Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.
Display:
I cannot believe that this post has been put on the front page. Is this really what this site advocates? An intellectualized preparation for war?  I see nothing but a toxic mix of paranoia, envy and xenophobia that in its attempt to warn about suppression and genocide is actually doing a very good job in promoting both. Surely the elephant is visible to others in this room.
by Jace (jace6315 at yahoo etc.) on Sat Jun 23rd, 2012 at 08:57:10 AM EST
What ET uniquely offers is Socratic discussion and analysis of various subjects, in which the whole of the discussion can provide insight, rather than reiterate the simplified talking points of different sides.

Many diaries are presented as triggers for such discussion.  Some here are prepared to marshal their arguments and present a real debate. This diary is a case in point.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Jun 23rd, 2012 at 10:05:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
From the editorial team's tasks:

The default, or front, page of a community blog is what visitors will see first, thus the content there determines image.

I am not questioning open posting. I am questioning what's on the front page.

by Jace (jace6315 at yahoo etc.) on Sat Jun 23rd, 2012 at 11:11:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
'Image', or more generally referred to as profile, is not built on a single slice through the timeline, nor, to switch metaphors, is the profile determined by a single set of 4 letters in the DNA chemical code.

It is true that many first time visitors to any website make up their minds  about the site in only a few moments <gone> - unless they already have a deeper motivation or interest in finding out what the site is about.

The 'Image', even during one such 'slice', is also accompanied on the ET splash page by recommended and recent diary titles. These are also taken in by the eye during those few moments of visitor indecision.

To me, ET represents no party or political grouping, other than its members. Everything can be doubted and questioned - which I think is very healthy. I have learned a great deal from all these discussions, but it took a while to get used to the unexpected format.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Sat Jun 23rd, 2012 at 11:34:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have made clear, I think, that I do not like this article. But it can be very representative of something very pernicious and that exists in our societies: the mystifying discourse (even without being aware of it). It can be useful and generate interesting discussion.

If I can, I'll make a "text comment" of the article, a bit like me asking my students to do.

by PerCLupi on Sat Jun 23rd, 2012 at 10:50:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Jace:
Is this really what this site advocates?

No. The content of the front page is not advocacy, and there is no official "line".

ET is however about discussion, which the poster hoped to encourage. Your own point of view is of course welcome.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Jun 23rd, 2012 at 12:52:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You should probably substantiate those accusations. With quotes from the article, preferably.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Jun 23rd, 2012 at 12:58:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Paranoia: pretty much all of it, but you can start with the very first line:

Con­tem­plate the fol­low­ing details very closely, because they are what is planned for you.

Envy: anywhere details are provided showing just what the rich are able to do (Kozlowski, the international elite sending their young to Switzerland).

Xenophobia: the details of the Chinese factory, the emergence of China as a power or this little bit from the end:

Any­way, not to worry, our prin­ci­pal cred­i­tors are nice, respectable peo­ple, much admired by Con­ser­v­a­tives: the Com­mu­nist Party of the Peo­ples Repub­lic of China, who mur­dered, in their younger, impul­sive days, roughly sev­enty mil­lion people.

For laughs, let's try replacing some of the terminology on key sections describing the new masters of the world, secret leaders of the coming yellow horde:

For us to under­stand how this ide­o­log­i­cal imper­a­tive has been fol­lowed, I will have to make clear who most ben­e­fits from the cur­rent sit­u­a­tion. It is not the peo­ple of the United States and Canada, nor is it the peo­ple of China. It is a small group of indi­vid­u­als and fam­i­lies who con­sti­tute the global aris­toc­racy. The present global aris­toc­racy, who pos­sess wealth unimag­in­able to any ordi­nary per­son, include a hand­ful of tech­no­log­i­cal inno­va­tors who built indus­tries, but the over­whelm­ing major­ity of them are mem­bers of ancient Euro­pean aris­to­cratic fam­i­lies, old Com­mu­nist Party gang­sters, scions of the third world mon­archs who were installed by the colo­nial pow­ers (such as the Saudis), drug lords, arms deal­ers, stock mar­ket and real estate manip­u­la­tors, or mil­i­tary thugs sit­ting on valu­able chunks of nat­ural resources Jews. The cor­ner­stone of the global econ­omy, the oil indus­try, which directly or indi­rectly deter­mines the nature of every trans­ac­tion on earth, is owned over­whelm­ingly by hered­i­tary nobil­ity, mil­i­tary dic­ta­tors, or ex-KGB goons Jews.

