French riots

[catgate]

I find the continued riots, and their spread to Belgium and Germany, very reassuring and frightening at the same time.

It is reassuring in as much as there are people who will stand up and say to the Globalist politicians "You have gone far enough, and have let us down. You have spoken words with no substance or truth." I think the manner of demonstating this is less than perfect, but then, those demonstrating are, like the politicians, not the sharpest knives in the drawer. The ordinary residents of France with whom I have spoken recently have all complained about inordinate price rises etc. and I have witness myself the enormous escalation of costs of everything across Holland, France and Germany.

I find it frightening because there seems to be a groundswell, across the world, of "justifiable" anarchy. The lives of millions are being controlled and ordered by the Globalists (Bilderbergers??), and this is indefensible, as well as being totally immoral. There is no doubt that "the authorities" will "put down" this present unrest, for a while, but, without some real change of direction by the Globalists, it will come back even stronger and even more widespread.

The problem is not that there is too much poverty due to a shortage of money, it is that there are far too many totally non productive and useless people trying to control the lives of others by the redistribution of wealth (mainly in the direction of their sycophants, henchmen and other carpet baggers).

Oh dear! I'm on the soapbox again.

[andsome]

An awful lot of people have genuine grievances, but rioting, and wrecking other peoples shops, houses and cars etc, is NOT the way to go about things. Many people who have suffered at the hands of these thugs are equally as poor. Much of the problem is drug fuelled. I don't pretend to have an answer, but as I say these thugs MUST be stopped, and at the same time solutions to the root problems MUST be found.

[r4may]

An awful lot of people have genuine grievances, but rioting, and wrecking other peoples shops, houses and cars etc, is NOT the way to go about things. Many people who have suffered at the hands of these thugs are equally as poor. Much of the problem is drug fuelled. I don't pretend to have an answer, but as I say these thugs MUST be stopped, and at the same time solutions to the root problems MUST be found.

Problem needs fixing soon before it spreads to the UK and further

[Jayno]

Yes, you all make very good points. I too feel all the contradictions of understanding and sympathy for the rioters, moral certitude that you shouldn't hurt people and property, exasperation that root causes are not addressed.

The problem is, all these things used to have a constructive vehicle in the alternative ethical/political idealogy of Communism/Socialism (and please don't split hairs with me about exactly what kind in which circumstance, where it was trumpeted but falsely applied etc etc - that's a boring old debate now), but this has now been so damned and debilitated by the forces of international capital and the nation states' politics it effectively 'owns', there is not a lot more on offer than anarchy and crime for the dis-advantaged and oppressed.

I am not a conspiracy theorist nor a paranoid, but I have been of the view for some years that "democracy" is actually dead as an idea, because the powerful have found ways to control and corrupt it, just like the powerful are still using other ways to control and corrupt pre-democratic states (e.g. through Theocracies or Mafia-like 'systems').

The inevitable or paradoxical result (depending on how you argue it) is that the world is becoming increasingly ungovernable. States with market economies can only be civically sustained if they can keep meeting the whole population's consumer expectations. Given that expectations continually rise this can only be achieved through the exploitation of resources which we all know are becoming evermore limited, and this has, is and will continue to be the root of all inequalities - the "other's" expectations have to either be kept out of their consciousness, or held down or excluded if it is in their consciousness. (As George Steiner once said "There is no value without gradient"). But you can't stop consciousness and expectation rising. It is a human biological phenomenon and a socio-economic one.

Our world has been entering turmoil for some time. The French riots are no more than one of a growing pandemic of spreading symptoms. I am quite fearful of what will happen. Unless the powerful (which includes we who write here) make a fundamental change towards a more altruistic world politics, it is difficult to see how catastrophe can be avoided. I know the pseudo-scientific argument that as problems increase so do their solutions, more or less in proportion. But solutions are not inherently ethical in themselves, and in our complex, inter-connected times I think the odds are that we shall see outcomes that are more likely to be Malthusian and exponential.

Do you get what I mean?

Jayno :scared:

[andsome]

Don't you remember the ruthless way that communism controlled the people in the old USSR? Have you forgotten the communist governments in East Germany. Poland Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Roumania, Albania etc etc? Have you forgotten Tianeman Square in China? All systems are open to control and corruption by evil people. they always have been and always will be. There are always those that will do well out of any system, be it capitalist, communist, dictatorship, and any other system. As I said, I don't pretend to have the answer, but then neither does communism.

[Jayno]

QUOTE ".. (and please don't split hairs with me about exactly what kind in which circumstance, where it was trumpeted but falsely applied etc etc - that's a boring old debate now) .. ENDQUOTE

Sorry Andsome, I wasn't arguing from a Russia/China etc position and anyway, my quote above was meant to try and avoid exactly the kind of reply you sent me. Nothing personal (really my friend), but I find these kind of responses almost pavlovian whenever the word "communism" is mentioned. For me, they don't take our understanding of possibilities any further forward.

jayno

[andsome]

QUOTE ".. (and please don't split hairs with me about exactly what kind in which circumstance, where it was trumpeted but falsely applied etc etc - that's a boring old debate now) .. ENDQUOTE

Sorry Andsome, I wasn't arguing from a Russia/China etc position and anyway, my quote above was meant to try and avoid exactly the kind of reply you sent me. Nothing personal (really my friend), but I find these kind of responses almost pavlovian whenever the word "communism" is mentioned. For me, they don't take our understanding of possibilities any further forward.

jayno

Fair enough, but perhaps you could explain what point you are trying to get across, and just what your views are.

[Jayno]

I'll try to so do, later if I may. Just rushing off to work!

j :-)

[andsome]

I'll try to so do, later if I may. Just rushing off to work!

j :-)

WORK.

Good thing to. Hope you pay plenty of tax TOWARD MY PENSION.

[catgate]

I am not a conspiracy theorist nor a paranoid, but I have been of the view for some years that "democracy" is actually dead as an idea, because the powerful have found ways to control and corrupt it, just like the powerful are still using other ways to control and corrupt pre-democratic states (e.g. through Theocracies or Mafia-like 'systems').

Sadly there has never ever been true democracy of the type “of the people, by the people, for the people”. What there has been is a form of power sharing, between the establishment bullies (who usurped the original bullies power) and the religious bullies, and which, by sleight of hand and mass hypnosis, has been passed off as “democracy”. This has been aided by political doublespeak, which redefines democracy in precisely the way that is needed for each occasion.

Religion and politics are the opposite sides of the same coin. Religion makes the people meek (waiting to inherit the earth) and subservient for the benefit of the politicians, who can come along and milk them like a herd of cows.

In some countries both sides of the coin are same … Theocracies….”Communism” a la USSR/N. Korea etc.

The inevitable or paradoxical result (depending on how you argue it) is that the world is becoming increasingly ungovernable. States with market economies can only be civically sustained if they can keep meeting the whole population's consumer expectations. Given that expectations continually rise this can only be achieved through the exploitation of resources which we all know are becoming evermore limited, and this has, is and will continue to be the root of all inequalities - the "other's" expectations have to either be kept out of their consciousness, or held down or excluded if it is in their consciousness. (As George Steiner once said "There is no value without gradient"). But you can't stop consciousness and expectation rising. It is a human biological phenomenon and a socio-economic one.

The reason for the almost exponential growth of expectations is all down to the promises made by both religious leaders and politicians to keep the support of the people. The whole of religion is based on this expectation, it is called faith, and has cost the peasant dearly. The entire political system is based on faith and is based on the promises of the potential leader to raise the standard of living etc. etc.of the people. The facts that a) he has not the slightest idea of how to do this, B) he has never had the experience needed to perform this, and c) others before him have singularly failed to succeed in keeping their promises, do not dent the faith of the millions hypnotises by political doublespeak and religious fog. On top of this we have layers of false promises generated by “establishment linked” organisations who are out to “make a quick billion” by promising the undeliverable. Little wonder expectations are high.

What is needed is a form of government (which excludes politicians and religions) and truly is “of the people, by the people, for the people”. This can be done, but some very bad decisions would be made ”by the people” before a sensible outlook would prevail. It is the only way forwards …but then it may be too late.

[andsome]

What is needed is a form of government (which excludes politicians and religions) and truly is “of the people, by the people, for the people”. This can be done, but some very bad decisions would be made ”by the people” before a sensible outlook would prevail. It is the only way forwards …but then it may be too late.

BUT HOW?

[catgate]

What is needed is a form of government (which excludes politicians and religions) and truly is “of the people, by the people, for the people”. This can be done, but some very bad decisions would be made ”by the people” before a sensible outlook would prevail. It is the only way forwards …but then it may be too late.

BUT HOW?

Well you have a brain the size of a planet, you make a suggestion. All you have to do is make sure the final decision on all matters, law and order, taxation, the organisation of society, education, relationship with other countries etc is made, not by those claiming to represent the people, but by the people themselves. It's not a big problem.

[andsome]

I don't pretend to have a solution.

[deuces wild]

It is not a riot about economic conditions (which admittedly are very poor in France).

What is missed in this discussion is that these riots (800 some cars burned just tonight) are by young extremist Muslim men and France has done nothing to stop them.........I believe they want to negotiate with them.

Eh?

France has time and time again tried to appease the enemy and ended up getting the short end............this is just another example, as was their support of Saddam pre Iraq war.

Germany will be next.

Both proved themselves weak by supporting Saddam. The terrorist wolves will now have a field day taking down those weak sheep.

[Tankus]

By them supporting Iraq prior to the ?

he ...I thought that the US was Saddams ..biggest , bestest friend ..?

France has a nasty dose of the Algerians

[deuces wild]

It's Baghdad here," the rioters shouted. Night after night last week, rage spread through the ghettos that ring Paris, then beyond to every corner of France. When a tear-gas canister exploded near a mosque in Clichy-sous-Bois on the fourth violent evening, a new cry went up. "Now this is war," said one of the vandals. Others cried "jihad.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9938333/site/newsweek/

Go figure. :rolleyes:

[Jayno]

Andsome

The point I was trying to get across is that we live in a world that actively ignores or keeps certain people down. This 'equation' is increasingly not working because the alienation of the ignored and downtrodden is producing incivil responses, like the riots in France. It is therefore only of relative use for us to say to ourselves that we are morally 'right' and the downtrodden are morally 'wrong'. The downtrodden are beyond caring what we think is wrong about their behaviour. They are experiencing the absolute problem of being the losers in this world system, and seeing no prospects of change in this! This is producing rejection of 'our' idea of morality: 'they' don't believe it is morality.

I am proposing that we try looking at ourselves in the way the downtrodden look at us. This doesn't mean wholly taking their view or their part, but it surely will reveal what we are reluctant to admit: that our view of our own moraility and rightness is flawed.

Of course, many people get enraged even at the suggestion of questioning themselves like this. It's so much easier to just make clever or scathing or indignant - all ultimately fatalistic - comments about the downtrodden - "Look what they did when .. this or that happened" "They'll never learn" "They are just scum, jihadi's, terrorists" etc. - as if that confirms they are different from us and therefore excuses us from doing anything about it. But these are cop outs designed to protect the status quo and the self-righteous, to preserve the haves' world advantage. My thesis is that these cop outs don't even achieve their selfish aims, they are sub-optimal responses that actually add to the problem.

The be part of the solution, people have to think beyond themselves and their prejudices and act supra-optimally. It's a better mathematical equation to make space for the 'other' in the world. It isn't 'our' world, it is ours and theirs, so we don't assimilate we aggregate. It's where we show respect as well as claim it, where we act to show trust because we want to earn it. This is the arithmetic of gaining personally and socially from enabling and empowering others to achieve what they need.

In my earlier email I was arguing that if international capitalism wasn't so hegemonic, there would be alternative political vehicles for supra-optimalists and the downtrodden to engage with that had at least the hope of achieving positive change in the absolute situation. These vehicles increasingly don't exist, so the well-meaning feel impotent and the downtrodden turn to extremes that are outside what they see as our fake moral boundaries (i.e. anarchism, extreme religion etc).

You ask the rhetorical question of HOW? I don't think this is a difficult question. The WHAT is more difficult. I don't know what we should call the new politics we need. But I'm glad in a way that it doesn't have a name yet, because it makes it less easy for the sub-optimals to pillory and dismiss the thing. A form of naming will be needed, but I'm more interested at this stage in the kind of purposefulness that is needed, what the new principles of approach ought to be, and the forms of communication that can convey integrity. These are HOW things.

I always thought Mahatma Ghandi had a good take on this. He said he organised his life and his action around the two principles of Satyagraha (truth force) and Sarvodaya (uplift of the people). As a spiritual man with a Hindu perspective he saw his personal life as a a form of duty of pursuing the Truth, a life wherein he should yoke himself to the path towards enlightenment. His friends admired this but said to him it might be a bit selfish, and in any case, how did he know what the Truth is? He laughed and wagged his head from side to side in that lovely way the Indians do, and he said something like: "Ah, but in my secular activities I only do things that uplift the people, so if I make a mistake in my pursuit of Truth at least there's a good chance I won't hurt anybody."

jayno

:blahblah1:

[andsome]

I appreciate your point, but it is a sad fact that a lot of people cannot be helped. They only want it all laid on for them. Look at what some kids do to facilities set aside for them, they just wreck them, and then complain that they are bored and have nothing else to do. I am not lumping everyone who is poor into this category, just the mindless minority. My mother was widowed when I was 2 i/2 years old, and two weeks BEFORE my sister was born. She knuckled down and dragged herself out of the gutter with little help from anyone. We had nothing when we were kids, but did not go round wrecking the lives of those who were more fortunate. There is NO excuse for this mindless vandalism.

[Jayno]

You're right, there is never an excuse for mindlessness (unless the offender is truly insane), but there is almost always an explanation. So my philosophy is act to stop the crime but also act on the explanation. Even better if done in the reverse order. If not, then at least put more action in on the explanation stuff than you did on the crime stopping.

You have to change the absolute equation.

Illustrative lesson of failure to do this: invade Irak (OK) but then don't follow up on the promised "Road Map" re Palestine (not OK) = worse situation in Palestine, Irak and now closer to home.

Enjoy your evening, be optimistic about your pensioned future - I worked hard yesterday ...

:showoff: