Interesting and gritty interview with a Tibetan monk

[RongzomFan]

So Americans will let you in...but then they'll treat you like shit, like Mexicans are treated like shit.

 

 

 

If LEGAL immigrants are treated like shit, how come how come we fill Ivy League universities? How comes we become doctors? I am talking about Indians and East asians here. I know SO MANY obscenely wealthy Indians and East asians....born in Asia or one generation removed. We drive bentleys, bmw 7 series, ferraris etc.

 

I mean, go to a Porsche dealership. Who do you see in disappropriate numbers?

 

Have you ever walked around the campuses of the Ivy League? It is like going to Little Asia.

 

If you come here LEGALLY, you can become wealthy PRETTY EASILY

 

Why?

 

Their superior education is what lets them emigrate in the first place!

Edited April 26, 2010 by alwayson

[Apech]

Blaming immigrants for economic problems is the first resort of racism - I'm surprised to find echoes of that kind of thinking on a Taoist forum ... well no I'm not a bit surprised I'm completely gob smacked.

[hajimesaito]

The best part of the interview was where the monk talked about Dalai Lama and how people believed that he could save Tibet through magical powers. But in the next scene, what they see is Dalai Lama trying to escape with a gun on his back!

 

I have never believed in the credibility of the Gelugpa sect of Tibetan Buddhism and the monarchy based on the concept of Dalai Lamas. I think even in Tibet true Buddhism could only be found among a few monks and yogis in the remote monasteries situated in the higher mountains. All other sects, like Gelugpa, are nothing but attempts of imperialism by different sects in ruling Tibet. Nowadays, Dalai Lama looks more like a political bureaucrat than a monk and Buddhist teacher.

 

 

As for the debate about communism and capitalism, anyone who says that communism is very biased and brainwashed. Communism is neither evil nor good, like other political ideologies. It took violence to overthrow older feudal structures to establish capitalistic society. Similarly, it took violence to establish communism in other areas. Communism only failed because the leaders ended up becoming dictatorial (or monarchs as their predecessors had been whom they overthrew) themselves.

[Nanashi]

[sabretooth]

----Moderator's Warning:----

"chinks" is a racial slur that can't be tolerated here. This post was reported by a rightfully offended ethnic Chinese, but I am equally offended by the term as a human being. Please repent and refrain.

 

----Moderator's sword sheathed

 

 

Sorry,chinese.

How offended do you think the people of Tibet are at being invaded by the Chinese?.

 

 

 

sabretooth.

Edited April 26, 2010 by sabretooth

[soaring crane]

Blaming immigrants for economic problems is the first resort of racism - I'm surprised to find echoes of that kind of thinking on a Taoist forum ... well no I'm not a bit surprised I'm completely gob smacked.

 

I'm surprised, hogtied and, uh, gob smacked by a LOT of the things I've seen in this thread, wow!

[gendao]

Sorry,chinese.

How offended do you think the people of Tibet are at being invaded by the Chinese?.

 

 

 

sabretooth.

How offended do you think the Native Americans were at being invaded by the Europeans?

How offended do you think the Palestinians were at being invaded by the Israelis?

How offended do you think the Chinese were at being invaded by the Tibetans?

But from the second half of the 7th century onwards the Tibetans became politically ambitious and aggressive. They invaded and occupied the Tang Empire's territory in what is now Xinjiang, and they then extended their military offensive to Qinghai, Sichuan and Gansu as well. After the middle of the 8th century the Tibetans took advantage of the domestic crisis that had then overtaken the Tang regime. A Tibetan army invaded Shenxi and even occupied Chang'an for a time.

How offended do you think X were at being Y by Z?

 

Every race is guilty of transgressions against another and therefore any racial slur is justifiable under your logic, here. But if you are going to go that route, at least be consistent and refer to everyone here by their appropriate ethnic slurs. No need to single just Chinese out - ironically the ethnic origin of the whole focus of this site.

Edited April 26, 2010 by vortex

[Taomeow]

Sorry,chinese.

How offended do you think the people of Tibet are at being invaded by the Chinese?.

sabretooth.

 

I dunno. About as much as the Afghani and the Iraqi are offended at being invaded by the Americans?..

 

Sigh. To the rejoicement of the puppeteers, the puppets keep finding their solace in blaming, demeaning, and despising each other.