With their chil­dren attend­ing Swiss schools, their houses in France or the Caribbean, and their emo­tional loy­al­ties with an inter­na­tional sub­cul­ture of wealth and pres­tige, the (tech­ni­cally) Amer­i­can and Cana­dian rich Jews don't much worry about most domes­tic issues. But they do care about tax­a­tion. No mat­ter how lit­tle they pay after the appro­pri­ate off-shoring, kick­backs, exemp­tions and spe­cial priv­i­leges, it is a point of Aris­to­cratic Jewish Hon­our to resist even the impli­ca­tion that they should pay.

As I've alluded to in another comment, all that's missing from this diatribe is an easily recognizable bogeyman. The story would become so much simpler to understand. I think the exercise above illustrates this well.

by Jace (jace6315 at yahoo etc.) on Sat Jun 23rd, 2012 at 04:37:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Those kind of laughs aren't funny. They can cause huge shitstorms on discussion sites. Try giving your point of view better backing than that.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Jun 23rd, 2012 at 04:47:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Paranoia: pretty much all of it, but you can start with the very first line:
Contemplate the following details very closely, because they are what is planned for you.

That's not paranoia. That's extrapolation from publicly available records. There is no evidence - none - that the right will stop their repeal of the 20th century before we're back to sweatshops and company towns. And plenty of evidence in both their writings and their actions that they will not.

Envy: anywhere details are provided showing just what the rich are able to do (Kozlowski, the international elite sending their young to Switzerland).

You call it envy, I call it exposing the hypocrisy of those who call for everyone who is not them to "tighten our belts."

Xenophobia: the details of the Chinese factory, the emergence of China as a power or this little bit from the end:

Weak tea. The fact is that the right wing is selling European and American industrial capacity to the highest bidder. It is also a fact that the highest bidder is China. It is also a fact that the Chinese government has almost as many of its citizens incarcerated as the US, and murders an order of magnitude or so more.

For laughs, let's try replacing some of the terminology on key sections describing the new masters of the world, secret leaders of the coming yellow horde:

Once more, for the slow learners: The difference between a criminal conspiracy and a conspiracy theory is evidence.

That hereditary nobility, ex-communist apparatchicks, tin-pot dictators, warlords and drug runners are the principal beneficiaries of the gamut of policies commonly aggregated under the label "globalization" is what is known as "a fact." Because it is, you know, provably true. That the primary beneficiaries of globalization are Jews is what is known as "a lie." Because it is, you know, provably not true.

This sort of matters. In the same way the difference between the statement "industrial agriculture is the main contributor to fertilizer runoff" and the statement "churches are the main contributors to fertilizer runoff" is sort of important. Namely in that the former is true, and the latter is libel.

And the difference between objecting to a conspiracy theory and objecting to a description of a criminal conspiracy is also important. Because it's the difference between debunking and tone trolling.

You may want to look up that difference, because right now you're doing it wrong.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sat Jun 23rd, 2012 at 06:43:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ed Meese gave an early heads up when he told reporters "Don't watch what we say, watch what we do."

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat Jun 23rd, 2012 at 10:43:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Pentecost steam

by DoDo - May 20
9 comments

A Nomad's Life (A Farewell)

by Nomad - May 10
14 comments

Simple Solar Principles

by gmoke - May 17
1 comment

Rail News Blogging #24

by DoDo - May 12
10 comments

Ferguson hates on Keynes

by Migeru - May 6
100 comments

Occasional Series