The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Things are crook > Comments

Things are crook : Comments

By Stephen Matchett, published 13/9/2011

Why we know things are bad, not matter what the statistics say.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
Stephen is of course a senior journalist for the Oz "news"-paper.And one of its editorial writers too.

Why was this not mentioned?

Meanwhile perhaps things really are far worse than those on the right of the culture wars can even begin to imagine?

Such is very much the deeply felt and observed understanding of the remarkable Spiritual Philosopher who wrote the 200 or so points to be found here.

http://www.dabase.org/not2p1.htm

And this essay too which was originally published as a separate booklet, at the authors request. Because of the urgency of the world situation which he very clearly perceived

http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/reality-humanity.html

Meanwhile from a more conventional perspective I much prefer the work of Chris Hedges especially via his book The Empire of Illusions.

Plus I would also recommend the work of the truly conservative (in the REAL sense of the term) Wendell Berry. Especially via the three essays that he wrote in response to Sept 11 - namely Thoughts In the Presence of Fear (Orion Magazine)
Posted by Ho Hum, Tuesday, 13 September 2011 9:03:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ho Hum

In one respect you’re right – Wendell Berry is exactly the kind of reactionary scaremonger this article has in its sights.

I am often astonished at the willingness of people to see the very worst in Australia’s society and economy, and to dismiss or distort the wealth of data that suggests we are doing pretty well. It’s especially ironic that many self-described “progressives” either deny the data suggesting that progress is happening (such as Hamilton), or make the post-modern assumption that progress is not even possible, but just an enlightenment delusion.

These perspectives crop up on both the left and the right of politics, but in both cases they are reactionary
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 13 September 2011 2:53:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have some sympathy for the thrust of this article. We do seem to live at a time when, at least as portrayed in the MSM, we have a culture of anxiety and fear. Yet relative to fifty years ago, things are a lot better, and for 'battlers', indigenous people, immigrants and all. Just compare the ABS figures or read my book (modest cough), What Was it All For? The Reshaping of Australia, which compares the Oz of 1950 and 2000.

I don't think there's a straightforward answer. But I do think it's an important question.
Posted by Don Aitkin, Tuesday, 13 September 2011 4:40:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So Wendell Berry is a "reactionary" while George Bush and the various members of the coalition of the killing that invaded Iraq were clear eyed realists!

Bush decided to invade Iraq via a knee-jerk reactionary response which was completely devoid of any serious in depth consideration of the possible reasons for the Sept 11 terrorist attack. Even his language was reactionary - you know the double-minded nonsense about a "crusade" for freedom and democracy. Never mind that democracy does not even exist in the USA - especially now via the all-pervasive surveillance state

Meanwhile of course, all but 2 of the terrorists were Saudi nationals. So why was Iraq invaded? Knee-jerk reaction.
Of course the neo-psychotics had already planned to invade, and thus plunder Iraq well before the Sept 11 terrorist attack.

The all pervasive surveillance state thus INEVITABLY created by this reactionary response is described here.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america

Its early completely reactionary growth was also described in section 7 of The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. FOUR years later the situation described in The Shock Doctrine has multiplied to the nth degree as described by the above WP reference.

And what about the 200 or so points in the other reference that I posted?
Posted by Ho Hum, Tuesday, 13 September 2011 4:57:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Geez man, if you're going to take on an ABC satirical entertainment program, you might want to get their name right. Angry Beast? never heard of it.

You need a new editor.
Posted by Bugsy, Tuesday, 13 September 2011 5:11:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy