2012, The Mayans.

[Martinbwfc]

With all the sh1t that is going on these days, and yes I do realise these fcúk ups have been going on for pure time, I do think they are happening on a more regular basis than they have in the past.

They are definitely getting more violent, could it be the Mayans got it right, and by December 22nd 2012 we will be in oblivion............ Natural disasters seem to be happening far more frequently these days than at any time in the past. I do think there is something in their mindset, even Nostradamus predicted the end of times, in or around the early to mid 21st Century........

We as a population are doomed, so lets party, and enjoy the last days of existence.

[Keegan]

The plan is that we are all going to gather at Sharps' house wearing replica Bolton jerseys and shag the hell out of Natasha (irrespective of gender) then watch old Road Runner videos on VHS. Didn't you get the PM?

[Le God]

[H. Pedersen]

People have been predicting the end of the world since . . . well, the beginning of the world.

[Le God]

more proof!

[pfk]

Show me where in the Mayan literature it says any damn thing at all about natural disasters?  Some reading for you:

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/2012-the-end-of-the-world/

[barryk32]

http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/index2.php

[Diana Prince]

I'd say the ice age was quite "violent".
There's some shite written on the internet.

[Natasha Whittam]

Natural disasters have been happening since the dawn of time, it only seems more "real" these days because of 24 hour news and the internet.

Get a grip.

[azreal88]

Why is it that certain people would rather avoid educating themselves and instead read utter shite, written by people without even the most basic understanding of modern science; or indeed ancient cultures?

Yes, the Mayan calendar ends in 2012.......then the next one starts.  Yes indeed, the sun and planet will line up with the centre of the universe.......just like every year.

To say the Mayans "got it right" would be to assume they predicted destruction.....they did not.  Read something actually written by academics and not new-age bullshit peddlers.

[Natasha Whittam]

Why is it that certain people would rather avoid educating themselves and instead read utter shite

Ask Big Sharps.

[Le God]

I'm gonna guess the thread is tongue in cheek.

calm down everyone.

[pfk]

I'm gonna guess the thread is tongue in cheek.

calm down everyone.

LOL it most certainly is not.  And its not the first one I've seen here either and won't be the last.  I can imagine that by November 2012, I'm going to be pretty close to blowing my brains out from the media and internet storm of idiots that will be flooding every possible stream of information by then.

First we have to survive the Christian Fundies latest apocalypse date of 21 May though.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/LIVING/03/06/judgment.day.caravan/index.html?hpt=C1

[Abdul-Salam Bilal]

Why is it that certain people would rather avoid educating themselves and instead read utter shite, written by people without even the most basic understanding of modern science; or indeed ancient cultures?

Yes, the Mayan calendar ends in 2012.......then the next one starts.  Yes indeed, the sun and planet will line up with the centre of the universe.......just like every year.

To say the Mayans "got it right" would be to assume they predicted destruction.....they did not.  Read something actually written by academics and not new-age bullshit peddlers.

It's the same with the 'OMG da lizzards rule da world' crew who believe in shíte like the illuminati because some David Icke youtube video told them to.

[azreal88]

It's the same with the 'OMG da lizzards rule da world' crew who believe in shíte like the illuminati because some David Icke youtube video told them to.

Well yeah.  Real science, philosophy and history can be hard stuff to learn.  Most people would rather 'feel' like they know something than actually spend time learning things.  I watched a channel 4 documentary about Western Civilisation (which I somehow managed to sit through) in which there were so many basic historical inaccuracies or half truths that I almost broke my laptop in frustration.  Much like their documentary a while ago about climate change had enough bad science and outright lies to sink a small battle cruiser.

When did Channel 4 become a home to neo-cons?

[ReebokTrotter]

Forget the Mayans. This is the real future.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Cf7IL_eZ38

[Abdul-Salam Bilal]

Well yeah.  Real science, philosophy and history can be hard stuff to learn.  Most people would rather 'feel' like they know something than actually spend time learning things.  I watched a channel 4 documentary about Western Civilisation (which I somehow managed to sit through) in which there were so many basic historical inaccuracies or half truths that I almost broke my laptop in frustration.  Much like their documentary a while ago about climate change had enough bad science and outright lies to sink a small battle cruiser.

When did Channel 4 become a home to neo-cons?

Was that the one on how competition led the West to prosperity?  If so, do you know of any good books on the subject that are more accurate in their explanations?  For non-academics like me TV documentaries are really the first port of call to check on a subject, then I will look into it deeper if it interests me.  I would really expect Channel 4 to be more selective with the programs they buy, though.  Maybe they just put any old shíte on now if advertisers will pay for the time when they're on.

[Martinbwfc]

I'm gonna guess the thread is tongue in cheek.

calm down everyone.

Well just in case buy fcúk all next year for Christmas, it will be wasted.

[azreal88]

Was that the one on how competition led the West to prosperity?  If so, do you know of any good books on the subject that are more accurate in their explanations?  For non-academics like me TV documentaries are really the first port of call to check on a subject, then I will look into it deeper if it interests me.  I would really expect Channel 4 to be more selective with the programs they buy, though.  Maybe they just put any old shíte on now if advertisers will pay for the time when they're on.

The competitive nature of Europe probably did lend greatly to our development of military and scientific technology, in fact it almost certainly did.  The trouble is the type of language the show was couched in and the interpretation of the facts on offer.  For example, his celebration of European Imperialism and insistence that Israel is a great outpost of Western democratic culture culture assailed by the "enemies of the west" is all slightly disturbing.  Indeed, having any show about Western culture and the Middle East hosted by Niall Ferguson - the man who advised McCain on his Middle East policy during the latest American presidential elections (remember "Bomb Iran" sung to the theme of "Barbara Ann"?) - is, in my view, questionable.  Certainly the guy is a celebrity for the political right, and thus I can well understand why he would have a high enough profile to host tv shows; but I'm uncomfortable with a number of the fallacious arguments he makes in the show.

I'm not sure I want to important Ameican Neo-Conservatism to Britain, and Channel 4 has gone that way of late.  As for "more accurate" books, I'm not sure any book is ever entirely accurate on such topics.  The best thing is to read Prof.Ferguson's books (especially Colossus), but then also read other's writings on the subject of Western Imperialism and come to your own conclusion.

My argument with Ferguson is not on his facts, but with his careful selection of facts.  For example, we hear of precisely one European monarch when Ferguson critiques the Ottoman Empire for it's vice and corruption.  Fredrick the Great is exhaulted as a paragon of Enlightenment virtues and compared to the vain and venal Ottoman rulers.  We are told that syphilis was the main preoccupation of the Ottoman court and that in the West higher ideals were espoused.  Firstly, this is absurd on the face of it; to select one European ruler to represent Europe over a 500 year period is disingenuous in the extreme.  To then claim that Frederic was "austere", "modest", "restrained" etc is just flatly false.  This is a man who started nearly a dozen separate conflicts, including the annexation of large tracts of Silesia and Poland, in the name of personal destiny and ethnic superiority.  A man who was austere as regards women, largely because he was gay.....but had what can only really be described as a "palace of Greek homo-eroticism" built for him.  Certainly his private palace was less grand than those of the Ottomans, but you can hardly thank Fredrick for architectural trends of Europe at that time - British and French palaces of that period also tended towards under-statement (even if the monarchs in them did not).

Then his insistence that Israel is an "outpost of Western values, beset by our enemies".  He may be right there, certainly a huge number of Israelis have Western tastes, but I refuse to accept that Israeli government policy is anything like liberal or democratic.  If Israel's policies over the last few decades reflect Ferguson's values, which I'm sure they do, then that says a lot more about Ferguson's western-nationalist sentiments than it does about Israel's enlightened policies.  To claim that Israel's expansion into the occupied territories is a reflection of Western Liberal values is, frankly, absurd; to claim that a military defeat of Iran and a massively expanded Israel should be the goal of our Middle East foreign policy (which he has done, though not ikn that show) is obscene.

He also insists on correcting Nobel Prize-winning economists on economics, when he has no economics background nor training, on the basis of his political leanings.......and that annoys me.

Anywho.....my rant is almost done.  Read Ferguson's books, read Chomsky, read John Gray, read everything you can get your hands on......then decide which bits of each you think are right.  I've never read a book that I 100% agreed with and it may well be that you read Ferguson's work and think he's right, many do.  I'm simply opposed to a systematic and insidious insertion of sectarian sound-bites into British culture.  I don't mind outright political bullshit, but when that bullshit is presented as factual history on mainstream tv I find it deeply troubling.  

I'll finish by pointing out that this is a man who still supports not just the Iraq war, but also the conduct of that war and continues to insist that the West has the right to militarily impose conditions on "lesser" (his word) nations when it is in their interest to do so.  After all, might makes right.

[Abdul-Salam Bilal]

Interesting stuff.  As I say, I’ll look into it more; I know it’s never wise to base an opinion on a subject so vast from an hour-long program.
I’m aware of Chomsky and have read Manufacturing Consent, and you’re right, it is pretty fucked up to be passing off Zionist propaganda wrapped up in historical fact but the majority of the media is morally bankrupt.  Look at the increasing ‘adultification’ and subsequent ‘sexualisation’ of children present in contemporary pop music.  My housemate argues this is done to further the production of an underclass by getting children to breed now society is in favour of pro-choice with regards to abortion.  At first I dismissed her because she sounded like a Daily Mail headline, but she did make some compelling arguments.
The power they have to influence society is scary, with the influence of neo-conservatism on Channel 4, as you’ve pointed out, and the obvious alliance this government has with Murdoch, along with the increasing pressure to privatize the ‘World’ content of the BBC which will inevitably lead to full on privatisation, things are going to get worse, and fast.

[Sluffy]

Little Miss Sluffy showed me one of the text that seem to be going around on this end of the world business - which is freaking out some of the more gullible folk out there.

If you write down the date of the Twin Towers in the American way - 9.11.01 (September 11th, 2001) and add it to the date of the Japanese earthquake (again the American way) 3.10.11 - then add the two numbers together - you get - 12.21.12 or December 21st, 2012 – the day they say the world is going to end!).

 

[azreal88]

Abdul - I don't think it has anything to do with 'creating a new underclass'.  The killer for that idea is the level of conspiracy that would be necessary for such a thesis to promulgate.  It would have to be kept secret whilst being organised by mass-media and advertising.  I find it much more likely that this is simply capitalism at work.  Making children want make-up, clothes etc means there are more things you can make them want to buy.  Advertising which is specifically designed to affect child behaviour is long-standing and actually backed by the research of in-house child psychologists.  Child advertising since the 70s has been based on the idea of changing the nature of childhood to make it more commercial and it's estimated that children influence over 700 billion dollars of spending per annum, in the US alone.  I'm of the view that any advertising aimed at children under 10 should be banned, outright.

Sluffy - That's both hysterical and idiotic.  Like you said, there are gullible people out there.  

[ReebokTrotter]

With all the sh1t that is going on these days, and yes I do realise these fcúk ups have been going on for pure time, I do think they are happening on a more regular basis than they have in the past.

They are definitely getting more violent, could it be the Mayans got it right, and by December 22nd 2012 we will be in oblivion............ Natural disasters seem to be happening far more frequently these days than at any time in the past. I do think there is something in their mindset, even Nostradamus predicted the end of times, in or around the early to mid 21st Century........

We as a population are doomed, so lets party, and enjoy the last days of existence.

I don't think about dying. It's the last thing I want to do.

[Jamster26]

I can see why they think the way they do (world will end in 2012 etc) but yeah, not for me.

[Abdul-Salam Bilal]

Abdul - I don't think it has anything to do with 'creating a new underclass'.  The killer for that idea is the level of conspiracy that would be necessary for such a thesis to promulgate.  It would have to be kept secret whilst being organised by mass-media and advertising.  I find it much more likely that this is simply capitalism at work.  Making children want make-up, clothes etc means there are more things you can make them want to buy.  Advertising which is specifically designed to affect child behaviour is long-standing and actually backed by the research of in-house child psychologists.  Child advertising since the 70s has been based on the idea of changing the nature of childhood to make it more commercial and it's estimated that children influence over 700 billion dollars of spending per annum, in the US alone.  I'm of the view that any advertising aimed at children under 10 should be banned, outright.

Sluffy - That's both hysterical and idiotic.  Like you said, there are gullible people out there. 

thing is, it has been noted that the lowering crime levels in New york throughout the nineties could be attributed to the legalisation of abortion, thus leading evil and sadistic greedy people to try and counter that.  It's not a full on conspiracy as it's not a message that encompasses the media in its entirety, but just small sections of it which could be enough to have an effect.  It would only take one or two executives from film studios/ record labels to develop these ideas.  Not in an Illuminati - a group gets together to determine society- kind of way but more, a few influential people meet in Davos and share ideas to influence the economy kind of way, and thus join organisations through that.  These ideas aren't as crazy as believing the CIA would introduce crack into impoverished parts of the US...oh wait!
And yes, child advertising is pretty fucked up, but I doubt the techniques used are more influential to children than they are to you or I.  in an ideal world it should all be banned and we decide for ourselves to buy what we want based on need not on fantasy or lust.