Rudd's promises
Forum rules
Don't poop in these threads. This isn't Europe, okay? There are rules here!
Don't poop in these threads. This isn't Europe, okay? There are rules here!
-
Hebe
- Posts: 1483
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 6:49 pm
Re: Rudd's promises
He's dealing with a global crisis. And I'd hardly call Gillard chopped liver.
The better I get to know people, the more I find myself loving dogs.
-
White Indigene
Re: Rudd's promises
Oh, isnt he a Superman?!Hebe wrote:He's dealing with a global crisis. And I'd hardly call Gillard chopped liver.
And she, well ...
-
Hebe
- Posts: 1483
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 6:49 pm
Re: Rudd's promises
WonderWoman. 
The better I get to know people, the more I find myself loving dogs.
-
White Indigene
Re: Rudd's promises
"I further emphasised that safeguarding his interests in this way was entirely compatible with a whole national community of a people. I further declared that that this necessity must be considered to prevail as long as there exist among employers men who, left to themselves, not only have no feeling for social duties, but do not even for the most primitive human rights: and from this I drew the inference that, once such a self-defence is regarded as necessary, its form can resaonably exist only in a grouping of workers on a trade-union basis. ... Above all, the trade unions are necassary as foundation stones of the future economic parliament or chambers or estates. ... The National Socialist state must beware of such experiments[policy by Party decree]. It can, when the time comes, only grow out of an organisation that has long existed. This organisation must possess National Socialist life innate within itself, in order to finally create a living National Socialist state."
Mein Kampf on the question of Unions.
Mein Kampf on the question of Unions.
-
White Indigene
Re: Rudd's promises
"Notwithstanding the dictators being Georgian [Stalin], Russian chauvinism was officially propagated after the war.” Ulan, p257
“Membership [of the Party] became a reward, a mark of success in Soviet society. It became a body composed of managers, officers, “leading” workers, collective farm officials, and intellectuals, with little of the proletarian character that had dominated it until the early thirties.” “In a bureaucratically run body of this kind, the ideology must of necessity become something of a “Sunday” thing, an external veneer for people engrossed in their careers and material pursuits. ... If the party loses its esprit de corps and its sense of mission, will not the average party member think of himself [/herself] more and more in professional rather than party terms- the army officer more of his community of interests with the army circles; the state bureaucrat of the viewpoint of the officialdom, and the trade-union leader in terms of the union postulates-rather than the relation to the all transcending feeling of membership in the party ... If so, what would prevent at some future crisis, say, the dictators [removal], a clash between leaders, each representing a professional or bureaucratic interest, and the eventual emergence [of extreme elements] with the party ruling in name, but slated for impotence?” That is to say, a late Soviet model of society.
I’ve noticed in the past the parallels here, and certain domestic political characteristics. I don’t profess to know too much about Edward de-Bono however, but surely, some of his postulations are worthy of some attention. Initially he appears to be a lefty whose apparent disposition leads him to primarily identify ‘fascism’, and then to follow through with a categorisation of historical features and characters as ‘fascist’. In doing this, de-Bono, sets up a leftist cognitive monologue which immediately deletes any notion of parallel thought, for de-Bono is become a Chauvinist denier.
Such is life and the issues of politics, even in Australian.
de-Bono sets out to generally blame the existence of fascism not from the Roman era, but further back in the age of the Heroes, the Greek era, and the Sophists of the time. Plato, Socrates & Aristotle set the thoughts in motion, carried through to today via historical passage. The sophists out of history, believed that truth “was no such thing and that truth was only what someone had been persuaded to believe”. However, the Socratic method rests on the assumption that the knowledge is there somewhere. Yet,” he [Socrates] paraded his ignorance and was almost proud to have no conclusion to an exploration” in a discussion, argues de-Bono. “Socrates was trained as a Sophist, and the Sophists were much into rhetoric or the art of persuasion”. But the alarming de-Bono paradox begins here, for he proclaims that ‘We do not, apparently, know too much about the Sophists, because in true fascist spirit, the followers of Plato suppressed the works of the Sophists who had been roundly condemned by Plato.’ de-Bono, p19.
Hence de-Bono sets up a crisis of history, and creates a dichotomy of thought which he rivets in the rusty history of the past, and attributes to a/the “Gang of Three”. I won’t be chipping away at the crust, trying to reveal some pristine core of truth, suffice to say that the de-Bono methodology is somewhat questionable over time; and I’m sure he would not but agree entirely. The combative historical dichotomy re-created by de-Bono (and many others besides) is Fascism v Truth. de-Bono seeks to resolve this by concluding that his grand method of Parallel Thinking -which might just simply be contemporary Sophistry- seeks to de-calibrate synthesised thought, making ‘the ‘design’ idiom of parallel thinking [for which] we seek to move forward’. Quote unquote. de-Bono thus proffers that there is a finite connection between calibration and synthesis in Western thought, and that this has limited the lineal progress of history, and indeed acted as an inculcator and enabler of Fascism. But to cement this argument, de-Bono deploys the convenient instrument of historical amnesia, thus ignoring Empires, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, & the appalling outcomes of Marxism in recent history.
The de-Bono concept is that ‘the traditional thinking system seeks to attack fault, to solve problems, and to correct what is ‘wrong’. Yet progress needs to come from challenging and rethinking concepts which have been ‘right’ in their time. Because we have come to accept such concepts as ‘truths’, we defend them vigorously and never see any value in challenging them. In any case, the system provides no means for challenging them’. And so the logic goes, that in the passage of time, no progress had been made in the fault-finding systems of man, until the 1990’s, when de-Bono came along. In truth, de-Bono identifies the ‘traditional thinking system’ of Western culture as quite simply Fascist to the core. And he reckons, ‘the intellectual ‘Guardians’ of society (in the fascist Platonic sense) set as a method for everyone what happens to suit their own analytical purposes’. de-Bono seems to support Marx’ Historical Determinism by saying ‘For historic reasons the thinking of the Gang of Three was very welcome at the Renaissance, because it replaced dogma and scripture with logic and reason’. Indeed, de-Bono displays a certain amount of historical Chauvinism in asserting an all too common alternative to forward looking movements.
As always, the Left parallels the Right throughout history, either marginally in front or behind over time. But de-Bono’s thesis that Fascism has been a cognitive control method since the Greek era, is just a bit to silly for such an academic. The idea is something more befitting the ideals of the lunatic fringe, than from any serious historical accuracy. I feel certain, that Australia would however provide de-Bono with an ample supply of sympathetic –almost fertile- minds.
Conclusion:- I think a current crisis lies not in identifying historical Fascism, but in an unhealthy historical illness of mis-diagnosing contemporary and historical Chauvinism.
Sources:
Adam B Ulam. The Unfinished Revolution. 1960.
Edward de-Bono. Parallel Thinking. 1994.
“Membership [of the Party] became a reward, a mark of success in Soviet society. It became a body composed of managers, officers, “leading” workers, collective farm officials, and intellectuals, with little of the proletarian character that had dominated it until the early thirties.” “In a bureaucratically run body of this kind, the ideology must of necessity become something of a “Sunday” thing, an external veneer for people engrossed in their careers and material pursuits. ... If the party loses its esprit de corps and its sense of mission, will not the average party member think of himself [/herself] more and more in professional rather than party terms- the army officer more of his community of interests with the army circles; the state bureaucrat of the viewpoint of the officialdom, and the trade-union leader in terms of the union postulates-rather than the relation to the all transcending feeling of membership in the party ... If so, what would prevent at some future crisis, say, the dictators [removal], a clash between leaders, each representing a professional or bureaucratic interest, and the eventual emergence [of extreme elements] with the party ruling in name, but slated for impotence?” That is to say, a late Soviet model of society.
I’ve noticed in the past the parallels here, and certain domestic political characteristics. I don’t profess to know too much about Edward de-Bono however, but surely, some of his postulations are worthy of some attention. Initially he appears to be a lefty whose apparent disposition leads him to primarily identify ‘fascism’, and then to follow through with a categorisation of historical features and characters as ‘fascist’. In doing this, de-Bono, sets up a leftist cognitive monologue which immediately deletes any notion of parallel thought, for de-Bono is become a Chauvinist denier.
Such is life and the issues of politics, even in Australian.
de-Bono sets out to generally blame the existence of fascism not from the Roman era, but further back in the age of the Heroes, the Greek era, and the Sophists of the time. Plato, Socrates & Aristotle set the thoughts in motion, carried through to today via historical passage. The sophists out of history, believed that truth “was no such thing and that truth was only what someone had been persuaded to believe”. However, the Socratic method rests on the assumption that the knowledge is there somewhere. Yet,” he [Socrates] paraded his ignorance and was almost proud to have no conclusion to an exploration” in a discussion, argues de-Bono. “Socrates was trained as a Sophist, and the Sophists were much into rhetoric or the art of persuasion”. But the alarming de-Bono paradox begins here, for he proclaims that ‘We do not, apparently, know too much about the Sophists, because in true fascist spirit, the followers of Plato suppressed the works of the Sophists who had been roundly condemned by Plato.’ de-Bono, p19.
Hence de-Bono sets up a crisis of history, and creates a dichotomy of thought which he rivets in the rusty history of the past, and attributes to a/the “Gang of Three”. I won’t be chipping away at the crust, trying to reveal some pristine core of truth, suffice to say that the de-Bono methodology is somewhat questionable over time; and I’m sure he would not but agree entirely. The combative historical dichotomy re-created by de-Bono (and many others besides) is Fascism v Truth. de-Bono seeks to resolve this by concluding that his grand method of Parallel Thinking -which might just simply be contemporary Sophistry- seeks to de-calibrate synthesised thought, making ‘the ‘design’ idiom of parallel thinking [for which] we seek to move forward’. Quote unquote. de-Bono thus proffers that there is a finite connection between calibration and synthesis in Western thought, and that this has limited the lineal progress of history, and indeed acted as an inculcator and enabler of Fascism. But to cement this argument, de-Bono deploys the convenient instrument of historical amnesia, thus ignoring Empires, the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, & the appalling outcomes of Marxism in recent history.
The de-Bono concept is that ‘the traditional thinking system seeks to attack fault, to solve problems, and to correct what is ‘wrong’. Yet progress needs to come from challenging and rethinking concepts which have been ‘right’ in their time. Because we have come to accept such concepts as ‘truths’, we defend them vigorously and never see any value in challenging them. In any case, the system provides no means for challenging them’. And so the logic goes, that in the passage of time, no progress had been made in the fault-finding systems of man, until the 1990’s, when de-Bono came along. In truth, de-Bono identifies the ‘traditional thinking system’ of Western culture as quite simply Fascist to the core. And he reckons, ‘the intellectual ‘Guardians’ of society (in the fascist Platonic sense) set as a method for everyone what happens to suit their own analytical purposes’. de-Bono seems to support Marx’ Historical Determinism by saying ‘For historic reasons the thinking of the Gang of Three was very welcome at the Renaissance, because it replaced dogma and scripture with logic and reason’. Indeed, de-Bono displays a certain amount of historical Chauvinism in asserting an all too common alternative to forward looking movements.
As always, the Left parallels the Right throughout history, either marginally in front or behind over time. But de-Bono’s thesis that Fascism has been a cognitive control method since the Greek era, is just a bit to silly for such an academic. The idea is something more befitting the ideals of the lunatic fringe, than from any serious historical accuracy. I feel certain, that Australia would however provide de-Bono with an ample supply of sympathetic –almost fertile- minds.
Conclusion:- I think a current crisis lies not in identifying historical Fascism, but in an unhealthy historical illness of mis-diagnosing contemporary and historical Chauvinism.
Sources:
Adam B Ulam. The Unfinished Revolution. 1960.
Edward de-Bono. Parallel Thinking. 1994.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests