Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/9/05 12:45 PM, Mikie_Byers wrote: Hmm.. Pretty cool, but I dunno if it was just me, but the quality is pretty bad. And there's no drums, and I can't tell if there's a bassist or not, 'cause the quality isn't that great.

Pretty much my feeling on the matter. About the bassist doesnt matter, some of the best rock bands like pantera it was hard to pick out the bass line, the sound was so well distorted and synchronised. For this the overall quality of the recording needs to cleaner, What programmes did the topic starter use to record this, and what processes and equipment?

At 4/8/05 08:50 PM, -stem- wrote: we should just get a whole list of every known audio program, and what each one does. synths, converters, etc.

all of it!

Heh, dont we all wish we had the time to muck about with all kinds of noisey gadgets all day :)

At 4/9/05 12:00 PM, Snipex05 wrote: Click the link below and listen to the music. It's our bands first, we'd like some reviews from you trusty rockers out there

There is a good melody in there, you just need to practice it a few more times. Just how did you make this?

Good rock melody, missing a vocalist.

At 4/8/05 09:10 PM, RageVI wrote:
Are you talking about using the bundled demo songs and adding your own guitar to it? At any rate, don't submit pieces of music you didn't make, please!

I know this isnt personal, but what are DJ's meant to do if they want to remix something? I know some will use their own synth and rewrite a track, but sometimes a mix of two well known songs can be buzzing or hilarious.

Were you just concerned with him nicking a demonstration sound and posting it?

At 4/8/05 09:04 PM, Meander wrote: Thanks for stealing my idea. ;-)
But it's good topic, maybe I can answer some questions myself.

Hey, now! I've had the idea for a while, but the Audio Forum just came up! It's a good idea in itself, besides.

Indeed. It'll funny to see how it'll turn out, the conflicting natures of competition and trying to be nice to each other. :) Best of luck all i say, if you say the same to me :)

This is not plugging, just informing people that there is often a remix competition going on on this site. This is no small low grade shit either, this is run by Sony. You can win Acid Pro 5 i think if you win, which is a nice irony....

At 1/4/05 09:43 PM, johnime wrote: What is the best program to create music?

i tried fruity loops but i couldn't work it :((

It depends entirely on what you want to do, and how you like going about recording. Are you going to do live recordings? If so, you can beatmap the sample in Acid, set it to a tempo and import it into another programme. I know basics about Acid. It'll cost about 200 quid for full version, but if you're serious about music i tihnk its a nice piece of kit, with various sound effects you can do with precision, such as distortion.

If you're going to do digital music, and are very sure you want to and can afford it, i've heard that Propellerhead Reason and other stuff by them is spectacular. Same, about 200 quid depending what version and other progs you get etcetera.

Try some free programmes, find what you like.

At 4/8/05 09:40 PM, deslona wrote: Hej I'm working on a music flash, and it's mainly based around the rhythm of the music.
Is there any way to seperate the different instruments of an mp3 so I can get the timing right for the flash? There is no vocals and its all rhythmatic.
Its painful trying to do each instrument and tone one by one (mind you I have found a few tricks) :)

If they keep to set, separate band ranges you can try to equalise the samples to cut the high end or low end, or both off from the note. It will as the other person said leave a blunt, slightly muddy sound. That can be cool for bass drum sounds.

Drums mess everything up you'll find, because drums are many different pitches at once. Like each individual drum is a quite wide sound range depending on how it is tuned and made. If you do find a way to separate the instruments easily, keep it to yourself and make millions.

There may be some way of properly separating the channels afterwards, but so far the only machine i know that can do that is the human brain. Please correct me if i'm wrong

Right, i'm getting out of this thread, the issues got to large to go under the title clinical psychology anymore. I'm leaving before the moderators get me for going off the topic, so all rednecks, have fun trying to curse me into oblivion. As much as I care for people, i cannot regard you as people until you start to think. IF you like, come catch me in future threads, see if you can beat me. I will make you dance.

Many kisses and love MWAH

SpamWarrior.

At 4/9/05 11:16 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:

At 4/9/05 10:59 AM, SpamWarrior wrote:

At 4/9/05 10:42 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:

At 4/9/05 10:31 AM, SpamWarrior wrote:

At 4/9/05 09:49 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:

Yeah, most likely. ~.^

Seriously, does it come from Cuba?

Does it matter?

Not in the great scheme of things. Whats up, you afraid the police might get you cos you're helping communists live?

Yep.

Well its just a bit strange that a communist country, which is famed for its quality cigars cannot sell them to the nearest capitalist country. So much for tolerance....

SpamWarrior: "Oh, are those evil Americans still picking on you?"
Fidel Castro: "Yeah..." *starts sobbing*
SpamWarrior: "Don't worry. You have an advocate in me, Mr. President!"

I would laugh it it happened. I know nothing of Castro, Guevera or any of the modern communist heroes. I dont look to other people to tell me that the system is wrong, when it is quite obvious if you dare to look.

And your insluting my cigar? Good grief.

How is insulting a cigar a) possible, and b) relevant. Look at you, using your classic example of projection and cries of lunacy to try and shout me down. You follow the values of the machine to a t.

All because I lit a cigar? You're paranoid.

Nope, just trying to show you relevance that every action has to the capitalist machine. Forget the cigar, its not that important.

Hah, accusation of lunacy, AGAIN. At least it was a specific problem. Whats next, borderline personality disorder?

YOU ARE INDIFFERENT TO THE MURDER BY INDIFFERENCE OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE. YOU ARE THE LOWEST FORM OF LIFE ON EARTH,

*pssh* If you say so, dude.

Your apathy and cool indifference only goes to prove me right.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. <_<

See my previous comment.

NOT ME.

Did I ever say you were "the lower form of life on Earth"?

It was implied,

No it wasn't.

as all capitalists believe that the idea of sharing with the poor is the most heinous crime of all. Which is socialism/communism - sharing and looking after fellow man.

You have no idea what communism is, do you? Don't answer that.

Hah trying to tell me i dont know of what true communism would be? You go find out what it is, from the pure theory and not the fake revolutions.

Btw, good snipping of the comment you set up for me. Puppet.

What the HELL are you talking about?

"Life is unfair, deal with it"
"this is the way to deal with it, incite revolution and force equality"

Did you not like realising that you admitted in broad terms at least, that life is unequal, and it is wrong that it is this why?

How so? Because life is unfair. You didnt say accept it, you said deal with it.

I have been accused of bias etcera, and been blinded. As hard as it is for me to say, the capitalist system does offer some benefits to society.

A sense of stability

A sense of happiness with material goods

It can help find the right people for the right job.

My issue is, why are these things believed to be impossible under socialism/communism?

See, the sense of stability is enforced by various institutions, i believe to the misfortune of the working class. The strongest are channelled into hard work, motivated by pay. This leads them to be too tired for revolution. This combined with the education system, anyone who wants to do building work for example is often seen as lacking both knowledge and intelligence. Not true for all im sure, but i'm sure you've seen, done or been on the receiving end of the prejudice/

All the people that are "too smart" to do manual labour, are more likely to have less physical power, and their smart brains get wrapped around trying to make a business grow bigger, or just to survive in the expensive cities.

There is some pleasure to be had from material goods, but there is a great pleasure in sharing you're goods, and everyone getting to be a connoiseur of the benefits of society. Except the rich dont like sharing what they get until they've got bored of it, so the buzz is already old. A good, tho seemingly trivial example is fashion. The middle class will be wearing what the rich wore before them, and the working class will seek the middle values straightaway, leading to further indoctrination.

So after a bloody yet necessary revolution, people seem to believe that there will be no stability. Communism gets criticised for seeing itself as a utopia. Same argument applies to capitalism. Capitalism may not see itself as perfect, but it does give the illusion of equality and meritocracy.
I believe a revolution could achieve these things that capitalism claims to.

So, finding the right people for the right job. The education system does to an extent pick out those who are best for the jobs, otherwise no one would believe in it in the slightest. However at the same time valuable skills are taught, there is a hidden curriculum

I'm not going to repeat the study, look for bowles and gintis on google.

Hiearchy is definitely very good at keeping stability, but its stability caused by chains and fear as much as the possible benefits.

Ok, so what would be different after a socialist/communist revolution?

People would be working for the tactile and mental pleasure of doing the work, and also for others, without seeking individual riches.

For those of you who try to use religion as an argument for trying to be richer than their fellow man, consider : Religion says thou shalt not steal : hypocrisy. The vatican as a prime example has its own COUNTRY, let alone ownership of insane amounts of land and real estate that is NOT church related, never mind the bits that are. The vatican by its existence shows its approval of the ownership of material goods and rare works of art, yet the poor dont seem to be helped that much......

I am mostly ignorant of the other religions i admit, if anyone knows a good place to find out about Islam and other eastern religions, or knows anything, feel free to get your two'pennorth in. Be warned that i will be insinuating that your religion is part of the machine. Be assured that i include ALL religion as being, in the classic phrasing "the opium of the masses"

Religion takes money from the people whilst nourishing their soul with the promise of eternal life. They give with one hand, and take with the other. For example, the money that comes from people goes to building churches, it doesnt go to helping them live.

I can go into more, but i'll be more general.

Capitalism is credited with technological progress, because greed is believed to be the only driving force. How about the noble goal of trying to help mankind, which helps you're descendants?
Capitalism is like a parasite, a virus that seeks to take everything it can get away with. Only the people at the top truly benefit from everyones labour. Sure, there may be some technological progress, but so much more could be achieved if people's minds were freed.

I apologise slightly for the bias, but these are my beliefs and if you dont like them, fuck off. I dont make you read.

At 4/9/05 10:42 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:

At 4/9/05 10:31 AM, SpamWarrior wrote:

At 4/9/05 09:49 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: *Leans back in chair and lights a cigar*

The resemblance is is astounding... *cough*King_Hammurabi*cough*.

Hmmm, does that cigar come from oppressed downtrodden people that america bans giving goods to because it disagrees with the political beliefs?

Yeah, most likely. ~.^

Seriously, does it come from Cuba?

Anyway, i have been valued at a little more substantial than whoever that is/was. You seek the proof, have what we marxists can find, that isnt hidden shown to you, and you sit back on your capitalists haunches, smoke your cigar which is a result of oppression. Out of curiosity, are cuban cigars still illegal in america?

Yep.

Well its just a bit strange that a communist country, which is famed for its quality cigars cannot sell them to the nearest capitalist country. So much for tolerance....

:And your insluting my cigar? Good grief.

How is insulting a cigar a) possible, and b) relevant. Look at you, using your classic example of projection and cries of lunacy to try and shout me down. You follow the values of the machine to a t.

YOU ARE INDIFFERENT TO THE MURDER BY INDIFFERENCE OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE. YOU ARE THE LOWEST FORM OF LIFE ON EARTH,

*pssh* If you say so, dude.

Your apathy and cool indifference only goes to prove me right.

NOT ME.

Did I ever say you were "the lower form of life on Earth"?

It was implied, as all capitalists believe that the idea of sharing with the poor is the most heinous crime of all. Which is socialism/communism - sharing and looking after fellow man.

Btw, good snipping of the comment you set up for me. Puppet.

I dont oppose the concept of the treatment, i just fear that it will mostly be the rich who receive it, and the poor will yet again miss out on a wonder treatment. Fair enough when supplies are low, maybe. But would there ever be enough for every person to use?

Stem cells for all, or for none is what i say.

And regarding the political side. Politics is hypocrisy and lies while they try and figure out how to tell the people what the people want to hear, and what it is.

I apologise for insulting you (CommanderKai) in this thread, it does none of us any good and you werent the nobhead i assumed of everyone on this site.

I called you something awful, because it makes me incredibly angry that people dont see exploitation, even if it is through no fault of their own.

However, to all the rednecks here who think i give even a crawling fuck about what they think, fuck off. If you think you can defeat me displaying YOUR ignorance, or smear me by associating me with someone who no one likes, like King Hammurabi (tho i dont know why or even know the guy), i'll will laugh in your face and piss on your shoes, metaphorically.

At 4/9/05 09:49 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: *Leans back in chair and lights a cigar*

The resemblance is is astounding... *cough*King_Hammurabi*cough*.

Hmmm, does that cigar come from oppressed downtrodden people that america bans giving goods to because it disagrees with the political beliefs?

Anyway, i have been valued at a little more substantial than whoever that is/was. You seek the proof, have what we marxists can find, that isnt hidden shown to you, and you sit back on your capitalists haunches, smoke your cigar which is a result of oppression. Out of curiosity, are cuban cigars still illegal in america?

YOU ARE INDIFFERENT TO THE MURDER BY INDIFFERENCE OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE. YOU ARE THE LOWEST FORM OF LIFE ON EARTH, NOT ME.

At 4/8/05 05:52 PM, Devotchka wrote: Did you seriously waste all that time writing that crap for this forum?

Your thoughts are like a breath of fresh air, that has just passed through a sewage plant. Go back to your little hole, you are beyond help or use to the revolution.

At 4/9/05 08:51 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:

At 4/9/05 08:25 AM, SpamWarrior wrote:

At 4/9/05 07:51 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote: Oh, sure. That's a fantastic idea. Let's just start another civil war! After all, it's a well-known fact that ALL wealthy citizens are evil, oppressive republicans and ALL poor people are good, hardworking democrats. So let's just kill all those rich bastards! </sarcasm> Dude, chill out. Just because you're jealous of people with more than you have, that doesn't mean you can simply wage war on "their kind".

People who are evil

Define "evil people".

Could be criminals who like to rob and murder just to cause fear, EXACT same definition applies to the ruling class.

are allowed to exist in society to terrorise the good.

Define "good people".

People who dont have a hatred or apathy for their fellow man.

It is a system of control of immense complexity, but i see you're 'one of those' bleeding heart capitalists.

I'd rather be a bleeding-heart capitalist than a communist "borg".

So you like owning things that are the produce of slave labour? Before you even try to criticize me for owning things that are produced of it, i know i own it, and i do not like the way they are made. Whereas you think either "WTF EVERYTHING IS ALL GOOD AND EQUAL" or "FUCK THEM, WHO CARES". Lackey.

The rich are innately evil,

You have GOT to be kidding me...

NO

especially the old aristocracy. They are in power on the basis that they;re ancestors were more violent and aggressive than everyone else.

Right now, you are being the violent aggressor, Mr. "Let's kill all rich people".

Yes. JUSTIFIED. The Rich have oppressed and killed the workers for hundreds if not thousands of years. I'd prefer a peaceful revolution, but what kind of man in power fears a peaceful protest? There has be violence for it to work.

Yes, not all rich are evil,

Ahem, see above: "The rich are innately evil." - YOU.

I'll clarify. The rich's status is often innately evil, and even those with beliefs counter to the system cannot make a large difference. They try to help the w\c, but it only gives them small improvements in life, which is then disguised as progress, when its just another small concession to put off revolution a bit longer. Sick as it sounds, the BEST way these people could help would be to be openly evil and wrong, doing horrible things so that there is something obvious to fight against. It will not happen, the system will not do shit like that until the day comes we are all tagged "for our safety and for the good of society as a whole"

Sci fi bullshit you say? The internet would've been bullshit 200 years ago.....

this point has been covered in another post. But even if they are good at heart they cannot help.

