West and the Rest- A discourse with Yasmina, Gladstonezai, and faye

[Khostai]

Well that's a good point, but even those Arabs aren't as Wasteful as the West; America used to be predominantly forests; It is now mainly plains and used to make grazing land for hormone treated cattle to grow for fastfood restaurants. The vegetation used to feed those cattle can feed all of the poor countries in the world for the next 100 years.

Also Sweden and Norway, they're good countries but No one thinks of "Sweden and Norway" because they have such tiny populations and their economies are not that large.

So yes we can say the West is wasteful and the MOST wasteful ......The West's policies aren't to be more balanced with Nature; it's because they've squandered so much of nature already and want to keep whatever is left for themselves. The West created the CURRENT environmental crisis in the first place, actually. That's why maybe they're creating these policies because they're the actual problem ?

That's what I'm saying the West has SQUANDERED MORE of the world's resources THAN the rest of the world combined including the Gulf Arabs.

Still the East wouldn't be any less wastefull if they were in the same position.
And by the way you must see how much China is eating up there own nature....
And the population of the Gulf Arabs is small, but still they are a good example of how cultures and peopel change ones they get more money to spend....

[Toramana]

Actually, the following video prompted me to post this thread. Just look at the tone of urgency in Nail Firguson talk.

The West and the Rest: The Changing Global Balance of Power in Historical Perspective - YouTube

And here is a response to Nail Firguson by Pankaj Mishra. One can also blame Pankaj Mishra to be equally militant.

Pankaj Mishra reviews

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Actually, the following video prompted me to post this thread. Just look at the tone of urgency in Nail Firguson talk.

The West and the Rest: The Changing Global Balance of Power in Historical Perspective - YouTube

And here is a response to Nail Firguson by Pankaj Mishra. One can also blame Pankaj Mishra to be equally militant.

Pankaj Mishra reviews

Well thats the central issue right? Mishra makes a very very honed and calculating point.

Would you agree that empires, nation states, militians, insurgents etc need moral imperitives?

So for instance, the Vietcong's moral imperitive was not to bring Marxism to the fore, but rather to claim to represent Vietnam against outside agression. The latter is a more potent and powerful unifier and less of a divisive issue - it is one that people are more willing to lay down their lives for.

On the face of it all, the moral imperitive that the Western nations have used to justify their presence is benevolent Kiplingism or putting on the white hat of defending a supposedly more benevolent ideology.

Mishra is pointing out that now and then, Fergusen (Hirsaa Ali's husband) lets the mask drop and the true motive that has always fueled the march of empires comes out from behind it.

Ferguson regurgitates Max Boot because both he and Hitchens were trying their utmost to validate involvement in conflicts that utilize the new moral imperitives but have lost steam because these following moral imperitives have limited shelf lives:

1) Patriotism
2) Protection of the homeland
3) Self sacrifice for the greater good of others (who may have a distinct genetic, ethnic, and racial heritage than that of the West) --> women, minorities, etc

Biology can overcome these because they are not truly altruistic moral imperitives in even the biological sense.

So then the goal by Fergusen et al (Max Boot) is to unify these with an incentive that might play to certain audiences:

4) Economic gain and perpetual dominance

The problem with 4) Is that it is an intangible and most of the public in the more well off regions of the world have a hard time reconciling their daily lives and moral values with the pursuit of 4.

But the first 3 moral imperitives go to show that Marx was waaay of when he opined that religion was the "opium of the masses." Rather, watching the Super Bowl half time commercials show clearly that there are surrigate "opiates."

And Toramana, I think Mishra offers a more defensible posturing that has moral traction because it is defensive militant posturing.

Finally, once all the first 4 newley derived moral imperitives become exhausted and the arguments are laid out, the usual resort is to the last ditch justification:

5) Its the way of the world (i.e. others would do it to us is an alternative way of saying this as is others have done it before us).

If one accepts 5 then it completely lays bare the shin regarding motives behind neocolonialism and this then creates a dangerous problem because it leaves adversaries with the certainty that their struggle is more just and makes it so that the fence sitters have no more justifications.

[Toramana]

One sometimes doubt whether American elite is capable to think positively in terms of international relations. But the alarmist mindset doesn't seem to be limited to elite only. Even the Hollywood has caricatured people around the world from North Koreans to Cubans to Arabs to Chinese to Iranians to Russians to Serbs, etc. that it has perceived to be a threat to American foreign policy.

Somewhere I posted an article about how film business is shifting to Asia. And the article says, Hollywood made a movie in which Chinese were depicted to invade America shores. But for Chinese views, later they replaced Chinese with North Koreans...LOL.

I read an article in which the author writes:

"Popular American films like Seven Years in Tibet, Kundun, and Little Buddha present us with particular views of Tibetan Budhism and culture. The views are often misleading or politically-motivated in representing Western heroism as in championing the Tibetan cause for independence.......The West has portrayed itself to the saviour of the world. In this respect, it has claimed for itself the right to civilize the East through an indoctrination of its belief....With such a characteristic, the Tibetans themselves become voiceless non agents in their own survival and struggle for independence. Instead, the Western 'rescuers' are allowed to be the heroes of Tibetan cause edifying American self-portrait as one of a strong moral champion nation in which equality and justice are forever upheld...."

[BarakzaiAbdali]

One sometimes doubt whether American elite is capable to think positively in terms of international relations. But the alarmist tendency doesn't seem to be limited to elite only. Even the Hollywood has caricatured people around the world from North Koreans to Cubans to Arabs to Chinese to Iranians to Russians to Serbs, etc. that it has perceived to be a threat to American foreign policy.

Somewhere I posted an article about how film business is shifting to Asia. And the article says, Hollywood made a movie in which Chinese were seen to invade America. But for Chinese views they replaced Chinese with North Koreans...LOL.

I read an article in which the author writes:

"Popular American films like seven years in Tibet, Kundun, and Little Buddha present us with particular views of Tibetan Budhism and culture. The views are often misleading or politically-motivated in representing Western heroism as in championing the Tibetan cause for independence.......The West has portrayed itself to the saviour of the world. In this respect, it has claimed for itself the right to civilize the East through an indoctrination of its belief....With such a characteristic, the Tibetans themselves become voiceless non agents in their own survival and struggle for independence. Instead, the Western 'rescuers' are allowed to be the heroes of Tibetan cause edifying American self-portrait as one of a strong moral champion nation in which equality and justice are forever upheld...."

Yes, but that is why Eisenhower defined the adversary of American and world peace as the MIC (military industrial complex) in his final address to the nation.

I wouldnt say that Hollywood is a separate creature; rather it is a part of the elite establishment. After all, who hob nobs around with these politicians and neocons other than actors/actresses/producers/film writers.

To let the level of collusion soak in, look at the behavior of the media in shielding the public here and abroad from pertinent information:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...two-years.html

This is especially dangerous in that one of the stated grievances outlined by the CIA regarding this whole war is military presence in the Arabian peninsula.

Or take how Anderson Cooper departed from journalistic ethics and standards and, instead of in the vein of the old days of reporting where sources and documents were vetted without government involvement - he let the government have first access to that set of evidences sent to him by that Cop in LA that started his own personal warfare against the LAPD:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2641217.html

I would say that its not fair to conclude that just because the American people may, on the whole have these stereotypes and impressions that they are a party to the decisions made by the elites. Anywhere you go in the world, people have their prejudices and backwards ill informed ideas - but usually these perceptions are capitalized on by the elites to justify interventionalism.

[faye]

i also was going to point out the elite and hollywood and it's propaganda machine, are interconnected.

materialism is something i can't identify with, i own about 30-40 kilos of stuff, much of which is creative equipment to use for earning money. if i was a settled person, i could buy all i need to fill a home, 2nd hand.
if one is willing to accept responsibility for our actions and conscienitous about the environment and that it suffers, the more we consume, then one takes appropriate actions to be a minimalist consumer.
it is funny, that my brother is the opposite. i was at his place recently and even though he has more than he needs, he got really agitated, when a site that had advertised a huge cheapo sale, was inundated and he was unable to access it, lol.
this need for too many material possessions is to do with insecurity, i think.
when i see someone paying millions of dollars for some object such as princess dianas hairbrush or whatever it makes me feel sick, to think what those millions could have done
to help others.

[Toramana]

Obviously, DZJ isn't interested in this mundane topic ---:

[Toramana]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgteoJ1LihU