How to stop the rot (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Aneirin -> How to stop the rot (3/23/2008 7:31:36 AM)

How to stop the rot, well, according to author,writer and columnist Vernon Coleman.

http://www.vernoncoleman.com/rescueourcountry.htm

And for those who want to know more about the man;

http://www.vernoncoleman.com/main.htm



LadyEllen -> RE: How to stop the rot (3/23/2008 7:50:22 AM)

I read a lot of anger at how things are and where we're heading, but not much in the way of how to stop it?

I'm also somewhat troubled, (by what I read into it), the notion of England and Englishness which is given - it seems exclusive and not inclusive - not inclusive in particular of those who have made their homes here and who must have a voice and role in resolving the rot and a place in any solution we produce.

E



NorthernGent -> RE: How to stop the rot (3/23/2008 7:53:41 AM)

What we've seen in the last 30 years of English history is pretty much the opposite to that which the author describes in the OP. The government has actually stepped back into the shadows in this period and abdicated its responsibilities; the government is now the subject of corporations and financial institutions.

If anything, England is heading back to the pre WW1 days of reliance on the invisible hand of the market. There is less government regulation in the economy than 40/50/60 years ago and the government follows the mantra of wealth creation at all costs; even the Conservative Party of the 1960s held full employment as an objective. Granted, some reactionary measures have been introduced, but since when was England a place devoid of designed social control methods?, and this alone does not warrant fascist status.

Political freedom is a double-edged sword, because the more aware of your political rights you become, the more the establishment introduces more covert means of keeping you in your place. There's a question...... was it wise for us to develop the concept of limited monarchy which underpinned English and French enlightenment thinkers - or should we have lopped all of their heads off in one fell swoop?

And, he is subject to the biggest illusion of them all - the one believing we once lived under a genuine democracy. Of course we have freedom of choice - providing we don't threaten the status quo.



Aneirin -> RE: How to stop the rot (3/23/2008 7:57:06 AM)

I thought it would be obvious how to stop the rot.


There has been much debated on these boards in the past that bear a striking resemblance to some of which is written in that link, so maybe Mr Coleman is not that far from the reality of our country. Being aware of a problem is the first steps on how to fix that problem.





LadyEllen -> RE: How to stop the rot (3/23/2008 8:04:56 AM)

Aneirin - I'm sorry, but (gasp) I think NG is nearer the mark than Mr Coleman.

Its not so much that the politicians would like to develop a fascist state, than that by handing over our country to corporate and financial interests, the politicians are involved in producing a consumer state where the market overrules everything, and whose character may be alike to a fascist state except insofar as instead of the state taking precedence over the individual, the interests of the market take such precedence and the politicians are involved inasmuch as they engineer the legal and social framework required for this to occur. Even the ID cards issue is explicable in such terms - the market demands this information on we consumers, not the government, albeit that I would agree that the successive socio-economic policies of governments going back decades have brought us to this point.

And again (gasp) NG is closer to the mark in stating that we have never had it any much different - we are here simply exchanging one priority group for another. The troubling aspect with this latest group of lords and masters though is the same as with former systems - that we have no say in anything, regardless of the illusion, and this lot are out for themselves alone as a result.

E



Termyn8or -> RE: How to stop the rot (3/23/2008 1:30:28 PM)

Been said before. This is the way of things, and the consolidation of power is near complete, all this without any conspiracy of any kind of course.

At timesI regret not having kids, but anytimethat happens I can make that evaporate by looking around.

Something like this has been said - Want to build an inescapable prison, don't put up any walls.

Chris Rock said - Life is catching up to jail.

I will never comply, it is not my nature, and if I go to jail fine. I am not paying them shit, they are nothing but bullies and now want to make sure that only they can protect themselves. If I lived in a country that required a license for a TV set I would learn how to make guns, and I would pass them out for free or at cost.

Once they got your guns folks, there is nothing stopping them.

Yup, I have not and will not contribute to their goals. They can't force me to reproduce and goddammit I ain't for sure, knowing what I know now.

The land of the fee and the home of the slave. What other country on Earth is so staunchly allied with the country the supposedly won their independence from?

When I am dead my bloodline is finished. I do not even want my sperm in a bank, this planet is not good enough for my offspring, and unlike some others I have decided not to have any for that reason.

You think the trend is going to change ? It is not. The future world will be a global plantation, or like a gulag. I pity your kids. And there is not a damn thing we can do about it .

Let the mutts who don't have two nickels to rub together have ten kids and provide the fodder for their future use. They are not getting mine.

Arrogant ?Yes I am . Unjjustified ? you be the judge. I am arrogant enough to let my bloodline die off, deprive the world of future engineers and scientists, humanitarians and heros. Fuck them. And with the laws they have in place I could never raise them right unless I moved to a cave somewhere and cut my family completely off from society, and that is by their design.

Fuck them. Oh, I said that already.

T



LadyEllen -> RE: How to stop the rot (3/24/2008 8:53:38 AM)

Hypothesis  - that we have sleepwalked not into a fascist state run by government, but a fascist state run by consumer marketing in which our celebration of individuality is complicit.

Observation - that by promoting individualism in the population, the market for consumer products is enhanced considerably as each person attempts to acquire products which express their individuality.

Observation - nevertheless, it remains the case that individuals retain the human need to associate with others of like mind or appearance or habits; this assists the marketing in that products can be aimed at distinct groups whenever the groups grow to sufficient, market supporting, size. Alternatively, groups can be created and/or developed to sufficient market supporting size by media promotion of that group.

Observation - the distinct groups are made distinct by the actions of the members of those groups, who exclude those who do not conform to group mind, appearance or habits. The overall effect is for the population to be divided into isolated groups.

Observation - the isolation of the population into smaller groups who by choice do not associate with others of other groups, not only undermines any sense of society, community or nation but also assists in the takeover of society, community and nation by those catering to the needs of individual expression, and suits these forces well according to the principles of divide and rule.

Observation - that because of individualism, it becomes less and less likely that the population as a whole or a majority of the population, will ever be able to mount any serious challenge to the status quo, since the groups into which the population is self-organised and thence managed, preclude the possibility of any unified approach against the status quo as each group refuses to associate with the others.

Observation - the needs of the market as they relate to the fulfillment of individual aims and expression are extolled above the needs of the people as a whole, and the consumer market place does not promote individualism but conformity to identified distinct groups which suit the market and the overall system.

Paradox - to remove ourselves from the fascist state of affairs proposed above, we must abandon individualism and form a group mind which is common in a majority of the population such that the status quo may be overturned. To regain freedom for the nation, we must abandon personal freedom - or at least the illusion we have of personal freedom, and accept the supremacy of the interests of the whole over the individual, requiring a more orthodox form of fascism...........

E



celticlord2112 -> RE: How to stop the rot (3/24/2008 9:10:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Hypothesis  - that we have sleepwalked not into a fascist state run by government, but a fascist state run by consumer marketing in which our celebration of individuality is complicit.


I am not sure such a state would be "fascist".  Nor am I entirely persuaded that consumer marketing drives as much of our behavior as some would argue.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
Observation - that by promoting individualism in the population, the market for consumer products is enhanced considerably as each person attempts to acquire products which express their individuality.


I don't see it.  If anything, marketing promotes varying forms of groupthink and promotes the aim of "being like" someone else.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
Observation - nevertheless, it remains the case that individuals retain the human need to associate with others of like mind or appearance or habits; this assists the marketing in that products can be aimed at distinct groups whenever the groups grow to sufficient, market supporting, size. Alternatively, groups can be created and/or developed to sufficient market supporting size by media promotion of that group.

Observation - the distinct groups are made distinct by the actions of the members of those groups, who exclude those who do not conform to group mind, appearance or habits. The overall effect is for the population to be divided into isolated groups.

I agree with these obersvations somewhat.  Again, I submit the proactive role of marketing in group creation has not been proven.  Marketing seems to me very much a reactive phenomenon, responding to groupings previously established in other venues.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
Observation - the isolation of the population into smaller groups who by choice do not associate with others of other groups, not only undermines any sense of society, community or nation but also assists in the takeover of society, community and nation by those catering to the needs of individual expression, and suits these forces well according to the principles of divide and rule.

I agree that isolating into groups undermines the larger society, but it is the drive to be in a "like" group--i.e., a groupthink--that drives the isolation.  I do not see where individualism drives such a process.  In fact, individualism necessarily opposes such processes, as group allegiances are necessarily eschewed and/or rejected.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
Observation - that because of individualism, it becomes less and less likely that the population as a whole or a majority of the population, will ever be able to mount any serious challenge to the status quo, since the groups into which the population is self-organised and thence managed, preclude the possibility of any unified approach against the status quo as each group refuses to associate with the others.

I do not see where this has been proven.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
Observation - the needs of the market as they relate to the fulfillment of individual aims and expression are extolled above the needs of the people as a whole, and the consumer market place does not promote individualism but conformity to identified distinct groups which suit the market and the overall system.

The market does emphasize instant gratification.  The market imperfectly and incorrectly obscures a great many costs associated with obtaining gratification.  When externalities are internalized in the market, this concern evaporates.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
Paradox - to remove ourselves from the fascist state of affairs proposed above, we must abandon individualism and form a group mind which is common in a majority of the population such that the status quo may be overturned. To regain freedom for the nation, we must abandon personal freedom - or at least the illusion we have of personal freedom, and accept the supremacy of the interests of the whole over the individual, requiring a more orthodox form of fascism...........

E


There is no paradox.  Individualism is not the problem, but rather the solution.  The more we eschew groupthink, the more we articulate our identities apart from some ephemeral institution, the more we can see where our interests conjoin with the interests of those around us, and the more we can see where prudent interactions will collectively obtain the bulk of the gratifications we seek as individuals.

The history of the United States demonstrates this rather handily.  American society is at its finest when individuals freely come together in common cause.  American society is at its worst when individual liberty is trampled in pursuit of some arbitrarily defined communal good.

The marketing mechanism you criticize here could easily be used--and often are used--to promote the ideals and agendas you advocate here.  One merely has to choose--as an individual--to market that message.



LadyEllen -> RE: How to stop the rot (3/24/2008 3:05:16 PM)

Hi CL

This is quite a difficult-to-express proposal I'm coming here with, so if you dont mind, I'll try again, but this time trying to keep to the political sphere.

If we are to promote individualism to its utmost extent, then given that no two of us think exactly the same and/or have the same situation and/or have the same aims for ourselves - how can we then function as anything more than individuals? Certainly we will whatever the degree of individuality, have some things in common and agree that some things are best provided for collectively (sanitation for instance), but aside from these basic elements no two people could agree on everything, let alone the millions required to produce any tangible effect on the socio-economic-political sphere.

There is at the current time of course compromise to bring millions together, but our promotion of utmost individualism precludes this since it must hold that each individual must be realised without compromise; any compromise in expression is a suppression of our aim. It is not possible in such a scenario to form a large scale political movement to produce change, since to do so requires that members compromise on many issues of their individual expression in order to find common ground - above the very basic elements of policy such as sanitation in any case.

Another observation - it would seem that the decline in membership of the main three political parties here in the UK has coincided with the rise of individualism. And alongside that decline in the main three, there has been a rise in the number of small parties, expressing aspects of policies formerly pursued as part of the policies of the main three. I can take this to be evidence of exactly my point about individualism and the division of wholes into parts which become ever less powerful as large groups become smaller groups. As this process continues, I would expect the smaller groups to further subdivide in order to meet ever smaller common ground in the race towards individualism, this process ending with the one man political party.

Now individualism of course is freedom. Freedom to be and to do and to express onesself relieved of the pressures of groupthink. But the paradox is that in realising the fulfilment of individualism, our individual power to affect the world declines as we move from being part of the whole, into ever smaller groups and ending with us standing alone. Bereft of the power of a large group, we are left at the mercy of others whose fulfilment of individualism has brought them to the only real power left available - the power of money. I could name some names, but we all know the main players in this regard.

The question is, whether the control of the population exercised by the rich (in which we can include corporations, bankers etc) in the absence of control via the populace through the democratic system, is something for which we can blame our rush to individualism, and whether this aim to promote individualism is either encouraged by the rich in order to divide the populace into ever smaller groups and eventually individuals (thereby removing the power of the populace), managed by the rich to the same ends but originating in the population, or simply "stuff"?

Cynic that I am, I tend to suspect that either the first or the second answer is true, in which case we are being as controlled as individuals to abandon our freedom and power to the rich, as much as if we lived in a fascist state - only we are wholeheartedly and universally wilfully complicit in this abandonment, deludedly thinking that through individualism that we attain freedom and power, when these two are actually what we lose through being divided and ruled.

And the only way back out of this is to abandon our individuality and choose to conform to groupthink, thereby gaining power and freedom through belonging to democratically significant groups which can balance out the influence of the rich and overturn the current situation. Its a strange proposal though - to counter the monetary fascistic control, we become political fascists ourselves.

E



celticlord2112 -> RE: How to stop the rot (3/24/2008 4:34:34 PM)

The notion that individualism precludes agreement and even cooperative effort I would say is demonstrably false.

While everyone does have their own interests, goals, and ambitions, there is no denying that at least occasional cooperation with one's fellows is the most efficient means of pursuing those interests. Individually, nothing prevents us from choosing to cooperate. Indeed, that option is necessary because if we are unable to choose to cooperate, we also are unable to choose to go it alone, and that decision is thrust on us.

Cooperation should not be coercive in the collectivist manner suggested by many who post here. Rather, let it be voluntary, with a full measure of consequence inuring to the individual for whichever option he or she chooses. When it is in a person's perceived self-interest to cooperate, he or she will cooperate.



LadyEllen -> RE: How to stop the rot (3/24/2008 5:02:44 PM)

But then ultimately, can we ever realise the utter fulfilment of the individualisation agenda?

Ultimately we are social creatures, who rely on cooperation in achieving mutually agreeable aims - but if we are to extend individualisation as far as possible, then the number and nature of aims which are mutually agreeable must decline to the point of basics such as sanitation?

Must individualisation be limited in extent, to provide for the cooperation necessary to achieve mutually beneficial (if not mutually agreeable) aims?

And does individualisation not remove from us the very power to influence our world which it claims to provide, and thereby actually threaten the freedom with which it claims to furnish us - turning us towards the achievement of aims which are beneficial to a very few whilst deluding us into believing these aims to be for the benefit of all?

E



Real_Trouble -> RE: How to stop the rot (3/24/2008 5:26:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aneirin

How to stop the rot, well, according to author,writer and columnist Vernon Coleman.

http://www.vernoncoleman.com/rescueourcountry.htm

And for those who want to know more about the man;

http://www.vernoncoleman.com/main.htm


I would like to point out that people have been decrying the rot of society and the decline of humanity for thousands of years; back when I was in college, I remember reading ancient greek literature where they are complaining about some of the same issues!

History may not repeat itself, but it definitely rhymes, to paraphrase Twain.



celticlord2112 -> RE: How to stop the rot (3/24/2008 5:46:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
But then ultimately, can we ever realise the utter fulfilment of the individualisation agenda?

Can we achieve a society wherein individual liberty and freedom are fully realized as social virtues?  I believe the answer is yes.

Can we achieve a society wherein every man is wholly unfettered to do as he pleases?  Morally, every man is already thus liberated--he merely must accept the consequences of all that he does.

Is a society wherein individuals seek their own interest without regard for their fellows and with no thought to cooperative enterprise viable, feasible, or even preferable?  I would say not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
Ultimately we are social creatures, who rely on cooperation in achieving mutually agreeable aims - but if we are to extend individualisation as far as possible, then the number and nature of aims which are mutually agreeable must decline to the point of basics such as sanitation?


The basics would be a starting point, yes.   But, as you have already identified the tendency of humans to aggregate into similar groupings, it is reasonable to presume that, in microcosm, there will be other interests that will be shared by varying subsets.  By maximizing individual liberty and choice, we set the stage for people to move in and out of groupings as they perceive best fits their wants and needs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
Must individualisation be limited in extent, to provide for the cooperation necessary to achieve mutually beneficial (if not mutually agreeable) aims?

No, for the reasons already stated above.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
And does individualisation not remove from us the very power to influence our world which it claims to provide, and thereby actually threaten the freedom with which it claims to furnish us - turning us towards the achievement of aims which are beneficial to a very few whilst deluding us into believing these aims to be for the benefit of all?

Individualism celebrates the power and right of the individual to choose.  There will be some who choose maliciously, others who will choose benevolently, still others who will choose caprciously, and yet more others who will choose wisely.  So long as the consequence of all such individual choices inure to the individuals choosing, I consider this to be a morally just societal arrangement.

The key is always that magical word "choice".  Individualism means we may choose to separate from the world, or to withhold ourselves from the world, but we are never obligated to do so.  We are not required to be ego-centric.  We merely have the option to choose an ego-centric life, and by having that option, we have the opportunity to choose a more altruistic existence as well.  In my experience, altruism goes farther in facilitating me gratifying my wants and needs, and I suspect a similar experience would be typical of the great mass of people.  That being the case, rational self interest will ultimately encourage free-thinking individuals to freely collaborate when, where, and how it is most appropriate for them.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875