Cannot help what?

cannot help the working class get better working conditions, wages, or even a living wage in many places.

Oh brother. You're one of those people, are you? Blah, no comment.

As a good cartoon says, you, are a f**king moron. "OH SHIT HES ONE OF THOSE!" "BEST NOT ARGUE WITH HIM OR MY BRAINS MIGHT FALL OUT OF MY EARS AND HE'LL TURN ME INTO A FILTHY COMMIE PIG"

Don't flatter yourself. You actually think that capitalists are afraid people find out how evil the system is and turn to communism? The last time I checked, communism sucks. It has never worked and will never work.

Communism in practice has NEVER existed in modern society. Anything else thats claimed to be it has existed either for the individuals sense of greed and power (mao, stalin) or to specifically discredit communism. Or both, that'd be easier.

Please try telling me that the poor fighting the rich would be entirely unjustified,

The poor fighting the rich would be entirely unjustified.

Hah, funny bastard.

based on the previous crimes of the rich which are obvious, and the current, which are less so.

Please justify it, if you possibly can.

Justify what? You're the one who wants to start a civil war.

If you cannot justify your position, i am right by default. I have justified my position. Your turn.

Yes, its an eye for an eye,

No, it's not. I don't seek vengeance, and neither should you. The past is behind us, and if you would start a war based on that pathetic reasoning, then you're a lunatic.

The past is behind us, well done, but present oppression is still continuing. GO BACK TO YOUR FUCKING NICE HOUSE, WITH NICE CLOTHES AND NICE MATERIAL GOODS BUILT ON SLAVERY. Its not directly obvious to you perhaps, but slavery built the society we live in today. Slavery still occurs in sweatshops, as people cannot fight for better working conditions, and its disposable labour. If you dont even want to try looking, then you are naive.

I have been waiting for the lunatic comments to discredit me. It can only make my theory stronger.

but the current situation is an eye in exchange for fuck all. I dont see that as a fair rate of exchange.

Life isn't fair. Deal with it...

This is the way to deal with it. Incite revolution to make it fair. Thank you for setting that one up for me. You boob.

At 4/9/05 07:51 AM, VerseChorusVerse wrote:

At 4/9/05 07:27 AM, SpamWarrior wrote:

At 4/9/05 12:22 AM, jmaster306 wrote: Sure it would bring attention and gain supporters, but the attention and supporters you would get are not the kind you would want to actually help your movement. The best way to stick it to a system is to work within their system and their laws. The only way they can stop you them would demonize them, not you. Just take a look at the civil rights movement, they managed to get more done through peaceful protest and activism than they could have ever hopped to achieve with violence.

However, if the entire working class rose up against the rich, there could be a phenomenal amount done. To work as the system likes is to slow the freedom of the working class.

Oh, sure. That's a fantastic idea. Let's just start another civil war! After all, it's a well-known fact that ALL wealthy citizens are evil, oppressive republicans and ALL poor people are good, hardworking democrats. So let's just kill all those rich bastards! </sarcasm> Dude, chill out. Just because you're jealous of people with more than you have, that doesn't mean you can simply wage war on "their kind".

People who are evil are allowed to exist in society to terrorise the good. It is a system of control of immense complexity, but i see you're 'one of those' bleeding heart capitalists.
The rich are innately evil, especially the old aristocracy. They are in power on the basis that they;re ancestors were more violent and aggressive than everyone else. Yes, not all rich are evil, this point has been covered in another post. But even if they are good at heart they cannot help.

People tried to criticise that view by saying "Oh, i'm a prick, wouldnt that be bypocritical for the w/c to seek wealth through violence"

No, it'd be entirely justified for the crimes against them and their ancestors.

Oh brother. You're one of those people, are you? Blah, no comment.

As a good cartoon says, you, are a f**king moron. "OH SHIT HES ONE OF THOSE!" "BEST NOT ARGUE WITH HIM OR MY BRAINS MIGHT FALL OUT OF MY EARS AND HE'LL TURN ME INTO A FILTHY COMMIE PIG"

Please try telling me that the poor fighting the rich would be entirely unjustified, based on the previous crimes of the rich which are obvious, and the current, which are less so.

Please justify it, if you possibly can.
Yes, its an eye for an eye, but the current situation is an eye in exchange for fuck all. I dont see that as a fair rate of exchange.

At 4/5/05 11:35 PM, commanderkai wrote: I sometimes wonder why I bother to keep bumping this thread

At 4/5/05 07:01 PM, SpamWarrior wrote:

At 4/4/05 11:07 PM, commanderkai wrote:

Pure capitalism is turning people into zombies, many are already.

And this comes from where? I have free will to do whatever with my life, I could be a CEO or a bum, I have the choice, and you don't become a CEO without a brain.

By zombies i dont mean academically stupid, i mean insulated from a world of pain, and oppression, where their only concern is themselves and their's.

Communism to work requires people of benevolent nature, with implies working for the greater good, therefore indicating a greater intelligence.

Bah.....greater intelligence my ass, you get the same amount of pay if you are a doctor or a garbage collector in communism. So why bother going to school?

Whats money so important for if you like your job? You only seek to have more than otheres because these are the values the rich have transmitted into society. Those who were doing whatever job they were naturally good at would have a sense of pride, and enough to live on, plus some.

I find this strangely better than some getting the same as what everyone would get after the revolution, whilst the rest die due to famine and poverty.

So shush trying to own me in single sentences, it will not happen.

And you can own me period.

You can never silence me, and i have owned you through sheer weight of response and caring.

Capitalism is what has divided people and made them greatly isolated and different.

Or independent and unique. Society should not tell me what to do in life, I have the freedom to fuck my life up whenever I want. I don't want hand outs from the Government for my screw ups. Then what's the point of making myself a better person?

Society tells you EVERYTHING in life, All things have been accounted for. I'm sure theres a plan for if revolution occurs, but if the whole worlds in on it, they havent got a hope without frying everyone, and they know it.

You dont seem to get it, that it suits capitalist theory perfectly to have its traditional enemy, allowed to exist in shame. Just like a prisoner.

You mean communism? Sure, another capitalist theory comes in play, competition.

I see, competition through not allowing the idea to gather weight. Seems more like fear to me than anything else.

Hmmm, nationalism seems to go with xenophobia

People support their government and their society in nationalism. Supporting the government over themselves, is this a capitalist policy?

It supports the capitalist machine. All factors apart from worldwide revolution have been accounted for, for certain. And revolution may have been accounted for, but if the rich see that everyone would give their lives, i believe they would strategically back down, knowing they could try to get back in later.

and racism,

Look at the Jews and see how they are being called evil and all that bullshit at a anti-war rally. Don't even think they are right wingers. Anyway, racism and discrimination is in both systems.

Right wing = nationalistic, fundamentalist beliefs. Anyone regardless of race or religion can have these beliefs. Why should the Jews be completely excluded, just cos they had horrible shit happen to them? EVERYONE is part of the system, and to say someone isnt is discrimination against the majority.

Maybe you don't realize this, but you might be helping their cause, you spewing all this anti-capitalist crap might be sending possible communists back to good old capitalists. Maybe you are a bigger tool then you think.

Really? So me spreading the message directly harms the cause?

Yes, maybe you are a tool for the capitalist, well wait a minute. This is already proven since you bought your computer from a corporation, which is on a desk made by another corporation, and your ass is sitting on a chair which is made by another corporation. You support capitalists even though you are a communist. The more you spread your message, the more resources acquired from corporations you will be using.

I dont support them, because i have put no back breaking labour in to have what i have, and i do not support the system, this makes me part of it, true, another part of the hated middle class, who make the manual labourers feel pissed off just by existing and desiring the ruling class's material goods.

They will simply ensure that humanity becomes nothing more than unknowing parts of a giant whole, where the richest have a life of luxury, and the labourers barely survive.

Yet the labourers still have the chance to make it big and they have the chance to live the life of luxury.....

Tell that to the people in sweatshops across africa and south america. You'll be lucky if you just lose your teeth. I dare you. Go swanning in with your nike's and rolex. You will get kidnapped and murdered, and it will attributed to the working class innate violence. Go away, you stupid, horrible man.

We claimed we taught them civilisation.

Not really, we (well, we could also mean the Ancient Romans) colonized their land, thus bringing civilization to their land. But I have never claimed that we brought the people of the lands civilization yet. If others have, talk to them, not me

It must be civilisation, since it was us doing the teaching. Can you see what i mean?

Maybe to some murderious individuals, but for those, see my idea on making them live together on an island.

So they don't have to travel far to try to kill one another? You have to put the two as far away as possible, let them forget each other, then put them back together again so they will start off with a blank slate.

Not people who hate each other for good reason. Just psychopaths who want to kill everyone.

Well done, you put up some interesting arguments. This is better than i expected of newgrounds. Looks like the thick 13 year olds cant keep up. Maybe the smart ones can though.

Us both are stubborn pricks, I'll admit it at least, but I'm getting tired of this thread. We just seem to be argueing the same thing over and over. This will most likely be my last post in this thread. Let it die, or wait a few weeks and I'll be back

somehow squeezed it in.

At 4/9/05 12:23 AM, jmaster306 wrote: Crap, I posted these in the wrong order, whoopse =P

Heh.

At 4/8/05 11:23 PM, SpamWarrior wrote: It doesnt matter to the system which political party is in power. Its all part of the illusion.

I'm still not exactly grasping what you mean by that. I'm not sure if it's a difference of opinion, a lack of understand of how the other half lives (so to speak) or if I'm trying to make what you are saying into more than it is.

The people are put under the illusion that they have choice to choose their leaders and generally what happens. Not at all, the government is a tool to find the opinion of the majority and follow it, to give the people a small slice of what they really want.
How could this work? Well if a right wing party gets in power, those values will be taught. If a left does, they're values will be taught too. So in society there will be people who believe in both different systems, from what they are taught. So the people are taught what they want and then given it. Gives them nothing to argue about...

I dont give a crap about the biological causes, just the social issues which make the illness and persons life worse.

Fair enough, that was directed more towards the validity of everything the website was claiming than what you were saying.

I do see your point, they are too extreme, but i doubt you'd see the points that show psychology CAN and DOES make it worse for some people, on a "balanced" site, if one even exists.

(points regarding typhoid etc snipped)
The brain is no where near as understood as the rest of the human body. Research could be good, but psychology teaches people to behave in a set way, and the possibility of getting observant people locked up or dosed on drugs frightens me. I have met some people who have been affected in this manner, and everyone fears going emo or admitting they dont like life because it gets labelled depression and treated with happy pills.

I can completely understand your concern, I'd be concerned to if this is the kind of stuff I saw and believed to be happening alot. My experiences with psychology and clinical psychology has been much more pleasant than that though so I'm not exactly comming from the same place.

Again, its a tool to distract the people. Because i have one opinion, and have communist leanings, if someone comes a long who has more "right" views and has had a nicer experience of it, my opinion is AUTOMATICALLY overshadowed, due to prejudice taught by the machine. How many old war movies are there where the communists are evil people trying to take over the machine for their own evil ends? There are very few films that support communist beliefs to be seen in Capitalist society. Can you name one? Now tell me of a film that shows the people of the USSR to all be evil sneaky russians, or the token funny who turns out to be good, who also believes in the capitalist system? You know theres more, even if you cant quite say why.

I'd say something is different, not necessarily wrong. Perhaps they are part of an evolution that sees an alternative universe, perhaps they are completely insane. Maybe there is no difference. We can not get into someones head either way, that we cannot comprehend. Many people who are respected religious people have seen things that no one else has, so why arent they called schizophrenic? Not a good example, but Sai baba, i tihnk hes called, thinks he's the son of god. Could be. Could be a con master, could be ill.

It's actually nice to see someone that can intelligently challenge the rules without trying to completely re-write them. Kudos.

Thank you. Thank you for having some intelligence unlike the blatant puppet of the system in my capitalist machine thread.

I need to go find my notes on abnormality. The gist is this for me. Psychology is just another tool of the state that trys to pry into how the human mind works, and as any tool can, it can be exploited to harm someone.

I wouldn't call it a tool of the state, but I definately know of the possibility to misuse psychology. I know that much of the original LCD studies they would randomly slip it into people's drinks and see how they reacted. I believe they were hoping that it would act as a truth serum. Either way, that whole experiment went to hell after one guy had a really bad trip and killed himself.

This brings up the issue of drugs and criminality to be explored more deeply in another thread.

www.maps.org. For the already insane, LSD has been shown to help. However as someone who as experienced it and knows myself to be more sane than those poor kids on the site, it is not something to toy with. LSD is a scary motherfucking drug. Its unbelievable how much one or two pieces of paper can fuck you up.
Thanks for admitting there is possibility of misuse, it credits you with more intelligence than those lackeys who give outright denials with no justification.

Anyway, as i've said in my machine post, every other institution is integrated into the other, so psychhology will be connected with military, police and secret police interrogation tactics. You think, how can asking questions be dangerous? Imagine the experiments done on rats, done on people to break their minds. Electrocution, etc. Psychology will lead to the successful creation of simultaneous physical and mental torture.

I'm waiting for the calls of paranoid now, something i've heard very few of. Makes me sad cos no one can be arsed reading my words to call me paranoid :(

.

At 4/9/05 12:22 AM, jmaster306 wrote:

So just because its happened, it means its correct? Hierarchy can only serve at those in top positions best interests, because they get more at the expense of the whole.

It's not correct just because it's the norm, but hierarchy is much more than just the rich being on top. It is a way of giving order to society through social stratification. I know that isn't a very good explination, but I couldn't find my old sociology notebook.

Yes. Order. Order and prevention of chaotic, unpredictable behaviour used to be the key. Now it allows chaos to happen in individuals so that they do some kind of 'criminal' or 'crazy' activity and get arrested. Therefore being made examples of.

Hmmm oh dear. Well the idea was to get young school dropouts into work and away from benefits and crime. Sounds like a good idea, yes?

Thing is, it served only to lower the unemployment statistics, and a majority of the schoolies who went did not get paid. So it was money and work coming out of the pocket of the mostly working class.

That's a pretty crappy system. I see why you don't like it.

Indeed, and this was an OBVIOUS lie in the years after, so it makes me wonder about the things that we done see.

Stealing from the rich. Murder of the rich. They would not be productive to the cause in the long run, as it would just encourage more draconian laws. However it may prevent the young person's will from collapsing, and empower them. That is a decent reason for it to happen.

Sure it would bring attention and gain supporters, but the attention and supporters you would get are not the kind you would want to actually help your movement. The best way to stick it to a system is to work within their system and their laws. The only way they can stop you them would demonize them, not you. Just take a look at the civil rights movement, they managed to get more done through peaceful protest and activism than they could have ever hopped to achieve with violence.

However, if the entire working class rose up against the rich, there could be a phenomenal amount done. To work as the system likes is to slow the freedom of the working class.

How would you know? The richest of the rich own the world, they set the law and own the legal system amongst other things.

Even Bill Gates got sued for Microsoft being a monopoly. Most of the results didn't have a big effect but the fact that they were able to bring him to court stands for somthing.

The breaking up of Microsoft has only served to increase its power. Now it can monopolise on certain areas, and still have exclusivity contracts with each parts.
There has been no real difference made to Bill's position as an incredibly rich man. Microsoft in its forms is in no different position. They still own the home o/s market as far as i know.
If a 'criminal' say, Mafia type pulled off a price rigging scam of that scale, they'd have got a severe punishment if they got caught.

You seem to avoid taking into account the crimes of the richest. They are untouchable. They force people to live in poverty in some places, and send the guilt in the post to other people, it seems.

Yeah the true horrors are the secondary effects of the greedy on those below them. I still say work within the system to undo those injustices, but that is me.

I can see why you believe in working through the system. Its opposed to many good peoples ideals that violence can ever be justified. It is, because it has been overtly used on the slaves for hundreds of years in many forms, and the threat still hangs over us in the form of the police, military, terrorism. People fear to do anything wrong for fear that one of these types will come to get them.

The moment will not come if people give up trying to get the message out. The way the system works now, only violence and attempts at putting the general population in chains would guarantee an attempt at revolution. However, i have to try....

But why complete revolution? Why not beat them at their own game and use the system against them. As I mentioned before, groups have done it before and it's been alot more effective than total revolution.

Total revolution has never been tried as far as we know. It was mistakenly believed that the USSR and China were communist. Call a dog shit by any other name.....

You seem to underestimate my ideal of worldwide revolution. I mean the entire working class throwing off their mental shackles simulataneously and demanding what is rightfully theirs.

People tried to criticise that view by saying "Oh, i'm a prick, wouldnt that be bypocritical for the w/c to seek wealth through violence"

No, it'd be entirely justified for the crimes against them and their ancestors.

At 4/8/05 10:35 PM, jmaster306 wrote:

- Education, the media, etc are also tools of the government

Firstly, the government BLATANTLY controls education.

That's because of the need for standardized education in the public school system which they fund. That part is obvious.

Since i credit you with being more clever than needing that answer, i believe the question is,how education is used to suppress the working class. It teaches people acceptance of hierarchy.

Perhaps because sociologists have found that hierarchies have existed in most every society in human history. One might think that it serves a societal purpose.

So just because its happened, it means its correct? Hierarchy can only serve at those in top positions best interests, because they get more at the expense of the whole.

The people who influence the government are the rich. An overt, none too scary example is Thatchers idea of vocational learning. Seems like a nice idea, learning the trade. However these people were free labour for much of the time, to boost the pockets of the rich.

I'm not exactly sure what Thatchers idea of vocational learning is so if you would explain that would be great. I already tried a google search and couldn't find anything definative.

Hmmm oh dear. Well the idea was to get young school dropouts into work and away from benefits and crime. Sounds like a good idea, yes?

Thing is, it served only to lower the unemployment statistics, and a majority of the schoolies who went did not get paid. So it was money and work coming out of the pocket of the mostly working class.

A young man sees through the capitalist system suddenly. No one will listen, because he will be seen as deviant unless he takes serious action. If he does, the police or the military will be after him, depending on the seriousness.

Ok, stop right now. What sort of actions are you talking about? Things like protesting, raising awareness, contacting your representatives are all well within a person's legal rights. What kind of actions are you talking about would be both productive to the cause and be punishable by law?

Stealing from the rich. Murder of the rich. They would not be productive to the cause in the long run, as it would just encourage more draconian laws. However it may prevent the young person's will from collapsing, and empower them. That is a decent reason for it to happen.

The police, media and education amongst others are meant to hold to the laws which are in our own interests. The problem being, only the poorest working class have to follow the law,

O.o, WTF are you talking about mate? No matter how rich a person is, they are never 100% above the law.

How would you know? The richest of the rich own the world, they set the law and own the legal system amongst other things.

as the only crimes accessible are obvious, whereas greedy individuals can defraud a company and run away, and have it not even noticed if done properly. Then there is the crimes of the rich. The greatest crimes of murder through apathy are ignored.

Ok, that is reason to make harsher laws for "white collar" crimes and reform the judical system. Not to completely overthrow them.

You seem to avoid taking into account the crimes of the richest. They are untouchable. They force people to live in poverty in some places, and send the guilt in the post to other people, it seems.

Capitalism was built on obvious slavery of the black man, and others.

Ummm.... no. Not to be a smartass, but the concepts of capitalism are built on concepts of free trade and success through competition. Yes slavery and other despicable employment practices were involved with capitalism but also most every other economic system as well. It has to do more with the impersonalization of large societies than the evils of capitalism. This is precisely why the government acts as a watchdog over businesses to promote fairness with both the employer and employee.

Free trade and competition, all very well. Society would be 200 years behind if the slaves didnt grow everyones food, build all the rich's places, and the roads, and all the other dirty work that no one else wanted to do. What was their reward? Death.

Less obviously, in the modern period, through giving us the beliefs that we live in a meritocracy, where everything is equal and we have an equal chance. Yes capitalism causes progress, but to say these progresses wouldnt have happened if people cared for their fellow man is biased speculation.

You are right it is speculation, but it is speculation with reason. By looking through history, the driving nature for much new inovations have been war, famine, disease and greed. Also the developments from one area almost always spill out into the others. By removing greed and perhaps war, you will eliminate the need for new weapons and faster production thus damaging the whole system.

I wouldnt mind if the arms race collapsed. It'd mean there'd be less innovative ways of killing people.

Thing is, to be able to conclusively prove Marxism right is mostly self defeating to people of simplistic beliefs. How so?

Because they are too stupid and/or stuck in their own ideology? (I'm being serious) I don't assume that all people fall into these catagories, but I know they exist.

The point i'm making is that people are too ready too accept what they believe to be the truth.

In this modern age, we believe we have choice. Therefore i can say what i like, and nothing will obviously happen to me. If it does, it will just be one life lost amongst many, and not many will notice.
It would be more dangerous for the system to openly crack down on people who believed, as it would make martyrs of them. It could cause futher cowering, or revolution. Since we are oblivious...

So they are deafening your cries by leaving you alone? If that is all it takes to crush your movement, then there really isn't much of a moment now is there.

The moment will not come if people give up trying to get the message out. The way the system works now, only violence and attempts at putting the general population in chains would guarantee an attempt at revolution. However, i have to try....

At 4/8/05 10:33 PM, jmaster306 wrote:

At 4/8/05 07:56 PM, SpamWarrior wrote:

- Rich people run the government

House of lords UK. Dictatorships everywhere, ie Iraq. Does the US senate contain business men? I can only validate in your eyes by pointing out the more obvious ones.

Yes that is obvious, but knowing that there are weathy in power is much different than the rich are running the country. In the US, the officials we elect are supposed to represent the people that elected them. Now, even if they are rich, if they don't do what their supporters like, they won't get re-elected. This is by no means a perfect system, but with the impossibility of complete democracy and our society of capitalism, it works.

It doesnt matter to the system which political party is in power. Its all part of the illusion.

- Rich people have become amoral in their stature and only seek their own prosperity

Not all rich are amoral, but those that care are inneffective. The rich have too tight a hold on everything. If a rich man was truly a danger, he would be eliminated and it would be blamed on working class jealousy, or an accident.

Yes the rich have alot of power and power can turn men into monsters, but this is where our government comes in. Even though most people in the government are wealthy, they are nothing without their general masses supporters.

Indeed, yet the people seem to like them, so they have no need to worry.

- Clinical Psychology is a tool of the government to supress free thought

www.antipsychiatry.org. If you want to seek a balanced page, you have a lazy mind that wants an easy set of beliefs given to you on a plate.

No, and I actually read through a few of the articles on that website. The author and his like-minded cronies base their disproof of Mental Illnesses entirely on one guiding principle, that a biological cause has not been 100% identified for most mental illnesses.

