Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

What would it take for Russia to be #1?


  • Please log in to reply
7545 replies to this topic

#3341 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 20 July 2004 - 01:41 PM

Donq/Bader;
We should ignore insults of these who should be shunt at first place.
Second ; Giving the same rights the 2 thousands years of Slavic citizens and the members of nomads minorities living on Slavic territory is a joke.
Minorities conspiring against Slavs on Slavic territories should be expelled. :)
Donq; @SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT: Why else could God have hurled the Asteroid that destroyed the dinosaurs but displeasure and disgust at their stupid and arrogant behavior?@

It is unwise to congratulate nature for its natural nature event. Dinosaurs were the perfect creation and die as a result of cosmic catastrophe. And this is what worries the most; that they were adopted to environment, powerful and disappeared. :)
Statement claiming lack of morality between dinosaurs is equally nonsense as claiming the morality in motivation in human beings.

Bader; @Anti-American sentiments have economic grounds too;@

not necessary, Al-Quida was not the poor.
Anti-American sentiments it is rather clear feeling which pushes people on Himalayan top. Adoring the beauty is not necessary only human things. Gorillas in Kenya reservation hrs adore Kenya falls, for the falls beauty. :)

Can US defend democracy and the same time say ;@ In this world some are born to be dogs, and some cats.@?

Fighting with true nationalism has no chance to prevail, because nature control is set on surviving of their own. For that only reason I see end of successful cooperation of the internationalists behind the US/Israel/vatican . :)
Restructure or rather end will start with moment of Pope death .

It was great mistake of internationalists behind the US/Israel/vatican to stop Pope for asking Islamists for life of Bulgarian drivers. US visit of Bulgarian foreign minister Solomon Pisy might only speed up the course.
Not the fake democracy but raw justice will forward:)
  • 0

#3342 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 20 July 2004 - 02:43 PM

<I agree with Noam Chompsky.>

Howdy Bader
Who could be our competition then? They could be taken to be the good lion as they don't use camouflage. Do we rather have the fox?:confused:

There must be COMPETITION both because it's good, and because it's fair, no?;)
  • 0

#3343 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 20 July 2004 - 03:27 PM

<It is unwise to congratulate nature for its natural nature event. Dinosaurs were the perfect creation and die as a result of cosmic catastrophe. And this is what worries the most; that they were adopted to environment, powerful and disappeared. :)
Statement claiming lack of morality between dinosaurs is equally nonsense as claiming the morality in motivation in human beings.>

Howdy Woj
No wait a minute, there's no ultimate morality in Nature? Shouldn't we extend it to the Human? Or at least in reverse? Then there's no right and wrong and Bush it's only a manifestation of the will of Nature to prey on others, and some are predators and some are prey?:confused:

If you believe in God, on the other hand, then you must accept that he hurled the Asteroid in disgust as only He could have taken such an important decision that ultimately led to the rise of us Human Beings. We could not have shared the Earth as the dinosaurs would have preyed on us...:(

If you don't believe, you still got to see the will of Nature to order efficiency over waste. The Law of the Jungle is not mandated by Nature, and if it is, then the only response of the small animals is to cooperate and find strenght in numbers. Then it would be a fight for survival between between the few and the many, the big and the small. That was the only choice left for the cooperating Little Ants...;)

"Of all the choices we make as consumers, the cars we drive have the
single biggest impact on God's creation,"

The devil
is in the SUVs

Which of the following bold environmental initiatives is the Bush
administration considering?
A. Outlawing toothpicks in deli sandwiches less than 2 inches tall.

B. Requiring Americans to watch the Channel 11 Yule log rather than
burn real wood.

C. Asking Detroit to boost sport-utility vehicle fuel efficiency by
1.5 miles per gallon by 2007.

So far, my friends, only C is on the President's agenda. But A and B
probably make more sense. Why?

Because what the administration is asking for is less than what the
automakers already were committed to doing two years ago.

Yes, back in 2000, the Ford Motor Co. pledged to raise the fuel
economy of its SUVs by 1.8 miles per gallon over the next five years.
The other car companies vowed to meet or exceed that. "So," says David
Friedman, an engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists, "the
automakers are already committed to doing more than the administration
is asking for."

Kinda makes Bush's proposal look a little weak, no? That's why perhaps
it's time to trust our environmental policy to someone with a bit more
integrity, not to mention long-term perspective:

God.

"What Would Jesus Drive?" is the headline of a new ad unveiled by
Evangelicals for Social Action, a group of more than 50 evangelical
Christian leaders.

Together with senior leaders from Jewish and mainstream Protestant
groups, they've formed the National Religious Partnership for the
Environment with one simple aim: making a moral issue out of what we
drive.

"Of all the choices we make as consumers, the cars we drive have the
single biggest impact on God's creation," says the WWJD? ad.

In a two-pronged approach, the umbrella group is calling on Detroit to
make cleaner cars - and congregants to drive them.

On Wednesday, the group met with the Big Three automakers - itself a
coup - and, says Chris Preuss, a General Motors spokesman, "We had a
very good, honest, constructive meeting."

By this, Preuss means that he explained to those gathered that GM
would really love to make cars that get better mileage, but people
don't want 'em. With gas still relatively cheap, "The customer keeps
demanding more powerful, less fuel-efficient vehicles."

In other words: Don't blame Detroit for gas guzzlers. Blame Americans
for demanding them.

He has a point. But as Bob Edgar of the religious delegation points
out, our piggish predilections are at least "partly the result of the
$13 billion the auto industry spends on advertising."

Another good point. Not too many ads for SUVs discuss their impact on
global warming, climbing asthma rates and, tangentially, the push for
war in a region crucial to us only for its oil.

Thus it is a real blessing that the clergy is making us think about
such unpleasantries. Because if we really did demand cleaner cars, we
could get them.

"Right now, the technology exists that could give us a
40-miles-per-gallon fleet of vehicles in the next 10 years," says Kate
Simmons, spokeswoman for the Sierra Club. These cars would cost more,
true. But that increase would be offset by savings at the pump. By
2020, Simmons says, clean cars "would save us more oil than we
currently import from the Persian Gulf and the projected yield from
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge combined."

Wildlife vs. pipelines. Clean air vs. asthma. God vs. Detroit. Put
this way, gas guzzling is truly a moral choice we must face.

Even if our President won't.

http://www.nydailyne...85p-35868c.html
  • 0

#3344 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 20 July 2004 - 03:57 PM

http://engforum.prav...?threadid=88372
  • 0

#3345 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 20 July 2004 - 05:57 PM

<i thought your point about the dinosaurs was that survival is not ultimately in our hands, that we dont know whats next or when, and it sure as hell isnt gonna matter why.>

No, not at all. Notice the Little Animals were organizing themselves when the thing struck. Probably it was too late...;)

I don't know exactly why God didn't let the little animals handle the dinosaurs, but some among them always dragged the issue waiting for God, and in the end He had to do something. It was discovered later--many million years later--that the "do-nothings" were in reality serving the Devil...:confused:

There was a terrible destruction though.;)
  • 0

#3346 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 21 July 2004 - 02:07 AM

"Then we must conclude that what's immoral to the world may be moral to, say, America, Jihad, etc?"

<that is the conclusion of some, agreeable or not.>

It could only forced us to stand back and watch. But then many people go with the more powerful of the two contenders, however immoral, and that incenses the weaker who says "the hell with it," and starts using sneaky weapons, and the rest of us who say "hey, right is right" are also caught in the fight.:confused:

"I think we have the need to come to some agreement and say "good is good and evil is evil" for everybody, no?"

<unless this agreement is agreed by all it is no agreement.>

Exactly. But the powerful seldom stick to that as they respond to *interests* not morals.

<there is agreement, and there is no agreement - one thousand people saying yes and one sayinging no is no agreement.

unless we exclude the disagree-ers.>

Perhaps we need a world of agreers and disagreers.

<which, incidentally, is how organised religion works.

and the media.

and politics.

and any power structure.

us.

unless it isn't.>

With an important difference: the agreers wouldn't impose their world on the disagreers and viceversa. Agree?;)
  • 0

#3347 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 21 July 2004 - 02:25 AM

Donq; @No wait a minute, there's no ultimate morality in Nature? Shouldn't we extend it to the Human? Or at least in reverse? Then there's no right and wrong and Bush it's only a manifestation of the will of Nature to prey on others, and some are predators and some are prey?

If you believe in God, on the other hand, then you must accept that he hurled the Asteroid in disgust as only He could have taken such an important decision that ultimately led to the rise of us Human Beings. We could not have shared the Earth as the dinosaurs would have preyed on us...

If you don't believe, you still got to see the will of Nature to order efficiency over waste. "Of all the choices we make as consumers, the cars we drive have the
single biggest impact on God's creation,"

The devil
is in the SUVs@


Even slander should have some logic; by Frunze (Prawda)

If you Yudeo Christan believer you should logically follow your idea further that God created , viruses, Prion of Mad cow disease and etc, which finally will led down with human beings.

As a Slav I believe that god created matter and nature took over the control.
This doesn
  • 0

#3348 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 21 July 2004 - 03:10 AM

Donq; @@Wildlife vs. pipelines. Clean air vs. asthma. God vs. Detroit. Put
this way, gas guzzling is truly a moral choice we must face.@

<They are not moral but pragmatic choices important for human of life, but unimportant in terms of universe. >

To me *unnecessary* pollution IS evil. When I see a guy in an SUV to satisfy his ego, I don't need to see the picture of the Devil...

http://wuarchive.wus.../misc/devil.jpg

In reality though he's only the puppet...;)
  • 0

#3349 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 21 July 2004 - 04:03 AM

They are the ones referred to in the article...;)

A Judeo-Christian Affirmation on Environmental Stewardship

The cosmos, in all its beauty and life-giving bounty, is the work of our personal and loving Creator.