 

Or do you mean the war in Iraq was YOUR PERSONAL CHOICE as an AMERICAN? You are the one who decided you wanted it to happen and made it happen?..

 

Well... if it was, kudos, you are one of the puppeteers. But if it wasn't, just keep in mind... the CHINESE invading Tibet had every bit as much power over the happenings as you. To wit: zero.

 

Now the sum total of the puppets' power will always remain just that, zero, unless and until they stop responding to that particular string which pulls their lil' puppet hand to point a blaming finger at another lil' puppet.

[contrivedname!]

How offended do you think the Native Americans were at being invaded by the Europeans?

 

in particular i am glad you made this point in light of reading the whole thread. one of the primary arguments you make for the primacy of capitalism is to continually point out the amount of people killed by communist regiemes... well, going with the direction of the above quote, what about all of the native american peoples wiped out by capitalist expansion? complete genocide of entire tribes; whole cultures? forced relocation to reservations? how about an economic foundation based on slavery? forced relocation of japanese americans during world war 2?

 

 

capitalism and communism are both pretty old ideas based on factors at the time, i think it is best to critique the system as it is currently functioning, so as not to miss as many facets (capitalism and communism/socialism are good to use theoretically to help frame critiques but shouldnt be taken absolutely). it seems the result of both capitalism and communism is essentially oligarchy.

 

 

Mikaelz said

"How can you pretend to understand Buddhism and see capitalism as something good that works? Half of this country are on anti-depressants and divorce rates are through the roof. People aren't happy. There is something fundamentally wrong with how this country is operated and its expressed in the psyche of its people. If capitalism worked here, as you say, then people would be happy. Instead the people are hooked on drugs, legal or illegal, to cope with their slavish existence."

 

exactly. social dysfunction doesnt just creep up on a well functioning society and stab it in the back; And then prisons appear as helpful adjuncts to a well functioning society. not only are prison populations used as practically slave labor, the prisons themselves condition many people in the opposite direction of what could be called "rehabilatory".

 

 

 

 

 

oh and by the way for all who argue capitalism is good, etc. you should consider not using examples of the "freedoms we enjoy" as debating fuel. for one it excludes the lower classes and for two what is the basis of your middle class standard of living? but the most important point is that it implies that tyranny is a given and that we should be thankful to have these 'rights'. kind of like the slave who should be thankful because his master doesnt beat him, but still forces servitude. who actually enjoys these rights? people in innercity projects? coal miners in virginia? consistently accepting the lesser of two evils paradigm, one admits defeat (ie accepts the inevitability) before entertaining what political process could be.

[gendao]

in particular i am glad you made this point in light of reading the whole thread. one of the primary arguments you make for the primacy of capitalism is to continually point out the amount of people killed by communist regiemes... well, going with the direction of the above quote, what about all of the native american peoples wiped out by capitalist expansion? complete genocide of entire tribes; whole cultures? forced relocation to reservations? how about an economic foundation based on slavery? forced relocation of japanese americans during world war 2?

 

coal miners in virginia? consistently accepting the lesser of two evils paradigm, one admits defeat (ie accepts the inevitability) before entertaining what political process could be.

Do people ever actually research the points they make?

reduction of the North American Indian population from an estimated 12 million in 1500 to barely 237,000 in 1900

 

It is a firmly established fact that a mere 250,000 native Americans were still alive in the territory of the United States at the end of the 19th century.

 

In 1928, the ethnologist James Mooney proposed a total count of 1,152,950 Indians in all tribal areas north of Mexico at the time of the European arrival. By 1987, in American Indian Holocaust and Survival, Russell Thornton was giving a figure of well over 5 million, nearly five times as high as Mooney’s, while Lenore Stiffarm and Phil Lane, Jr. suggested a total of 12 million. That figure rested in turn on the work of the anthropologist Henry Dobyns, who in 1983 had estimated the aboriginal population of North America as a whole at 18 million and of the present territory of the United States at about 10 million.

So, obviously the number of Native Americans killed here is hard to pin down. But, let's take the high estimate of 18 million across North America. Keep in mind, many or most of these were due to the importation of foreign diseases like smallpox. Which would have happened no matter what governmental system happened to be in place. You certainly can't blame a biological disaster like that on capitalism. But, let's just use 18 million killed over 400 years as a rough theoretical guess for Native Americans killed "by capitalism" here.

 

That's still a drop in the bucket compared to 140 million killed as a direct result of Communism over just a few decades. Really, the numbers aren't even comparable. I love how all the neo-Commies here just KEEP GLOSSING OVER THE 140 MILLION BODYCOUNT! Stop for a minute and think of how much that really is - that's HALF OF OUR CURRENT POPULATION!!! Just GONE in a few decades! Really, how do you just blink past that? It's like they've created a giant blind spot in their minds for it...while they focus on nitpicking far lesser suffering in capitalist countries..

 

Racism is also not unique to capitalism or Communism. Remember, GIH fled HERE to "capitalist" USA to ESCAPE "ethnic prejudice" in the "Communist" USSR.

 

And I've already pointed out that coal miners in VA make TWICE the national salary on average. See how the free market self-adjusts if you let it? That's why the DDJ advised against political micromanagement.

"How can you pretend to understand Buddhism and see capitalism as something good that works? Half of this country are on anti-depressants and divorce rates are through the roof. People aren't happy. There is something fundamentally wrong with how this country is operated and its expressed in the psyche of its people. If capitalism worked here, as you say, then people would be happy. Instead the people are hooked on drugs, legal or illegal, to cope with their slavish existence."

Most of these changes (anti-depressants & high divorce rates) sprang up over the last 50 years as this country became more liberal & chemically polluted.

 

That said, we still have the free choice of what to consume & I am totally drug-free & have never been on anti-depressants. Look at David Wolfe. Look at the Amish. Nobody is forced to eat the SAD. Nobody forces you to buy a TV and watch propaganda all day. I don't even own one.

 

Anyhow, maybe we are straying from the main point here. Why don't we debate the actual core theoretical principles of idealistic "real" Marxism/Communism that many here are so vehemently defending?

Edited April 26, 2010 by vortex

[gendao]

So, onto some theoretical core tenets..

 

The philosophical basis of Marxism/Communism is arguably materialism.

According to materialism, matter is the total explanation for space, nature, man, society, history and every other aspect of existence. Materialism does not acknowledge any alleged phenomenon that cannot be perceived by the five senses such as the supernatural, God, etc. Some aspects of Marxism are informed by materialist philosophy.

 

Materialism asserts the primacy of the material world: in short, matter precedes thought. Materialism holds that the world is material; that all phenomena in the universe consist of "matter in motion," wherein all things are interdependent and interconnected and develop according to natural law; that the world exists outside us and independently of our perception of it; that thought is a reflection of the material world in the brain, and that the world is in principle knowable.

 

"The ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought." - Karl Marx

Well, so much for qi, manifestation & the Great Mystery! And I guess Heisenberg's observer effect is wrong too!

[Sunya]

So, onto some theoretical core tenets..

 

The philosophical basis of Marxism/Communism is arguably materialism.Well, so much for qi, manifestation & the Great Mystery! And I guess Heisenberg's observer effect is wrong too!

 

Communism was written in a materialistic context, but that doesn't mean that it's limited to that context. The world became more materialistic after the beliefs of religion began to wane. People go from one extreme to another. Most scientists, academics, and intellectuals in general today are materialistic. I could say capitalism is materialistic too, but that would be dumb because capitalism and communism are both economic systems and have nothing to do with metaphysics. You're trying to reach far and not grabbing anything.

 

Materialism asserts the primacy of the material world: in short, matter precedes thought. Materialism holds that the world is material; that all phenomena in the universe consist of "matter in motion," wherein all things are interdependent and interconnected and develop according to natural law; that the world exists outside us and independently of our perception of it; that thought is a reflection of the material world in the brain, and that the world is in principle knowable.

 

This is what all modern scientists believe basically. haha... damn commies.

Edited April 26, 2010 by mikaelz

[Sunya]

That's still a drop in the bucket compared to 140 million killed as a direct result of Communism over just a few decades. Really, the numbers aren't even comparable. I love how all the neo-Commies here just KEEP GLOSSING OVER THE 140 MILLION BODYCOUNT! Stop for a minute and think of how much that really is - that's HALF OF OUR CURRENT POPULATION!!! Just GONE in a few decades! Really, how do you just blink past that? It's like they've created a giant blind spot in their minds for it...while they focus on nitpicking far lesser suffering in capitalist countries..

 

Nobody is blinking past that; we're just smart enough not to judge an ideology by the actions of tyrants who come into power and act under the name of said ideology.

 

Most of these changes (anti-depressants & high divorce rates) sprang up over the last 50 years as this country became more liberal & chemically polluted.

 

Ohh that makes sense! The world became more liberal and that's why people are on anti-depressants. It's because all those gays are getting married and blacks have rights now. What a terrible and depressing world we live in.

 

Actually all those changes happened because in the last 50 years corporations have gotten so huge and had so much money. There was also an increase in technology which connects everyone to these corporations via advertisements and marketing. Everyone is addicted in someway to the system; they keep us fed (with addicting food additives like MSG) and happy (with emotionally addictive soap operas). We are constantly taken advantage of. We are just desire machines! Next time you watch commercials, pay attention. What emotion or desire are they pounding at? Most likely its sex or insecurity. That's why we're unhappy. Corporations feed off of insecurity. They tell you that you're not good enough in many ways, so buy their products and maybe you'll be happier! But that doesn't work. You'll never become happier because that insecurity is the problem, not an actual lack of something. This sense of lack is what drives capitalism and it's what drives corporations. Without this sense of lack, capitalists wouldn't be able to exploit anybody. Everyone is infected with this virus and that's why we're unhappy.

 

btw, vortex, it's quite obvious that Marx was a reptilian. 'Karl' means slither and 'Marx' means forked-tongue. There's definitely a conspiracy here. Marx was no doubt a reptilian who wrote the Communist Manifesto as a way to control the population to make room for an earth invasion. It's a good thing that the good Capitalists won the war against the Soviets, who represented Marx's utopia, because we'd all be slaves right now to these evil alien conquerors.

Edited April 27, 2010 by mikaelz

[gendao]

Nobody is blinking past that; we're just smart enough not to judge an ideology by the actions of tyrants who come into power and act under the name of said ideology.

Seems to be a high correlation between Communism & despotism. Can you name a Communist country without iron-fisted rule? If not, why do you suppose they always seemed to go hand-in-hand like PB&J? Sheer coincidence?

Ohh that makes sense! The world became more liberal and that's why people are on anti-depressants. It's because all those gays are getting married and blacks have rights now. What a terrible and depressing world we live in.

You do realize that one of the main stated goals of feminism was the elimination of marriage?

"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." - Robin Morgan

 

"Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice. Rape, originally defined as abduction, became marriage by capture. Marriage meant the taking was to extend in time, to be not only use of but possession of, or ownership. Only when manhood is dead--and it will perish when ravaged femininity no longer sustains it" - Andrea Dworkin

 

"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together.... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.... No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children... Families will be finally destroyed only when a revolutionary social and economic organization permits people's needs for love and security to be met in ways that do not impose divisions of labor, or any external roles, at all." - Linda Gordon

 

"Feminists have long criticized marriage as a place of oppression, danger, and drudgery for women." - Barbara Findlen

 

"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." - Robin Morgan

BTW, the 2nd-wave feminist movement wasn't a true grass-roots movement, either. It was funded by the CIA, the Ford Foundation and the CFR (run by the Rockefellers). All the usual suspects. I hope you're not playing dumb here or aren't really this naive.

 

But if so, here's why:

 

According to Russo, Rockefeller had told him that the Rockefeller Foundation had helped to fund the feminist movement. There were several reasons for this. One, it got women into the work force. This provided more income for taxation. (Marxism's "equal obligation of all to work")

 

Second, it got kids in government funded schools at an earlier age for indoctrination. (Marxism's "free education - aka mandatory State indoctrination like the Red Guard - for all children in government schools.")

Much of feminism is rooted in the political ideology of Marxism which is the basis for the formation of Communism and Socialism..

The feminist revolution in Russia began during the Russian Bolshevik Revolution around 1917. Alexandra Kollontai, much like Obama's Valerie Jarrett was tasked with leading the Zhenotdel or "Women's Department" in 1919 as was Jarrett just appointed the same position for Obama's new Federal Council On Women and Girls.

Actually all those changes happened because in the last 50 years corporations have gotten so huge and had so much money. There was also an increase in technology which connects everyone to these corporations via advertisements and marketing. Everyone is addicted in someway to the system; they keep us fed (with addicting food additives like MSG) and happy (with emotionally addictive soap operas). We are constantly taken advantage of. We are just desire machines! Next time you watch commercials, pay attention. What emotion or desire are they pounding at? Most likely its sex or insecurity. That's why we're unhappy. Corporations feed off of insecurity. They tell you that you're not good enough in many ways, so buy their products and maybe you'll be happier! But that doesn't work. You'll never become happier because that insecurity is the problem, not an actual lack of something. This sense of lack is what drives capitalism and it's what drives corporations. Without this sense of lack, capitalists wouldn't be able to exploit anybody. Everyone is infected with this virus and that's why we're unhappy.

Funny how Commies hate large private corporations, yet love large government. Do you see a contradiction there?

 

Again, no one is forcing you to watch TV or commercials or eat food with MSG. Mostly what you're complaining about is Bernaysian brainwashing. Edward Bernays was a liberal propagandist who believed in despotism. He was also Freud's nephew and applied his theories to mass spin doctoring. He got American women to start smoking and his methods were later employed by the CIA, NAZIs & Communists alike.

"We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of... Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society" - Bernays

So, this type of mass propaganda actually is a branch of liberal, atheist thought (not capitalism). Their underlying goal was to replace all spiritualism with materialism (consumer products) and fission the nuclear family to eventually make everyone a child-slave of the State.

Edited April 27, 2010 by vortex

[goldisheavy]

Funny how Commies hate large private corporations, yet love large government. Do you see a contradiction there?

 

I am not a Communist, but I have to say something about the quoted statement.

 

What Rethuglicans fail to understand, is that while large corporations and large governments both represent concentrations of power, democratic governments have the checks of democracy on them, while the corporate concentrations of power are currently unchecked by democracy.

 

This is a crucial distinction.

 

I don't think the government should be large. Nor do I think it should be small. I think it should be just the right size to be effective.

 

All power concentrations are bad. Democratic governments arose, or evolved, as an answer to unchecked private power concentrations.

 

A large undemocratic government is worse than a large corporation. What about corporations? Can corporate power be democratic? As a matter of fact, yes it can be. Corporations which use democratic dynamics internally are a good thing. It's unhealthy for power to flow only in one direction, unilaterally. There has to be some kind of feedback. Democracy is a feedback mechanism. Freedom of speech is another. And so on. Is there freedom of speech in most large corporations? Absolutely not! Internally, inside a large corp, you are like a member of the most tyrannical Commie state. You say the wrong thing to the wrong person, and you are fired. That's what Communism is like. So internally large corps are all Commie states, all the while externally they want to be treated like Caps (Capitalists). Hypocrisy much? If corporate overlords truly believed in freedom, they would allow constructive and creative freedom internally to their organization.

Edited April 27, 2010 by goldisheavy

[S-Curve]

If LEGAL immigrants are treated like shit, how come how come we fill Ivy League universities? How comes we become doctors? I am talking about Indians and East asians here. I know SO MANY obscenely wealthy Indians and East asians....born in Asia or one generation removed. We drive bentleys, bmw 7 series, ferraris etc.

 

I mean, go to a Porsche dealership. Who do you see in disappropriate numbers?

 

Have you ever walked around the campuses of the Ivy League? It is like going to Little Asia.

 

If you come here LEGALLY, you can become wealthy PRETTY EASILY

 

Why?

 

Their superior education is what lets them emigrate in the first place!

 

That's easy to answer.

 

The world is full of rich and poor people.

 

You may be surprised to know that the disparity between rich and poor is even greater in impoverished countries. There are a very large number of extremely wealthy families from Asia(and other places). Wealthy families from all over the world send their children to universities in the United States and Europe.

[gendao]

I am not a Communist, but I have to say something about the quoted statement.

 

What Rethuglicans fail to understand, is that while large corporations and large governments both represent concentrations of power, democratic governments have the checks of democracy on them, while the corporate concentrations of power are currently unchecked by democracy.

 

This is a crucial distinction.

 

I don't think the government should be large. Nor do I think it should be small. I think it should be just the right size to be effective.

 

All power concentrations are bad. Democratic governments arose, or evolved, as an answer to unchecked private power concentrations.

 

A large undemocratic government is worse than a large corporation. What about corporations? Can corporate power be democratic? As a matter of fact, yes it can be. Corporations which use democratic dynamics internally are a good thing. It's unhealthy for power to flow only in one direction, unilaterally. There has to be some kind of feedback. Democracy is a feedback mechanism. Freedom of speech is another. And so on. Is there freedom of speech in most large corporations? Absolutely not! Internally, inside a large corp, you are like a member of the most tyrannical Commie state. You say the wrong thing to the wrong person, and you are fired. That's what Communism is like. So internally large corps are all Commie states, all the while externally they want to be treated like Caps (Capitalists). Hypocrisy much? If corporate overlords truly believed in freedom, they would allow constructive and creative freedom internally to their organization.

I agree with a lot of your points here. Centralizing power does create a convenient handle for any despots to easily hijack & control the whole collective with.

 

The bigger a single power vacuum you create, the bigger a single a-hole can fill it.

 

However, corporations ARE checked by customers & stockholders in capitalism. If you don't like them, you can just stop buying their stuff. People also organize boycotts all the time. And even short of that, a few angry complaint letters can often have a great effect. Remember, the customer is "always right." So, your real vote lies in your wallet, not ballot - because money talks the loudest. (This actually is true in a democracy as well.)

 

There's definitely a feedback loop there. That's why Whole Foods is expanding so rapidly now - because more Americans are finally starting to choose to eat healthier. Which then quickly gets reflected in the free market response to all their financial "votes."

 

And btw, I'm not a Repub, I'm a Libertarian. I do agree with some Repub points though, as well as a lot of the environmentalism of liberals.

Edited April 27, 2010 by vortex

[Enishi]

So far as democracies go, I agree that many democracies around the world are pretty nice places to live...at the moment. I am doubtful however as to how long it will last. In terms of the european countries which some people are holding up as models for everyone to emulate, most have VERY low birth rates combined with a steadily aging population. The only way for them to have enough workers to fill the gap and pay for everyone's retirement is by bringing in immigrants who do NOT share western liberal cultural values.

 

Historically speaking, large scale democracies (and many republics) generally do NOT last very long.

 

"Remember,

Democracy never last long.

It soon wastes, exhaust, and murders itself.

There never was a Democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

 

John Quincy Adams

 

Basically speaking, people who lack education in financial and political matters (most of the population) start voting themselves more and more out of the public treasury, and any politician who tries to move in the opposite direction will be committing political suicide. Eventually, something has to give and the good times move on...

[gendao]

So far as democracies go, I agree that many democracies around the world are pretty nice places to live...at the moment. I am doubtful however as to how long it will last. In terms of the european countries which some people are holding up as models for everyone to emulate, most have VERY low birth rates combined with a steadily aging population. The only way for them to have enough workers to fill the gap and pay for everyone's retirement is by bringing in immigrants who do NOT share western liberal cultural values.

Retirement pyramid schemes are no justification for increasing the population, though. You're destroying the environment that way & only delaying the pyramid collapse, anyhow.

Historically speaking, large scale democracies (and many republics) generally do NOT last very long.

 

"Remember,

Democracy never last long.

It soon wastes, exhaust, and murders itself.

There never was a Democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

 

John Quincy Adams

 

Basically speaking, people who lack education in financial and political matters (most of the population) start voting themselves more and more out of the public treasury, and any politician who tries to move in the opposite direction will be committing political suicide. Eventually, something has to give and the good times move on...

In addition:

The historical cycle seems to be: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more. - Henning Webb Prentis, Jr.

This is why the NW0 uses the mass media to make us lazier, more apathetic & dependent. It hastens the natural progression back to bondage.

[goldisheavy]

However, corporations ARE checked by customers & stockholders in capitalism.

 

Bullshit. First, it's not even close to true. Second, consumer and shareholder checks are not good enough, even if they did work, because there are other important people who are affected who are neither consumers not shareholders and who deserve to have a voice.

 

Coke has most of its consumers and shareholders in USA and Europe, it is free to go into a 3rd world nation and rape it for its natural resources and use its people as slaves. Why? Because no one will find out, that's why.

 

How can corps get away with using slave labor in China? Easy. Because consumers and shareholders cannot check them.

 

And btw, I'm not a Repub, I'm a Libertarian. I do agree with some Repub points though, as well as a lot of the environmentalism of liberals.