I dont give a crap about the biological causes, just the social issues which make the illness and persons life worse.

(points regarding typhoid etc snipped)
The brain is no where near as understood as the rest of the human body. Research could be good, but psychology teaches people to behave in a set way, and the possibility of getting observant people locked up or dosed on drugs frightens me. I have met some people who have been affected in this manner, and everyone fears going emo or admitting they dont like life because it gets labelled depression and treated with happy pills.

<Medical stuff regarding body and brain chemistry snipped)

A chemical imbalance can be a problem true. I do agree that there are benefits to society. However people go to these places to have their minds numbed, as psychology does not make society better

To claim that just because we don't exactly know what is the problem, then their probably isn't anything wrong is a gross leap over logic. That is like looking at a picture of some kind of monkey, not being able to identify exactly which kind it is and then saying that it must not be a monkey. They are taking one small shred of evidence, then suddenly jumping to the complete opposite extreme with it. What the evidence really shows is that there is still more to learn and research in the subject.

Indeed, they have to go to the extreme so people take notice. Otherwise it'd be another boring psychology page that gives no exciting response. I see many valid points there however.

As long as I'm on the subject, they also claim that mental illnesses don't exist since they are defined based on societal norms. This however, is only part of the qualifier of being a mental illness. The biggest other qualifier (basically the only one I can remember from college psychology at this moment) is the idea of maladaptive behavior. If a person is eating lead paint chips, you don't need to look into the person's brain to tell something is wrong. The person's condition (Pico) is obviously maladaptive since eating paint chips will inevitably make the person sick. This same concept can easily be used to show schizophrenia as a disease. If the person hears voices that don't exist and exibits irrational paranoia (like fearing attacks from the giant mushrooms) wouldn't you say that something is wrong?

I'd say something is different, not necessarily wrong. Perhaps they are part of an evolution that sees an alternative universe, perhaps they are completely insane. Maybe there is no difference. We can not get into someones head either way, that we cannot comprehend. Many people who are respected religious people have seen things that no one else has, so why arent they called schizophrenic? Not a good example, but Sai baba, i tihnk hes called, thinks he's the son of god. Could be. Could be a con master, could be ill.

Direct argument trimmed regarding definitions trimmed.

I need to go find my notes on abnormality. The gist is this for me. Psychology is just another tool of the state that trys to pry into how the human mind works, and as any tool can, it can be exploited to harm someone. Thing is, i am mostly harmless and therefore do not need taking down just yet. If i was to say i was to kill someone for the cause of capitalism, i would be arrested and treated as a mental patient or criminal, rather than a political prisoner.

Valid points regarding depression snipped.

Medicating someone for feeling upset because a loved one had died would be unethical, and it does happen, no doubt about it. Its making people feel unnatural emotions, leading to dulling of the brain.

Same concept applies to people who see injustice in the world, and become depressed. They feel upset for the world, but all anyone including their own friends and family wants to see is them smiling again, not see them thinking and worrying about the state of the world.

People are incredibly short sighted and refuse to see long term *sigh*

At 4/8/05 01:33 PM, jmaster306 wrote:

At 4/7/05 08:14 PM, SpamWarrior wrote: It does not. It only takes observation and lack of naivety.

In... your... opinion!! I can say it in a much more general sense since not a single person that responded to your posts in the first page seemed to realize you had a larger message. A little hint, if you try to tell us something... and we don't get it (as in understanding not agreeing) it isn't automatically our fault since we couldn't see it. It is your fault for not being clear.

Well i apologise, or not, for having displayed my beliefs. It is possible i'm not clear, and i cant truly blame anyone for not seeing, since i believe the system controls people. Some people like it tho.....

But then i will instantly receive torrents of abuse from the rednecks, like i did last time. I wouldnt mind, but they are so closed minded, that i am a leper in their eyes, even though they arent entirely in mine.

What and the rest of us liberal minded people don't have to deal with the same stuff? You will find that the better you structure an argument, the more you will get "I see what you are saying but..." vs "Shut up you moron." There will always be people arguing against you, use their reputation combined with their responses as an indicator to how well you are stating your views.

Peoples reputations do not matter. If they have a better repuation than me, and try to shout me down, and i respond in kind, it suits the system.

Fuck it, it'll be worth it just to make the rednecks have aneurysms.

Ok, I'm waiting.

I have made many parts of my case. I am relatively new, yes. But i thought of all places, a site of political cartoons would have people to give me support on my views. I received not one piece of support in my original posts. Am i wrong to assume nearly everyone is against me, given the replies i have received?

Like I just said, your lack of support is largely due to your presentation of the argument. 1) The thread is called "Clinical Psychology" so people wouldn't expect an argument dealing with the structure of society as a whole. 2) For those that have responded, most of us didn't realize what exactly it was that you were getting at. When we did, we were a little peeved. 3) Some of your arguments are based on asumption that we don't agree with. So to continue the argument, you need to re-validate your assumptions. Like:

Ok, again i will not apologise for displaying my beliefs of a political problem, on a political forum. Just because it wasnt in a conventional manner, and does not mean it is bad. I was attempting to deal with one part of the whole to gauge the response.

I hate having to write all this self justification just so i can get my posts to appear to be mine and therefore get put up :S

- Rich people run the government

House of lords UK. Dictatorships everywhere, ie Iraq. Does the US senate contain business men? I can only validate in your eyes by pointing out the more obvious ones.

- Rich people have become amoral in their stature and only seek their own prosperity

Not all rich are amoral, but those that care are inneffective. The rich have too tight a hold on everything. If a rich man was truly a danger, he would be eliminated and it would be blamed on working class jealousy, or an accident.

- Clinical Psychology is a tool of the government to supress free thought

www.antipsychiatry.org. If you want to seek a balanced page, you have a lazy mind that wants an easy set of beliefs given to you on a plate.

- Education, the media, etc are also tools of the government

Firstly, the government BLATANTLY controls education. It sets policy, budget, everything people believe in. Since i credit you with being more clever than needing that answer, i believe the question is,how education is used to suppress the working class. It teaches people acceptance of hierarchy. The people who influence the government are the rich. An overt, none too scary example is Thatchers idea of vocational learning. Seems like a nice idea, learning the trade. However these people were free labour for much of the time, to boost the pockets of the rich.

Each institution would not work as well on its own, it cannot be looked at in terms of individual institutions. Everything pervades everything. How so? I'll give you a parable.
A young man sees through the capitalist system suddenly. No one will listen, because he will be seen as deviant unless he takes serious action. If he does, the police or the military will be after him, depending on the seriousness. The middle class and stupid rich will say that it is his own fault, he should've done what was normal. This is because these people have been educated by various things into believing that they are right. The police, media and education amongst others are meant to hold to the laws which are in our own interests. The problem being, only the poorest working class have to follow the law, as the only crimes accessible are obvious, whereas greedy individuals can defraud a company and run away, and have it not even noticed if done properly. Then there is the crimes of the rich. The greatest crimes of murder through apathy are ignored.

- Capitalism is inherently evil

Capitalism was built on obvious slavery of the black man, and others. Less obviously, in the modern period, through giving us the beliefs that we live in a meritocracy, where everything is equal and we have an equal chance. Yes capitalism causes progress, but to say these progresses wouldnt have happened if people cared for their fellow man is biased speculation.

Don't turn into another King_Hammurabi, he has destroyed most of the credibility of his arguments by never substaciating his claims (which are actually very similar to yours). Don't turn into a giant flamming liberal douchebag, it's not a good title to have.

Thing is, to be able to conclusively prove Marxism right is mostly self defeating to people of simplistic beliefs. How so?

In this modern age, we believe we have choice. Therefore i can say what i like, and nothing will obviously happen to me. If it does, it will just be one life lost amongst many, and not many will notice.
It would be more dangerous for the system to openly crack down on people who believed, as it would make martyrs of them. It could cause futher cowering, or revolution. Since we are oblivious...

At 4/8/05 06:03 PM, commanderkai wrote: Can you make a summary of something here?

Heh, ok i'll try. It'll mostly be repetition, as you fail to notice the key points.

The main point of this is to show how the process of putting people in a false consciousness works.

1. THE PROBLEM - People have been enslaved through the ages. Does this mean its right, just because it happened?

2. MANIPULATION BY THE MEDIA The nature of the machine has evolved as people have become more technologically aware to manipulate them. With the advent of television, which is a fluid type of media, as it can contain the truth 'documentaries about animals' to the fictional 'star trek'

In many of these programmes there is tv showing us what we believe to be the values of today. It makes us believe there is being something done about a problem, so that we can safely forget about it. One good example is Comic Relief. Whilst it is noble of the public to give their money, representing resources to their fellow man, it is but a drop in the ocean compared to what is needed.

3. CONSUMER GOODS Now onto the issue of material goods. People like things, fair enough. But, people make things, get money for it, then go buy something else that someone else has made. This benefits the ruling class. The business gets bigger from the hard labour of the workers, yet they often see no more than a minimal wage increase. Yes, there are people that are richer than others. But most people with small businesses, unless they are mafiosi have the influence of the big corporations to any extent.

4. DIVISION OF THE WORKING CLASS This suits the purpose of the machine. Its better to let some people take a little more than the others, as it causes the working class to be divided. The people who do manual labour for less than people who push paper and are clever often feel low, or hatred of the "middle class" who's had everything better than them from birth. Hows this? Inheritance. The more money you have, the more money you can make. Why? Because you can have better food and better clothes and homes, schools and health insurance, in the usa. This means you are healthier for longer, and get a better education. This means you can work for the machine for longer, making the manual labourers jealous.

5. Why do the manual labourers not rise up? Well some people have an affinity with it, so they like it. Fair enough. But they still get exploited. Manual labourers in the richer parts of the machine get enough to get by on, and get life's little luxuries, keeping them content. Even better, many of the working class cannot afford to get a mortgage, which would give them a claim on the land the machine controls. They have to rent, so have no property to pass on.

6. Money, is truly nothing. Ownership of land, and controlling people are the same goal achieved in different ways. People are educated to accept the system, and those that dont in todays society are allowed to exist, to distract people from the fact the machine exists.

7. DIRECT PREVENTION OF REVOLUTION If you sit down and think about this, you either get angry or depressed. The machine takes account of that. People become classified as criminal, or mad becoing alienated from the rest of the working class. Indeed, random pointless murder, or as a crime of passion is ugly, and almost certainly wrong, i feel that if some selfless rich die trying to hold onto property that doesnt belong to them, in the revolution, i wouldnt shed a tear.

8. Not all rich people are bad at heart, indeed. But most of them dont feel like theres anything wrong, because they are insulated from the blight of the poor by riches.
Those that do see, and are charitable are just part of the function that gives some with one hand, and takes everything including the mind and soul of the people.

9. MATERIAL GREED FOR DOING JOBS - You think perhaps, that without people getting paid more, why would people do a certain job? Getting to do the job you truly have the skill for, and want to do, if you are happy why would material goods be necessary?

What is so wrong about wanting to serve the greater good? The search for individual wealth causes death and destruction by proxy, for the most unfortunate. And for the more fortunate, they get to be allowed to exist, even though many of there products are the basis of this society.

10. OPEN THIEVERY OF THE RICH - Sweatshops in vietnam, for example, and oil contracts from other countries. Do you honestly believe that these places willingly have contracts with international corporations to take their oil?

The people who want the oil are the people with an enormous amount of military power and more subtle influences.

11. MANIPULATION OF THE MIND - People dont believe that the government is so flagrantly corrupt and evil, because no one can believe that humanity is that evil. In some cases people will know people who work for the government.

Politicians are simplifiable into two basic types. The peoples friend, who truly wants to make things better, based on their own subjective value system, which can be good or bad.

These people can work for the ruling class, as they try so hard to make things better that the working class will believe something is being done about problems.
Or they can be inneffective at getting things done. These combined distract people and make them think that it is either the party in power or the ones who messed things up previously, that is responsible for this mess. An example is the labour and conservative partys in the uk both blaming each other for problem with things like health and welfare.

The other type of politician is the baseless lackey of the rich, who is most likely rich. I'm not sure how obviously it works in the usa, but in the uk laws are passed through the house of lords for approval. Sure, some of these people wont have more than a title, but many of them will have businesses and acres, and if they were to care would be insulated from their fellow man,

Why are the carefree rich isolated from their fellow man Because of the jealousy created by the mostly undeserved wealth, the children of the rich are in danger of insane amounts of bullying from the working class children. So even if they do end up in contact, often they end up in hatred of each other, or contempt. And if they dont, see point 8.

Now for the modern age, as much as possible. After the industrial revolution, some real technological progress began to be made. However, the farmers had left their homes, lured by work and seeing this material progress. After sometime, the lands overgrew and the government took the land these people had owned for generations. Fair enough possibly, it wasnt being used. But this meant the people, if they wanted to get out of the machine had no chance. They were in it for the duration. Does this seem similar to taking people out of their homes in different countries, and moving them elsewhere so that they can never escape? Because the best way to control people is to leave them disorientated, and starving, so that they start to become grateful and adore their new masters. Sounds like bullshit? Look up stockholm syndrome or helsinki syndrome. It is the same, but on a much larger scale. Especially since the knowledge was controlled, so that it was harder for the next generations to escape. I am unaware of why slavery was officially stopped again, if someone knows please fill it in for me.

Now, we come truly to the 20th century. Now it has been realised by the ruling class that its no good to control the people through whips and chains, and physical punishment anymore, as it is a more noticeable violation than a subtle beating of the mind and soul.

Now we believe we are free, and this belief makes us more enslaved than ever. Only we dont see it as being us, it is "them" in the foreign countries, with different cultures. Therefore it must be their own fault, musnt it? Is the argument of the blind middle class.

Now the theory becomes incredibly complex, that it is easier to say it like this. To control people in todays society, they are controlled from birth, by people who love tbem, adore them and want them to do well. Since the people who love you want you to do it, they cant be wrong..... can they?

There are many institutions responsible for controlling the people. These are, in no particular order - Organized religion, the police, the military, the systems of law, Education, the Media, and the Health services. These all work together to oppress knowledge and the people.

So the end result is, people that care very much about the people who are still in slavery, end up being disrespected as being bleeding heart liberals.

And everyone else that doesnt care, doesnt care and are obsessed with "me me me" more than realising that these beliefs cause the continuing deaths of people by famine. Who gives us the role of God to decide who lives and who dies?

Yes its two extremes, and there will be people of views of strength in between. And that serves the ruling class, as these people will argue with everyone else, making the view of the truth more muddy and difficult to see for the majority as a whole.

There are more facts, but its late, i'm pissed of with my mate and my cousin being nobheads with each other, but i'll gladly write more tomorrow.

For the benefit of those who saw me as a sneaky communist, for linking the parts of the capitalist machine with the theory of the whole, i will post this general post for them. For an idea of the foolishness displayed, please see the thread on Clinical Psychology. Anyway here we go...

A little freshness, just before i abandon this thread. There a various different types of psychology, behavioural, cognitive, psychodynamic (thats Freud type of stuff) etcetera.
Psychology is research into what makes people behave they way they do. Psychology is also making people behave in a 'correct' way. This idea of correct is given by a corrupt governmental system, in which there will be good people as well as bad.

Governments overt interests are keeping the people busy, educated and happy. This is in the western society. All governments are responsive to the power of industry. If a major industry want its tax costs lowering, all it has to do is threaten to pull out of the country and it'll most likely get its wish. Therefore, the people in charge of the industries own the governments everywhere. Corporations are the first International government.

Mix this with rumours of price rigging amongst the industrys, ie, the heads of the companies meet in secret to fix prices, so that most of them survive, seems counter to the capitalist system of the competition they preach to the people. This is the rich banding together for survival in one way. There are innummerous measures put in place by the powerful to ensure that they and their own stay powerful. Psychology is but a modern part of it. The main way is that people teach the core values from generation to generation. So therefore, only one generation, and unknowing time ago had to have its mind and will broken for the values to be passed on. Yes, i am saying that your parents and ancestors were tools of a system, and not their own masters. If you're white american or european it seems ridiculous to suggest, yet ask an elderly black person, and they will KNOW it to be true.

This is an example of the divide and conquer approach. There are only two real differences in people in the world. There are those with power, and those without. Those with the power divide people from each other, so that each man is his own island, with his own selfish values.

How is is this relevant to the previous paragraph? People have been divided from each other throughout the ages. Immigrants have always been blamed for the problems of a society in a particular country. This is to divert attention from the problem leaders and values. Also, women were blamed for being the cause of every problem.

Can you not see these values still in existence in society today? Even though we've supposed to have progressed since the feudal ages, all thats changed is the technology and the system. Now instead of having monarchs ruling and having everything they want, which makes them obvious assassination targets of the jealous working class, it is the rulers and owners of the corporations who are the kings. We often do not know what they look like, or who they are, except in the most famous, ie microsoft.

The system changes constantly, because if it stayed the same it would be easily observed and revolted against. Therefore that is why a lot of my comments 'flip flop", because i neglected to put in a time scale. Here is the marxist theory of the structure of the machine through the ages.

Primitive communism - cavemen, whilst knowing they were competition for mates, would share food and drink out of a shared fear of or hatred of other species.

Ancient Societies - Greeks, Romans. These so called "noble" societies built their empires on slavery, whether history admits it or not. There can be no war of conquest without the native people being enslaved.

Next comes Feudal society. Slavery was officially abolished, but since the peasants did most of the work and had next to no rights compared to the parts of the hiearchy, there was really no difference.

Then there was the industrial revolution, that shook things up a bit. Suddenly the previous labourers werent necessary or skilled. It became the time of the engineers. To be do well in this period took either, a lot of natural talent if born into poverty, or some education paid for by rich parents. This means that the average man was less wanted than ever before. This was the start of the realisation that the ruling class will one time, not need the working class, because they will have machines to do everything for them, that dont want paying and good working conditions.

Slavery happened again in western society, only this time their were even more possible statuses to be. You could be a Monarch or Religious leader, or both. Next came the numerous hierarchs of high priest/ or knight. I put these together because they had similar range of influence. Next came the squires/ priests. Do you see the pattern. Next came the peasants. Only this time they had someone to look down upon and/or feel sorry for, which were the slaves. "at least we're not as bad off as them"

This is a large chunk of the history of man, based on Marx's view of inequality.

At 4/4/05 02:36 AM, MadKid wrote: animal right in my opinion is the only sain thing on this planet, it shows that at least we have the desency to let OTHER sepics below us live, but i do think food is important so is population control (the control of population not a cop show) so some over-populated species (or moderatly for that matter) should be able to be slaughtered at a decent amount.

Nobility is important, hence why unneccessary cruelty should be avoided, and cruelty for entertainment should be punished severely, for the sake of the higher ideal. However i think research on animals for necessary stuff is well, necessary. Would we have sent someone to space before the monkey? If i'm wrong, please correct me and give me a source.
Testing is important for medical advances, and the space race, yet i fail to see anywhere else it is needed. Please point it out if you can be bothered.

At 4/3/05 03:38 PM, Mast3rMind wrote: I agree with Sasha. It's sickening that people can do these things to animals and yet no one does anything about it. The funniest thing about this country is when "normal" civilians do unspeakable acts to animals they get fined or sent to prison on extreme cases yet when it comes to a organizations wanting to test this and that no one cares. Why is that? If a normal civilian can't do these things to animals what gives these organzations the right to do whatever they please?

The difference is the motive. The meaning of the action. If an individual or small group is cruel to animals, it is often for entertainments sake, which reflects some part of their view of humanity. If the organization is doing it, it is often for some benefits. Tho i am opposed to the beauty industry on the grounds that it is unnecesary cruelty for no benefit, and that it is part of the capitalist machine made to manipulate women. But i'll leave that for another thread.

At 4/2/05 11:19 PM, Icarus32 wrote:

At 4/2/05 12:41 PM, NarcolepticAlarmClok wrote: Erm... not to be a tree-hugger here, but wouldnt it be more effecient to do what we are doing today... mass producing certain species, and fedding upon them, for survival, rather than going out into the forest, and killing as many animals as possible for food...? and, what about the ecosystems that depend on certain types of animals...?

But we are killing ecosystems in order to harvest our food. We pump chickens so full of steroids they can't even walk. We have developed new strains of viruses (virii?) like Mad cow disease (cause by cattle cannibalism). Hell, cows are considered a significant portion to global warming (which affects the biosphere).

So although in theory your logic might work have a bit of validity, we don't have unlimitted amount of resources and space. We would have 4 times as much food if we ate the grains we fed to fatten cows rather than eat the cows themselves.

As an ex biology college student, i have reason to argue here. Humans are indeed naturally omnivores, but theres many proteins in grains that will not be absorbed unless a cow has eaten, digested and absorbed them.

We clear rainforests to grow coffee. We fence off grasslands for cattle, forcing animals from their natural habitat.

Humans are omnivores and I don't disagree with eating meat, but I do disagree with the treatment of animals and how we get the meat. We make animals so unnatural that we're fucking with their genes and stuff just to cater to a market driven by overconsumption (marketing isn't based upon "you need this product" but rather on "you want more because more makes you cool/hip/powerful/etc.").

Sorry for being a tree-hugger, but somebody's gotta stand up to face the facts. We live in a nation of people who are fat, lazy, and apathetic. Obesity is the number two fatal life choice (behind smoking cigarettes) in America. Yet there are people still starving in developing nations. We eat ourselves to death while others don't have anything to fill their growling stomachs with.

This is a point i cannot argue with. It has been proven by various people, many of which are charity organisations that america has more food than it needs, just rotting away.

But one last thing about animal cruelty. We are forcing species into extinction at an astonishing rate in these modern times. If we are to keep traveling this path, we will bring down whole ecosystems. What if we kill all the wildlife, we won't have bees to cross-pollinate plants, or no decompositing corpses will be there to serve as nutrients to trees. Where do you perceive we'll get our oxygen from? It's called the food chain because we're all linked together, and a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. If we have no respect for animals and do not make attempts to preserve them, we are only assuring our own demise in the future (maybe not your and my lifetime, but selfishness is not a value I personally aspire to).

There is respect for animals, and there is fighting progress. If you have a care for human beings, animal testings of medicines is necessary. There does need to be balance, but if all the progress was wiped away from medical testing of animals, a lot more people would be dead today.

At 4/2/05 11:07 AM, SkyCube wrote:

Had Fox hunting been a poor man's sport it would have been banned years ago.

Agreed. There is no real difference between this and cock-fighting, or that one where they take bets on how many rats a dog can kill. Animals still suffer for peoples entertainment.

I dont really give a shit about animal welfare at the moment, i'm too busy worrying about my own species. I think that anyone that values animals more than humans should be stripped naked and made to live in the wild with the animals they love. Well, those that murder and harm other humans anyway.