clark again:

The welfare of the laboring classes depends on whether they get much or little; but their attitude toward other classes—and, therefore, the stability of the social state—depends chiefly on the question, whether the amount that they get, be it large or small, is what they produce. If they create a small amount of wealth and get the whole of it, they may not seek to revolutionize society; but if it were to appear that they produce an ample amount and get only a part of it, many of them would become revolutionists, and all would have the right to do so. (John Bates Clark in The Distribution of Wealth)

So the neoclassical theory of income distribution was born as an ideological response to Marxism. According to Marx, capitalists extract a surplus from workers, and so workers get less than what they deserve. Clark’s marginal productivity theory aimed to show that this was not true. Both capitalists and workers, Clark claimed, got what they deserved.

The message of Clark’s theory is simple: workers need to stay in their place. They already earn what they produce, so they have no right to demand more.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow.  This play is gettin' good.....

 

I can't believe I just got back from a tour of Washington DC and our group was touring the Congress building at the same time that Ms. P stood up to Mr. T.  How strange is that??

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, manitou said:

Wow.  This play is gettin' good.....

 

I can't believe I just got back from a tour of Washington DC and our group was touring the Congress building at the same time that Ms. P stood up to Mr. T.  How strange is that??

Hey there, welcome back. 

 

The whole scenario has developed in a manner so abstract to my sense of normal, the feeling when reading the news, is as if I've been in a coma for decades and have awakened in a Terry Gilliam film world, a tweaked out mix of Brasil, Dr Parnassus and Zero Theorum.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why I couldn't have shown up there subconsciously to represent the collective energy of the Bums.  For the purpose of being in the exact place and time where all in the House, Senate, and President were in the building as well, although one room over.  Maybe to somehow tweak a dynamic or elevate a vibration..  When you consider what and who We really are - then, it makes sense.    

 

To consider it in duality, not so much.

 

 

 

Edited by manitou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites