Thread: Austrian Politican Speaks candidly

Originally Posted by Hanna

Yeah sorry, I don't need to repeat that any more. I've already said what I have to say about it more than once.

It would be great if you could address the point with the USSR caused lots of serious ecological catastrophes without any hint to what you refer to as 'the consumerism'. Otherwise, if you prefer to ignore that fact and keep repeating and repeating the link between the consumerism and the ecology again and again, it seems just like pure PROPAGANDA.

A word about the double standards. In your earlier posts you mentioned that you despise the consumerism and you don't need that much. But, I think you ignore the fact that if all 6.7 billions or so people would live the 'moderate' lifestyle like you, the ecological toll on the planet would be unbelievably high and certainly unsustainable. So, unless you plan to include the 'let's-colour-ourselves-in-blue-and-live-in-the-forest-in-harmony-with-the-nature' thesis into your pan-European propaganda, you've clearly joined the 'double-standards' club just like everybody else.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

I think the society is not mentally ready for that kind of perception yet.

Do you seriously believe the society will ever be 'mentally ready' for that kind of perception? 100 years from now, 500, 1000? No, really?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

If you want to get to the stars you have to have a reliable drive.

I don't think that breakthroughs happen because of some 'reliable drive' but often in spite of them.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Seriously, there is a lot of debates around why do we need a space program if we still have hungry people on our own planet. So, yes, we're far far away from not needing the cr@p yet.

No, we need to provide means of getting (earning) food for everyone and stop worrying about that. ))) Food is plenty right now.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Do you seriously believe the society will ever be 'mentally ready' for that kind of perception? 100 years from now, 500, 1000? No, really?

It's hard to predict. What is the trend? There always were people who needed 'interesting' life and 'boring' life. I think what we see today comparing to 1000 years ago is:

1. There are visibly more people who prefer 'interesting' over 'boring'.
2. There are visibly more people who prefer 'moderately interesting' over 'boring'.
3. The applications for those people have shifted significantly from military to creative.
4. Even if you're a 'moderately interesting'/'boring' type, you have to say in your job interview that you'd prefer a 'challenging' project even if it pays less. And a perception is a reality. (TM)

So, I think the vector is clearly visible. Will there ever be the mental readiness for the entire society? You got me.

Originally Posted by Ramil

I don't think that breakthroughs happen because of some 'reliable drive' but often in spite of them.

Yes and no. Some breakthroughs which are not supported by the society are lost too.

Originally Posted by Ramil

No, we need to provide means of getting (earning) food for everyone and stop worrying about that. ))) Food is plenty right now.

It is, but then there's a question of clothes. Then the personal security. [And then everything up the ladder.] Example: South Africa - plenty of what not, but the escalation of crime and violence is unbelievable. It's not a secret that many of the fields in the third-world countries yield some type of drugs, while the people in the same country are short of food. So, let's hand out the food to everyone? Not that simple.

#ref no. 1:

Originally Posted by Crocodile

It's hard to predict. What is the trend? There always were people who needed 'interesting' life and 'boring' life. I think what we see today comparing to 1000 years ago is:

1. There are visibly more people who prefer 'interesting' over 'boring'.
2. There are visibly more people who prefer 'moderately interesting' over 'boring'.
3. The applications for those people have shifted significantly from military to creative.
4. Even if you're a 'moderately interesting'/'boring' type, you have to say in your job interview that you'd prefer a 'challenging' project even if it pays less. And a perception is a reality. (TM)

So, I think the vector is clearly visible. Will there ever be the mental readiness for the entire society? You got me.

Your opinions are subjective since we don't know such details about common folk that lived 1000 years ago, but from the records that have survived the time I see that human nature didn't change all that much and neither did their motives. Good old seven deadly sins still rule the world and they will be in 1000 years methinks. This won't leave much room for romantics.

Yes and no. Some breakthroughs which are not supported by the society are lost too.

But then we wouldn't have called them 'breakthroughs'

It is, but then there's a question of clothes. Then the personal security. [And then everything up the ladder.] Example: South Africa - plenty of what not, but the escalation of crime and violence is unbelievable. It's not a secret that many of the fields in the third-world countries yield some type of drugs, while the people in the same country are short of food. So, let's hand out the food to everyone? Not that simple.

see ref no.1 don't you think it's a classic example of mutually-exclusive paragraphs (TM) ? You don't believe in humankind any more than I do, do you?

Originally Posted by Hanna

The American government is a true MASTER of propaganda.

actually, it's the mass media(all forms of it); the gov't doesn't do much in the way of propoganda (it doesn't have to).

Originally Posted by Hanna

The American government is a true MASTER of propaganda. They just take it to entirely new levels, and they have managed to convince millions of people who have never set foot in America to support their agenda and dream about being American. Not to mention their own population. I hear they get the kids to "pledge allegiance" to the US flag in the schools, every morning and sing the national antem and quote various pieces of legislation.

Yes, class starts every day with the Pledge; however, students may silently meditated if they would rather not say it. They are not forced. Also, before almost every sporting event, the National Anthem is sung. And yes, we all learn in history class our important founding and milestone documents like the Preamble to the Constitution and Gettysburg Address.

I am guessing from many of your comments you would prefer that all of the students recite another form of daily pledge in school, the Eucharist?

But these traditions go WAY back and immigrants wanting to come to "America the land of opportunity" goes even further back. It has nothing to do with any current propaganda. When you have a dream, any dream big or small, you can at least try to achieve that dream in the U.S. There is always someone willing to help you. No one stops you from praying to whomever or whatever or not at all. You have a choice of schools, jobs and where to live. You're not forced to marry someone. You can rise from your own bootstraps (if you even have enough money to have them) and if you have the determination and desire, make a very comfortable life for yourself and family.

It may be FAR from perfect, but it is the American way and it's not propaganda. It's just the truth.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Your opinions are subjective since we don't know such details about common folk that lived 1000 years ago, but from the records that have survived the time I see that human nature didn't change all that much and neither did their motives. Good old seven deadly sins still rule the world and they will be in 1000 years methinks. This won't leave much room for romantics.

Ah, now I see what you meant as I was talking about something completely different. As an example, take yourself, me, and Hanna. What would all of us be most likely doing back then? Perhaps 90% of chance - we'd be peasants and produce food. Not much room for anything else. What we call today 'culture' existed only for the aristocrats. All the interests and honour belonged to them. But look, nowdays we all talk about the stars, the ecology, the justice, the brainwashing, and what not. That's objective.

Originally Posted by Ramil

But then we wouldn't have called them 'breakthroughs'

But they still happen and the society should be mentally ready to accept those things.

Originally Posted by Ramil

don't you think it's a classic example of mutually-exclusive paragraphs (TM) ? You don't believe in humankind any more than I do, do you?

Yes, I probably didn't express myself correctly. It's not about the belief in the humankind, it's more like a belief in the technological advancement and the desire for the comfort in a good and responsible sense. Consider the less advantaged 'poor countries'. Can you make a list of 10 items you think prevent them from living the quality of life comparable to the Western democracies? (Please, do not include items similar to 'The US exploits those countries unfairly and keeps them poor intentionally' kind of anti-globalist crap. Thanks in advance. )

Originally Posted by Crocodile

What would all of us be most likely doing back then? Perhaps 90% of chance - we'd be peasants and produce food. Not much room for anything else.

No, I'd probably be a nomad and spend my life on a horseback burning and looting peasants. A very interesting life. )))

Originally Posted by Crocodile

It's not about the belief in the humankind, it's more like a belief in the technological advancement and the desire for the comfort in a good and responsible sense.

But what about 'reliable drives'? Technology advances would mean an automatic tummy scratcher with remote control and pseudo AI according to you. It would mean virtual reality networks where the majority of humankind would spend their lives in imagined worlds. It's all for comfort, after all. Then - simply implanted electrodes in the satisfaction centers of human brain. Technology advancement does not always mean progress.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Consider the less advantaged 'poor countries'. Can you make a list of 10 items you think prevent them from living the quality of life comparable to the Western democracies? (Please, do not include items similar to 'The US exploits those countries unfairly and keeps them poor intentionally' kind of anti-globalist crap. Thanks in advance. )

Well, not US alone ))) but generally the policy of simply extracting natural resources without giving anything in return.
Developed countries could boost their industry and economy by building power plants, industry and infrastructure, providing know-hows and education in return but who would want that if everything can be taken virtually for free?
How very moral and democratic.

If these countries are simply left alone then the only thing they would need is time. They will do everything by themselves with time. But again -- who in the democratic world would want (and allow) that?

Originally Posted by rockzmom

When you have a dream, any dream big or small, you can at least try to achieve that dream in the U.S. There is always someone willing to help you. No one stops you from praying to whomever or whatever or not at all. You have a choice of schools, jobs and where to live. You're not forced to marry someone. You can rise from your own bootstraps (if you even have enough money to have them) and if you have the determination and desire, make a very comfortable life for yourself and family.

It may be FAR from perfect...

Replace in this paragraph U.S. by "Sweden" or "Russia" or almost any contemporary state and you will get essentially the same. It is a slogan to believe, an ideology. The "Truth", which contains no facts. When someone tries to decipher what is so special in US in terms of measurable values, it usually turns to average number of dollars consumed per person per unit time. This is really nice but somewhat different.

It is like an advertisement: "all your family will be happy forever with our world best toothpaste". Yeah, they found a decent formula for white teeth and, maybe even fresh breathe. Well, maybe consumers of that toothpaste really dream to be happy forever with all family and believe that it makes their toothpaste the world best one. And teach their children at school to be happy forever with the world best toothpaste and all family...

But it sounds a bit like... "propaganda".

I thought Rockzmom's comment was good though!
Particularly after I make a snidy comment about this American practice in schools (allegiance oath etc) which really isn't my business and probably has a lot to be said for it. She gave a dignified response.

And it's true that America has represented a dream and a way for people to get away from all the problems in Europe and elsewhere, and start afresh. Europe was certainly a MESS when the big immigration waves to America were in progress. Constant wars, no food in some places, religious opression and an apalling class system where most never got half a chance to improve their lives. America was their way out. I guess it still has that image in some parts of the world, although I wonder if it's really a land of opportuntity even for it's own citizens anymore.

And just think how gutsy people had to be to get up and leave for another continent with only enough money for a one-way ticket, before there were embassies, employment agencies or any welfare provision.. and when they didn't even know the language!

If psychological traits are inheritable, then many modern day American are descendants of some pretty cool people. Plus the stand on religion is good there I think. The "state church" setup that we know from Europe is very convenient and cosy in some ways. But from a religious perspective it does nothing but destroy people's faith and cause political problems.

Americans on thee other hand know that if they want religion they have to make a commitment and put in some effort themselves, since the state won't look after the church buildings and run the whole show on tax money. In Europe, I feel, the church faith is just a slightly more moralistic version of the state, and fills the purpose of carrying out rites of passage. People are quite happy to recite the whole statement of faith from memory while in church, without believing a single word of it.

@rockzmom: I don't have a strong view at issues like prayer in school. It's all the same to me whether it's done or not. Nobody gets religious just from a ritual. I understand it's a big issue in the US though.

@Croc, are you sure you want to hear my anti-USSR environmental rant? Is there anyone here who doesn't know about these things? It could get pretty long.... and I could get tempted to add some other items to the complaint.

The only thing I can remember complaining about while it was still a relevant/current complaint, was the war in Afghanistan and once or twice, things relating to the Baltic states. There were some standard SocialDemocrat reservations against the USSR - old cliches which no doubt everyone here knows.

At least in other countries, people only found out about the scale of the environmental problems there towards the end of perestroika.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Replace in this paragraph U.S. by "Sweden" or "Russia" or almost any contemporary state and you will get essentially the same. It is a slogan to believe, an ideology. The "Truth", which contains no facts. When someone tries to decipher what is so special in US in terms of measurable values, it usually turns to average number of dollars consumed per person per unit time. This is really nice but somewhat different.

It is like an advertisement: "all your family will be happy forever with our world best toothpaste". Yeah, they found a decent formula for white teeth and, maybe even fresh breathe. Well, maybe consumers of that toothpaste really dream to be happy forever with all family and believe that it makes their toothpaste the world best one. And teach their children at school to be happy forever with the world best toothpaste and all family...

But it sounds a bit like... "propaganda".

I believe that no matter how much "truth" I provide you with, you will still not be satisfied.

Measurable values are different for each person.

You might want to have Freedom of Religion and it was why many immigrants came to (and still come to) the US:

Most of the early colonies, which were in part founded as a result of religious persecution, were generally not tolerant of dissident forms of worship with Maryland being the only exception. Freedom of religion was first applied as a principle of government in the founding of the colony of Maryland, founded by the Catholic Lord Baltimore, in 1634. Fifteen years later (1649) the Maryland Toleration Act, drafted by Lord Baltimore, provided: "No person or persons...shall from henceforth be any waies troubled, molested or discountenanced for or in respect of his or her religion nor in the free exercise thereof."

Maybe you want freedom of choice in your schools for your children. Here is a list of FREE After School Clubs & Student Organizations at my daughter's High School (not including sports). And remember, she attends the 2nd poorest high school in our area and that was by choice from among a selection of 8 high schools:

Asian Club, Astronomy, Best Buddies ( non-profit organization dedicated to enhancing the lives of people with intellectual disabilities by providing opportunities for one-to-one friendships.), IMPACT, the Bible Club!, Chess Club, Choreography, Creative Writing Club, Debate Club, Environmental Club, Ethiopian/Eritrean Club, Forensics Club, French Club, Gay-Straight Alliance, Hispanic Honor Society, International Honors Council, It's Academic Team, Journalism Club, Key Club (international student-led organization which provides its members with opportunities to provide service, build character and develop leadership.), Latin American Students United, LASU Dance Team - Titanes Salseros, Literary Magazine, Mathletes, Mock Trial, National Honor Society, Peace Studies Club, Photography/Art, SGA (Student Government), STEP Team, Student Academy of Science, Titan Records, W.E.B.DuBois Society, Yearbook, Young Democrats

You want to live somewhere, no problem as we have the Fair Housing Act of 1968

Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act), as amended, prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents or legal custodians, pregnant women, and people securing custody of children under the age of 18 ), and handicap (disability).

Most kids/young adults today have never even heard of or seen the propaganda known as the "Four Freedoms Posters." They take these freedoms for granted because they are living them every day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Fr...orman_Rockwell

Originally Posted by Ramil

No, I'd probably be a nomad and spend my life on a horseback burning and looting peasants. A very interesting life. )))

Ok, so you just supported what I said that most applications for those who wanted the 'interesting life' were some kind of military applications: army, pirates, etc.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Then - simply implanted electrodes in the satisfaction centers of human brain.

Yeah, I know you like bringing that danger on. But let's face it - nobody presented a sufficient proof that would be the way the humankind would adopt en mass. The drugs (=the chemical technology known for ages) allows the users a similar effect, but it's not heavily used by most people. So, I don't think the 'electrodes' issue is that serious. On the contrary, I think the way the technology goes is satisfaction of the senses on a new level. But that's another story.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Well, not US alone ))) but generally the policy of simply extracting natural resources without giving anything in return. [...] How very moral and democratic.

No quite so. They get in return what they buy - the weapons to fight each other. They don't buy food, infrastructure, education. Is that the evil US forces them do so?

Originally Posted by Ramil

If these countries are simply left alone then the only thing they would need is time. They will do everything by themselves with time.

You have to elaborate on the benefits of that plan. What is obvious is that beforehand they killed each other with more primitive weapons and nowdays the weapons they use are more deadly. I don't see any significant progress. Take the South Africa for example. Before the very recently, the bantu people had a high crime rate in their bantustans. That was explained by the fact that they are not given the equal opportunity. Nowdays they have equal rights, so these days the level of crime in the entire country has set the world record. So, it's not that simple.

Originally Posted by Ramil

But again -- who in the democratic world would want (and allow) that?

I didn't get that. African nations export oil and other raw materials to the world market. That oil and raw materials are bought by the 'developed' countries who pay back their money and provide other benefits according to the market prices. The African nations then purchase weapons from the 'developed' countries for the fair market prices and subsequently kill each other. The local warlords ruthlesly rule thier tribes and the so-called 'countries'. Whoever is lucky enough to get any kind of education flees to the West to get a decent life for himself and his family. I met several black professionals from Africa who spoke Russian reasonably well as they got their degrees in Lumumba University in Moscow. Their opportunities in Africa are very limited as the local governments do not invest anything in the infrastructure. The infrastructure is either built mostly by the Western volunteers or is paid by the Western idealists or remains legacy from the Cold War era. I can hardly see your point.

The list of free after-school clubs is impressive (apart from the gay club, in school!!!).

Are these real functioning clubs where the children can be looked after after school?
It'd be interesting to know what they say to the kids about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in the "Peace club"!

Like I said before, there is a lot to admire about America, and the internal politics is definitely not my problem (although i personally prefer more social welfare than what the US offers its' citizens, and more economic equality) But whatever Americans want within their own borders is fine by me.

Actually about the American Freedom: I think it STARTED as much more free (for white people) than Europe. But nowadays I don't think there is any difference.

When I spoke about time I was speaking of centuries, not years ))) They'll sort it out between themselves... eventually. Now they want to fight -- well, see the paragraph about 'interesting life', but I'm sure there are others too.

Originally Posted by Hanna

@Croc, are you sure you want to hear my anti-USSR environmental rant? Is there anyone here who doesn't know about these things?

Thank you. So, essentially that means it's not the 'consumption of goods and services' which takes an ecological toll on the planet, but rather the way (=the technology) those goods and services are PROCURED. Some 11 thousand years ago it was believed it's ok to hunt whatever mammoth you find delicious until they went extinct and the global famine had happened. What I said about colouring in blue and living in harmony with the nature in the forest was, of course, a grim joke. Hunting is one of the most ecologically expensive ways to procure food. That outdated technology was substituted by the farming which was a renewable source. There is a well known list of the obsolete 'ecologically dirty' technologies which were modernized: burning wood for heating was substituted with coal and then the natural gas. You should read a good introductory article to get a better picture. In the mid-20th century it was believed it's OK to build a dam on a river and destroy the ecology of the entire region. So, what I'm asking from you is to realize that the mental link between the consumerism and the ecology is artificial and serves a powerful propaganda weapon. The calls for "let's conserve the water, the energy, the heat" are fine as long as they aren't used politically. However, I noticed that the so-called 'Green Parties' have gained the momentum with their electorate made of otherwise politically inert people. If I were a politician, I would join a 'green party'. Why? Because: (1) everybody understands they want something good; (2) the 'green party' would never win a majority in any elections, so no responsibility is assumed; (3) as a minor party, a 'green party' can join to any coalition it wants: with the left, with the right, with whoever, and get a real money and power in exchange. So, a real money/power and no responsibility! When you get to the political career as you said you would, take my advice and join your local 'green party'.

Originally Posted by Ramil

When I spoke about time I was speaking of centuries, not years ))) They'll sort it out between themselves... eventually.

Ha-ha!! You should meet and talk to a famous prisoner of conscience named Nelson Mandela and explain to him what you just said. I'm pretty sure he'll be very happy to hear that. In addition to your self-named list of the chauvinist, nationalist, etc. please also add 'a full supporter of the Apartheid'!! "Live them alone for centuries and they will sort it out among themselves eventually!"

I think most of the USSR environmental destruction was caused by military activities and trying to meet industrial "plans". Not from private consumption.

You are forgetting one thing that held the USSR people back from being as consumerist as Americans; There were no ads, so manipulation to constantly spur people into wanting things that they didn't need. And of course, I am aware that there were shortages but that's a different problem.

There were severe restrictions on that when I grew up in Sweden and no ads on TV and radio + the ads in papers had to be quite discreet. MUCH, MUCH nicer than now! You could actually enjoy the content without constant distraction. You could turn on the TV or radio or take a trip on public transport without being bombarded with ads.

And you didn't have to feel quite as pressured into having the latest of everything and constantly consuming. Not sure about the USSR, but our media was perfectly adequate without ads - plus there was content from across Europe, not just the English speaking world and local.

After 1-2 years with commercially sponsored TV and radio the novelty was gone and at least to me, it was clear that very little content had been added that wasn't already available before, and that new content had come at the price of constant bombardment with these ridiculous junk messages. Plus the content was dumbed down a lot.

If a product or service can't stand up on it's own merit, without untruthful marketing, then it probably isn't needed!

Originally Posted by Hanna

I think most of the USSR environmental destruction was caused by military activities and trying to meet industrial "plans". Not from private consumption.

Ok, so do you agree the mental link I mentioned is artificial or you do not agree?

Originally Posted by Hanna

You are forgetting one thing that held the USSR people back from being as consumerist as some others; There were no ads, so manipulation to constantly spur people into wanting things that they absolute didn't need.

Ok, you're right, I forgot that thing. Thanks for reminding me. There were other minor issues as well like famine sometimes, very bad quality of anything but weapons and some other insignificant stuff, but you're absolutely right. The ads were very limited. Off the top of my head I could probably remember one or two like: "Fly only with Aeroflot." So, the content of the media was free of ads. That's true there were huge placards on the buildings like: "The Communism is the Soviet Power plus the electrification of the entire country" or "The Glory to the Communist Party!" or alike and the media was full of the phrases lacking any meaning, but the commercials weren't there. You could enjoy the entire one-hour talk on either of the three available TV channels about how great it is to live in the Soviet Union without any interruptions to the commercials. And the issue of the consumerism wasn't there as the distribution was planned: if you belong to the power class (the party, the unions, etc) you'd get a sausage every day, if you're an engineer, you'll get it once a quarter. You couldn't just walk into a store and buy a sausage. So, what would be a point of the commercials? Buy more sausage which isn't there? So, the bottom line there was no Western-style consumerism. But the ecological disasters did happen on a scheduled basis. Period.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

"Live them alone for centuries and they will sort it out among themselves eventually!"

Why not? You can't civilize people against their will.