- This topic has 286 replies, 36 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
'SHORT interview with Bent…', LONG clash of psychonauts, while Bent moved on with his music a long time ago…You guys must be so proud of all your wisdom, and more important, you always want to help the others out when they have the WRONG view on things. But no, it is setting your ego's aside that may one day bring you in the position of helping another. Can music get us there, I don't think so, neither can the most inspired lyrics Bent wrote.
Sometimes when you're a fan of certain more interesting bands you will find yourself among nerds or cult followers. So do I really, as a MP fan have to find myself among 'bickering intellectuals'? Please let's keep with the magic of music!
Users stated that I acted too hard against Johnny. That's wrong, and here is why.
His dismissive behavior against people who campaigned and voted for Brexit shows an alarming issue on the culture of today's debate. There's a certain attitude, a specific canon of values, certain believs and opinions that not only became "common sense" / "mainstream" but the only one acceptable. I could write for hours about who sets up and defines these values. But everyone with a functioning brain notices that there's an accentual left-bias in the media*, in schools, universities, in public administration, diplomacy, in churches, NGO's and the cultural sector. This tendency is there since the mid-70’s. With the raise of the «woke»-culture, it became even more fanatic and totalitarian.
*A recent survey on trainees in large media houses in Germany resulted that 92,2% vote for Grüne, Die Linke (the former communistic SED), and SPD. And as any media consumer knows: they don't hold back with their opinion. Quite the contrary. This bias is deeply unhealthy for a democracy.
It's mainly the left-biased media that puts the narrative in place, sets the tone, ultimately commands what is acceptable, and what needs to be cancelled. When people who campaigned and voted for Brexit get vilified as «populist and sometimes fascist, xenophobic political mob», then this deeply unfounded hatred is the logical result of an ideological activism against every opinion, any value that does not comply with the ideological homogeneity dictated by that radical left. When people with an other opinion even getting insulted as «scum and worse», then they get dehumanized in the most ugly way. They've lost their right to exist. Like with vermin, scum needs to be wiped away, the environment needs to be cleaned – cleansed.
It's an evidence of incapacity that there was no reaction on Johnny's disgusting post from you guys!
When I get attacked by this certain kind of rabble, I hit back until there's dead silence. For years, I stayed calm, confident with my arguments and opinions. But I learned that «woke» guys like Johnny, mostly safe in their bubble of like-minded, totally ignore that. As they are convinced of their moral-, intellectual- and spiritual superiority, the one with the other opinion is wrong – scum – anyway. You all are hopefully aware of where this attitude leads to, when, as a mass-phenomenon, a decreed Gleichdenk and Gleichsprech becomes inescapable.
First and foremost, it divides society. The ones who initiate and support that intolerant attitude, to degrade and eliminate others from the discourse, from the public, the society – it is a slaughter in a Jacobinic manner, – they need to get addressed and rebuked.
Freedom of opinion and expression is the prerequisite for an open debate in a democratic society. The totalitarian, fanatic neo-marxistic movement is on war with that. When Rock 'n' Roll is supposed to be counterculture, then some of you – including one Bent – immediately should re-think your attitude on these topics.
@the conscience – The Great Reset indeed!
Behind the virus/vaccine smokescreen, this is what is taking place. It's not a conspiracy theory – it's been openly declared, but little publicised. (Why?)
Even if there is a deadly virus, even if the vaccines are safe, even if we all learn to be nice to each other on this thread (!), this is happening, and vaccine passports – central to the theme of this thread – are part and parcel of it, and it really is not good.
As I said on another thread a couple of years ago, when war broke out there, we have a common enemy. That enemy specialises in remaining hidden from view, and delights in our division, which it positively encourages. It exploits our political allegiances and prejudices so that we provide our own distraction from its stealthy operations.
One comment on the following article is very succinct:
Quote:In other words, this latest transformation of capitalism is taking place “on the Left footâ€.@Norman – I'm guessing you won't like what it says about Thatcher, and it does place the origin of the problem earlier than your reckoning (actually, in the grander scheme of things, we could go back a lot further), but read on, my friend!
Old Normal vs New: From 1980s Neoliberalism to the ‘Great Reset’
http://off-guardian.org/2021/06/05/old-normal-vs-new-from-1980s-neoliberalism-to-the-great-reset/
Please, can the author of this topic rename it something else (OT-The Ego Corner, The Bitter Barn or whatever), so that these shit throwers can have their sandbox. and the rest if us can get back to focusing on MP, music and GOOD vibes?!
@GBD – There's no reason why we can't have good vibes here. What vibes did you bring?
This thread is not about music, granted, but it is about Motorpsycho and, in particular, Bent's encouragement of vaccine passports, as demonstrated in the interview.
Is it censorship you want? It's very much the in thing at the moment.
For example, Naomi Wolf has just been banned from Twitter. She is well known, but, in case you don't know, she is of the left – and certainly not unintelligent. She is – or was – a Democrat – a former Clinton adviser – as well as an author and the CEO of a tech company. (She also has great hair!) What she is saying is most relevant to this thread, and, clearly, it's not something they want you to hear.
Naomi Wolf – Why Vaccine Passports Equal Slavery Forever
Hey suntripper, thanks for this great article! The Guardian is always a challenge for me. In short: I disagree with most of the thirst part («The old normal»), and discreetly agree with most of the second part («The new normal»). But first and in general, let me do some clarities over the terms used:
1) Capitalism is an economical- and social order that is based on private property of resource, and the regulation of production and consumption through the market. Participants cooperate together, bringing ideas, capital and labour together. You got to act fair and encounter each other on an equal basis, as in a competitive and open market economy, the participants have alternatives.
An important point to consider: Unlike Socialism (a system constructed on the drawing board) Capitalism spontaneously happens – always happened naturally, with no guidance nor advice – when the above mentioned circumstances are given. It equates the human’s nature best.
Just like everything outside the land of milk and honey, sadly it’s not perfect. But Capitalism works. Regimes like Socialism or State Capitalism do not. They lead, in variable mix ratio, to poverty, oppression, hunger.
2) Besides Liberalism, no term is so absurdly misunderstood and misused like Neoliberalism. Initiated after the Great Depression in 1938 at the Colloque Walter Lippmann in Paris, the liberal intellectuals were concerned that free markets are not that self-regulating as they always thought. They suggested that the state should regulate more, set boundaries, intervene when there is absolute monopoly in certain sectors. So, totally the opposite of what the term stands for today! It came in discredit in conjunction with the coup in Chile in 1973. After the regime of leftist Salvador Allende, the country was on its economic all time low, bankruptcy and destitute. Dictator Augusto Pinochet asked for counsel from the so called Chicago-Boys, who recommended to open the markets, make possible and promote entrepreneurship, and reduce customs duties – all under strict control of the government. It's this questionable collaboration that brought Neoliberalism in discredit.
Introduction of the article
With reference to what I wrote regarding Capitalism above here, I skip the very first sentence of the article. It shows that the basic perception of the author is heavily biased; he is locked in his antipathy against the, for him, apparently fundamentally evil Capitalism.
«The prevailing economic system demands ever-increasing levels of extraction, production and consumption»
Completely wrong already due to the always ongoing increase in efficiency (with all its consequences).
«The old normal»
«Thatcher’s policies destroyed a fifth of Britain’s industrial base in just two years alone.»
«Long gone are many of the relatively well-paid manufacturing jobs that helped build and sustain the economy.»
This happened after privatization of then state-owned sectors that were unprofitable beyond hope. Who pays the debt? Correct: tax payers. Privatization was then a painful, but badly needed process. Because so called zombie-sectors are not sustainable and highly unfair for all others, especially for competitors who don't have tax payer's money to cover any debt.
As the author also writes, «Thatcher wasted little time in crushing the power of the trade unions and privatising key state assets.» Her greatest achievement! British Steel, British Airways, British Petroleum, British Telecom… key state assets? How can someone seriously keep believing in 2021 that the state (who at the state? which staff there? under which guidance?) is the better businessman? Without the pressure of competition, which leads to the possibility of alternatives for us consumers, there will be no effort to offer goods and services on adequate conditions (quality, usability, price, eco friendliness, variety).
The author also shows a discomfort with the fact that in Capitalism one can get rich. To make it short: This is the opposite of a problem, as Winston Churchill perfectly stated:
«The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.»
«The new normal»
«Many people waste no time in referring to this as some kind of ‘Marxist’ or ‘communist’ takeover of the planet because a tiny elite will be dictating policies. This has nothing to do with Marxism. An authoritarian capitalist elite – supported by their political technocrats – aims to secure even greater control of the global economy.»
Well, this has something to do with Crony capitalism which is much closer to the ideas of Marxism than to the liberal character of free market Capitalism. For example, the former president of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, labeled himself as a Maoist. This perfectly suits.
The power of the «bunch of billionaires» is not based on free market Capitalism, least on Neoliberalism, but on their collaboration with big government and the agents of the rules based order (we already talked about in previous posts).
So the author's attempt to frame Schwab's great reset as a new super radical form of Capitalism is wrong. And neither Thatcher / Reagen set the foundation for the possibility of this.
«Rhetoric about ‘liberty’ and ‘individual responsibility’ worked a treat in the 1980s to help bring about a massive heist of wealth.»
A malignant imputation. Heavily influenced by Friedrich August von Hayek, Thatcher's attempt was ‘liberty’ from the power of an intrusive state, and the ‘individual responsibility’ not to live a live at the expense of the community (concise).
The end gets a bit too dystopian, fantasy for me. Too much of a scare- and horror-scenario.
What's your thought on this, and on the article in general?
suntripper, I was not responsive yet regarding vaccines and the passports associated with. Rest assured that I'm as concerned as you are. But it's "only" one area of many to be alert.
I have never been vaccinated for the risk of the yearly flu. My wife did regularly though, one of my daughters sometimes. But it was always carried out by our family doctor, or in the company where my daughter works. There was certainly never a registration. Big brother never knew about it, and it's none of the governments business! We can only react on this next time at the ballot box.
Regarding Naomi Wolf: Twitter doesn't trust that users are able to make their own decisions about what other people express. These big tech companies are keen to protect you from a possible wrong perception. Like a nanny state, they know better what is appropriate for you than yourself.
Yes, Wolf is left. But she must disappear now as she is not left enough anymore. The good old Soviet Union had re-education camps for people like her.
Obviously, Norman, I knew that you would dislike and disagree with the first half of the article!
Can I just point out that it's not actually The Guardian? The founders of Off-Guardian have all been censored on and/or banned from the Guardian’s ‘Comment is Free’ sections. Now, isn't that something?
In the Mark Twain spirit (“If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed.â€), I used to read The Guardian regularly, but also supplemented with other papers – all but two in the UK are of the right. I expected to be misinformed by all the papers, but wanted to know what it was I was to be misinformed about at any given moment, and in what way, and then to reflect upon why. Over the years, I noticed a distinct change at The Guardian. I came to question how it could possibly be financially viable too. I have concluded that it carries out a particular and well disguised mission on behalf of the elite. Seeing Unilever coming in and funding it added to my scepticism. Then The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation joined in the funding. I didn't know back then that they were also big shareholders in Unilever. Anyway, what's that saying? The press is free for those that can afford to own one.
I know you are keen to defend capitalism. I agree with some of your points and I believe that elements of capitalism benefit us all, but, given human nature, unfettered capitalism doesn't go as well as the rosy picture you paint. In fact, without the necessary checks and balances Рthose safeguards I mentioned that you weren't too keen on Рcorruption is simply inevitable. In fact, the big winners will be those with the least scruples. I've got nothing against enterprise, hard work and getting rewarded for one's efforts, especially if one is bringing something useful to society. Competition obviously keeps people at their game. I am also a great believer in freedom (sorry that's such a bore for some people here) Рprincipally freedom of the individual. When it comes to business, however, I don't subscribe simply to letting the market rule. Yes, the market plays an important r̫le, but, without regulation, people are exploited, the planet is ravaged and the health and well being of all goes down the pan Рand some suffer the consequences harder and earlier than others. Obviously, it's a tricky balance to strike, and people will disagree about where and how you draw the line. Even with regulation, you have the problem of the revolving door between the regulators and those being regulated, and you have lobbying, cronyism and myriad other problems.
You say that socialism and 'state capitalism' lead to poverty, oppression and hunger. It's a bit of a stretch, isn' t, to try and make out that plain old capitalism doesn't do that?
I mentioned human nature. I hold that we are all flawed. I believe we are all capable of doing bad things – up to a point – but, actually, most people aren't that bad; they have lines they won't cross. However, I put it to you that there is a minority who are quite different from the rest of us. They are born without the ability to empathise. They can hurt others and exploit others without compunction. They are also very good at influencing others. Most of us are simply unable to believe that someone could do the things that we could never do, but such people do exist, and they do indeed do those things. Now, if you can backstab, lie and cheat and keep getting away with it, always keeping within the letter of the law, or not getting caught, or being able to buy justice, the sky's the limit for you.
If there were not such people in our midst, capitalism might work as well as you say it does. But there are, and therefore it doesn't. Don't worry, though – I don't want to replace it with something worse! I do, however, want adequate oversight. Furthermore, I think it makes sense for the state to own and operate utilities and infrastructure. We'll probably agree to differ on that!
On the question of oversight, this is where the people have to take their share of the blame for why things don't go so well. I get that people have hard lives, so I'm not saying this is easy, but If you just immerse yourself in escapism, and you don't play your part in holding these people's feet to the fire, I'm inclined to say you deserve what you get. It's worse than that, though, because people get so taken in by these individuals.
Let's just call these individuals psychopaths, as that is probably the correct clinical term. I haven't even broached the subject of these psychopathic traits being handed down the generations, such that you have dynasties (I'm not necessarily talking about royal houses here) – dynasties of ruthless types that consolidate wealth and power.
Yes, there are genuine wealth creators, and such people are trumpeted and celebrated by capitalists, but there is this other breed, who adopt the garb of wealth creators, but really they are wealth snatchers. These are the ones who gain at the expense of everyone else, and it is because of them that we cannot simply leave everything to the market.
This is the predator/parasite class. I'm not even going to begin delving into how they operate within secret societies to further their ends. People think that stuff is nuts. Yes, it is, but, it's all too real (and I'm not talking about rank-and-file freemasons, who are probably quite decent people).
There are many observations I could make about the article – it isn't perfect – and a few more of your points I would like to debate, but we do have some common ground, I think.
My main focus is on The Great Reset, and I don't want to get too far away from that, but, in short, yes, I think you do have a valid point in questioning the author's assertion that The Great Reset is a new, super, radical form of capitalism. I'm not sure we have adequate terminolgy for what is being built, and each, in so far as they can get a sight of it, is probably going to reach for their own biases in order to try and frame it.
What I see coming is something closer to Communist China – but worldwide. However, you might just as well invoke the term, fascism. It's not, I fear, a dystopian fantasy, but rather, an actual emerging dystopia. Such a state of affairs always comes on gradually (you probably know the boiling frog analogy). The only way it stops is if we stop it.
There are some incredible, brave and aware people doing their very utmost to sound the alarm. The only hope is that they get heard, but, of course, when they are banned from social networks and ignored by the media, their audience is limited to those who go looking. I've already given the link to Naomi Wolf's warning, which I see, as I finish this, you've had a look at. I'm not sure that it's that she's 'not left enough'. While you can talk about what is and what is not capitalism, I'm not sure that the terms 'right' and 'left' are serving us so well any more. Better to talk about pro- or anti-freedom. She's too pro-freedom. And, yes, the re-education camp really could be the destination for someone like her in the not-too-distant future. It is a reality in this day and age for so many Uighur Moslems in China. Those not in the camps are under the cosh of the social credit system. (What would the Uighurs say to Bent, I wonder, on the subject of vaccine passports?) In China, they are now expanding their operations, moving on to Christians. Developments in Hong Kong are more visible. Does the West do anything? No. So, why not?
But that's never going to happen here, is it? Well, I'm going to wheel out again a quote by the arch-globalist, David Rockefeller, on the subject of China. He was a big fan! Bear in mind that his glib reference to "whatever the price of the Chinese revolution" is actually the small business of many millions being slaughtered.
Quote:Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.Has China been incubating the system that is about to be rolled out around the world, with the aid of new surveillance technology? Forgive me if I finish by quoting Naomi Wolf's warning, in case someone who missed it can go back and watch it via the link. Good to cross swords with you.
Quote:The vaccine passport platform is the same platform as a social credit system – like in China – for 8 billion people.Naomi Wolf – Why Vaccine Passports Equal Slavery Forever
Thanx you so much suntripper for still sharing your thoughts, for don’t give up fighting for freedom, for always finding the right words and even be polite when people who have not much to say by themselves try to censor you
Didn’t knew that thing with Off-Guardian. Strange that it has never been covered in the news over here. Basically, you guys in the UK can be happy to chose from a more balanced, more diverse selection of media titles than we can here. But then, the vast amount of left-activistic propaganda preserves me from getting trapped into the confirmation bias.
Quote:given human nature, unfettered capitalism doesn't go as well as the rosy picture you paint.Unfettered capitalism – sounds like paradise, doesn’t it? Just joking
There is no, there has never been an unregulated capitalism. Nowhere. Or do you have an example? Here in the EU, the situation is clearly the opposite. With a public expenditure quota approaching 50%, we live in a half-socialism.Quote:Obviously, it's a tricky balance to strikeLike life in itself, it's always imperfect. But that's something many people on the left can't stand. They demand purity. Even after all the failed attempts, they dream of perfect utopias, which are beautiful and sexy, but also dangerous seductresses. As Karl Popper says:
«Those who promise us paradise on earth never produced anything but a hell.»
Quote:Even with regulation, you have the problem of the revolving door between the regulators and those being regulated, and you have lobbying, cronyism and myriad other problems.More than the problem of the revolving door, but the primary problem of a democracy: Who watches the minder, the controller? And in terms of lobbying: It's not exclusive to big business. We have dozens of NGO's covering reams of aspects, a forceful social industry*, the churches, a raising green-tech industry… all persistently lobbying. It's not that a huge problem if you look at the whole picture.
*In 2016, the German tax pa… sorry, the state, spent EUR 42’000’000’000.- for social welfare. Of that amount, only EUR 26’000’000’000.- have been paid-off to the ones in need.
Quote:You say that socialism and 'state capitalism' lead to poverty, oppression and hunger. It's a bit of a stretch, isn' t, to try and make out that plain old capitalism doesn't do that?I hope you agree that it would be highly disrespectful to compare our ratio / share / level of "poverty", "oppression", "hunger" with the one in such glorious socialistic paradises like Bolivia, Venezuela, countries in Central America, the DDR (Deutsch Demokratische Republik – neither deutsch nor democratic nor a republic), Ukraine, Lithuania, Pakistan, Kirgistan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Korean Peninsula, Indo-China – this list of failed socialistic experiments is incomplete.
I would like to refer again to part of Churchill's great quote: In Capitalism, the whole society gets wealthy. So wealthy, that a welfare state can be founded. Even more, we face a vulgar trend that the welfare state gets used by people who would not be dependent on it. This is a primitive, egoistic, deeply antisocial behaviour that needs to be battled against.
Quote:I believe we are all capable of doing bad things – up to a point – but, actually, most people aren't that bad; they have lines they won't cross. However, I put it to you that there is a minority who are quite different from the rest of us. They are born without the ability to empathise.Power always leads to corruption. And the dishonest, most hypocritical, egoistic and eventually immoral individuals I had met in my life were all people clearly on the left side of the political spectrum. Meanwhile I know that this is not a coincidence.
Quote:Furthermore, I think it makes sense for the state to own and operate utilities and infrastructure. We'll probably agree to differ on that!I'm not a Libertarian. So I basically agree. But also in this aspect, the state needs to be strictly contained.
The German state operates 21 TV- and 74 Radio channels, plus around 300 Instagram accounts; at the costs of EUR 8'000'000'000.- per year. Our largest TV stations (ARD and ZDF) are holdings with paricipation on 146 companies (production, service, advertising, merchandising, trading of rights, ticketing…). This is all absurdly beyond "key state assets". Not to mention the sharp left bias: Political magazines appear as manifestos for the Green party, book reviews to follow the motto: Left stuff from left authors for left readers. It's laughable and unbalanced beyond belief! Oh, and the salaries for the happy few: WDR's chairman gets EUR 395'000.-, while the average income in Germany is EUR 47'928.-
Quote:What I see coming is something closer to Communist China – but worldwide. However, you might just as well invoke the term, fascism. It's not, I fear, a dystopian fantasy, but rather, an actual emerging dystopia. Such a state of affairs always comes on gradually (you probably know the boiling frog analogy). The only way it stops is if we stop it.This could well become reality and the boiling frog analogy fits perfect. But the last sentence is the key here. In many countries, grass roots movements raise the pressure on the established political players – UKIP as a great and successful example. In Europe alone we can see this trend in Germany, France, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden…
Quote:I'm not sure that it's that she's 'not left enough'. While you can talk about what is and what is not capitalism, I'm not sure that the terms 'right' and 'left' are serving us so well any more. Better to talk about pro- or anti-freedom.It’s what you mention in the last sentence, which in spite of everything is the fundamental difference between left and right (shortened): Left stands for collectivism, a powerful and intrusive state (more and more in conjunction with big business) that dictates how you have to live your life down to the tiniest details of your personality. And you got to live by the rules! Right stands for a traditional sense of Liberalism, freedom, where the mature individual also has a maximum of self responsibility. In a more liberal society, Wolf would not have been banned from Twitter.
I agree that my analogy isn't perfect. But I'm sure you noticed what happened with certain staff in the «NYT» over the last two years.
Quote:In China, they are now expanding their operations, moving on to Christians. Developments in Hong Kong are more visible. Does the West do anything? No. So, why not?I'm also worried about these and other developments in China. But the quote you mentioned by Rockefeller dates back to a time when in the West most believed that China's development will inevitably lead into a democracy. Still in the late 90's and after, many took this as a 'make-believe' to do business over there, to accept China to become a member of the WTO. As we know now, they were wrong. With the exception of The Donald, none of the western leaders so far had been brave enough to confront China.
Closing this post with one of my favourite quote by Ronald Reagan:
«The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: "I’m from the Government and I'm here to help."»
Here are some good vibes for you!
Wouldn't it be great if Motorpsycho played at this festival?!
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD! (oh, hi Snah
)CAN YOU FREEDOM FIGHTERS EXCHANGE YOUR EMAIL ADRESSES OR WHATEVER AND GO PRIVATE AND STOP RUINING THIS BOARD!?!? NO ONE CARES!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.