 

Who gives a crap. I will call you a Rethuglican anyway. That's how you act. I will act the same to you. Fuck you dirty Rethuglican. I suppose I could call your ass Glibertarian if you like. That's the level of discourse you appreciate and understand.

[Mokona]

Bullshit. First, it's not even close to true. Second, consumer and shareholder checks are not good enough, even if they did work, because there are other important people who are affected who are neither consumers not shareholders and who deserve to have a voice.

 

Coke has most of its consumers and shareholders in USA and Europe, it is free to go into a 3rd world nation and rape it for its natural resources and use its people as slaves. Why? Because no one will find out, that's why.

 

How can corps get away with using slave labor in China? Easy. Because consumers and shareholders cannot check them.

 

 

 

Who gives a crap. I will call you a Rethuglican anyway. That's how you act. I will act the same to you. Fuck you dirty Rethuglican. I suppose I could call your ass Glibertarian if you like. That's the level of discourse you appreciate and understand.

 

 

What are the protections for those people? Does no one try and prevent these things from happening?

I'd think that media would offer some sort of unvieling of those sorts of activities, but I don't even watch the news anymore, too much BS is being aired on Celebs and useless debates.

 

Well, with that as a problem, where does one in the US go for news? Also, how to you put your own piece of power into removing gunk from the system? From what I have been reading it seems as though we are already fighting on an unfair playing field, so how does one person support change?

[goldisheavy]

What are the protections for those people? Does no one try and prevent these things from happening?

 

You have to know about it before you can do something about it. And corps control most media, so they are not likely to tell you about their misdeeds.

 

I'd think that media would offer some sort of unvieling of those sorts of activities, but I don't even watch the news anymore, too much BS is being aired on Celebs and useless debates.

 

You're forgetting something. Who owns most media? On the internet you can find some news that MSM doesn't want you to see, but you have to go and proactively look for it. At the same time, just turn on radio on your drive to work, and bam -- there goes corporate propaganda.

 

Well, with that as a problem, where does one in the US go for news? Also, how to you put your own piece of power into removing gunk from the system? From what I have been reading it seems as though we are already fighting on an unfair playing field, so how does one person support change?

 

My answers:

 

1. Read many diverse news sources. Mix mainstream and non-mainstream media. Get first-hand accounts if you can. Maintain a critical mindset.

 

2. How do you put your own 2c into the system? Participate in discourse. Become your own media center. Voice your opinion. All the garbage in the world stems from bad culture. Bad political systems stem from bad culture. And culture is born and reborn in discussions, including discussions like this one. Encourage people to think independently and to think critically. Encourage people to dig deep down for what it is that they really want and enjoy. What is it that makes life worth living? Is mere survival the goal of life?

 

From what I have been reading it seems as though we are already fighting on an unfair playing field, so how does one person support change?

 

Talk to people. Then go further where it makes sense. You can stop buying products of some company -- this is a somewhat weak response, but it's better than nothing. You can find out who buys advertisements for some very bad show, and call these companies to shame them for supporting such a terrible show. Call your legislators from time to time. Etc. Basically participate in life. Be a participant in this game instead of just a witness.

Edited April 27, 2010 by goldisheavy

[Gerard]

...Who gives a crap. I will call you a Rethuglican anyway. That's how you act. I will act the same to you. Fuck you dirty Rethuglican. I suppose I could call your ass Glibertarian if you like. That's the level of discourse you appreciate and understand.

 

 

If I were a mod in this forum and for the fact that you are flaming and swearing I would give time off. Cave meditations work really well.

 

 

And please, keep your discussions on topic. Thanks.

Edited April 27, 2010 by durkhrod chogori

[goldisheavy]

If I were a mod in this forum and for the fact that you are flaming and swearing I would give time off. Cave meditations work really well.

 

 

And please, keep your discussions on topic. Thanks.

 

You should move to Iran, unless of course you already live there. You'll find that country in tune with your ideals.

[RongzomFan]

That's easy to answer.

 

The world is full of rich and poor people.

 

You may be surprised to know that the disparity between rich and poor is even greater in impoverished countries. There are a very large number of extremely wealthy families from Asia(and other places). Wealthy families from all over the world send their children to universities in the United States and Europe.

 

I have seen the immigrant lifecycle. They are NOT wealthy when they come here.

 

Sociologists are aware that legal immigrants BECOME more wealthy than native borns.

Edited April 27, 2010 by alwayson