Our creating God is prior to and other than creation, yet intimately involved with it, upholding all things in relationships of intricate complexity. God is transcendent, while lovingly sustaining each creature; and immanent, while fundamentally other than creation and not to be confused with it.

The Creator lovingly cares for all creatures. God declares all creation "good" (Gen. 1:31), makes a covenant with all creatures (Gen. 9:9-17), and delights in creatures which have no apparent human usefulness (Job 39:1-12)

Created in the very image of God, human beings have a unique relationship to the Creator; at the same time we are creatures, shaped by the same processes and embedded in the same systems of physical, chemical, and biological interconnections which sustain other creatures.

Called to be the Creator's special stewards, human beings have a unique responsibility for the rest of creation. As wise stewards, we are summoned not only to mold creation's bounty into complex civilizations of justice and beauty, but also to sustain creation's fruitfulness and preserve its powerful testimony to its Creator.

We confess that too often we have perverted our stewardly calling, rampaging destructively through creation rather than offering creation and civilization back in praise to the Creator. For this our sin, we repent, gratefully acknowledging that the Creator is also the Redeemer who promises to renew all things. In grateful obedience to this our marvelous God, we resolve to make our homes, our faith communities and our societies centers for creation's care and renewal, healing the damaged fabric of the creation which God entrusted to us.

We make this declaration knowing that until our God restores all things, we are called to be faithful stewards of God's good garden, our earthly home.

http://www.nrpe.org/
  • 0

#3350 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 21 July 2004 - 09:58 AM

I didnt see any issue re competition DonQ.

He made the point which people are not likely to see and that was the effect of authoritarianism on the Libertarian right, its easy to see on the left or fascism.

Competition isnt something we need to foster or create like a social safety net, because in a healthy economic democracy it
will come naturally, between people, groups of people (businesses and coops) which happens today but would become so much greater in a debtfree system.

That section you took from ilo.org which made the point that both state and private sector have failed to meet our social-economic needs. THis has a relationship with Chompsky's comment.
The fact that the private sector also has an authoritarian effect on society shows its nonsense in the free market propoganda
that getting the state out of the way natural forces like competition will allow more efficient systems to provide more for society. It merely provides more profits from which the majority wait in debt for the trickledown. Trickledown is what asian
women get making goods for western bulk marketing retail chains.
Ilo dot org are right neither the (state) public sector or the private sector can solve these problems because they are both dependant on the authoritarian central waterhole which dictates
economic policy and economic principles which serves the lion.

A comprehensive package was put together by C.H. Douglas
based on increment of association which solves these problems
and it on:
www.ecn.net.au/~socred/

which I have given previously.

Bravenet: looks great.
I have friend who was telling me last night he knows someone who has set up a system to generate power similar to what Tesla
designed. He gets more power than he needs for his home and since he is connected to the powergrid he is actually feeding into it his surplus not taking out and so he has no power bills.
People could and should be working less hours for more, not only would less resources be squandered to pay off debt and clearing the produce by sales, dumping etc, but people with more leisure time would be doing things like the one just mentioned who made his own power system.
We dont need power stations, windmills etc, just like vehicles.
The car is not a curse to the environment the likes of Rockefeller
are, who trapped humanity to depend on petroleum products
when we could run vehicles on water.
As I have said before the Greens are blind leaders of the blind
and I see organised religion is joining them- blind leaders of the blind. See how the religions are getting more unitedly organised
as we head into a world religion to complement world govt.- the mother of all authoritarianisms.

I dont accept the claim that customers (majority) are demanding more powerful gas guslers. The majority are two much watching their dollars to squander them on gasguslers or higher petrol bills.

Woj I didnt make the comment about anti-Americanism relates to
economics, that was DonQ's comment to introduce V.N. Turbin's
Russian Survey.
The beneficiaries of the great global suction system which developed at the feet of the Fed also included the Soviet Union
which was propped up by the US and the annual freebie of several billions to Israel. Being a criminal enterprise it is guaranteed that the vitim will be paying for the cost of operating the system that robs them.
The globe pays for the global games, user never pays!
Then there is also the money gifted to Egypt and Jordan to be good neighbours to you know who and many more similar
investments to govts, leaders etc.
But if we believe that morals for humans is nonsense then we
must accept this ( and not complain nor try to curb it) as survival of the fittest, they are getting fitter to survive all the time.
Notice the comparison (non intervention in natural survival
competition- law of the jungle-unhealthy competition) with the free-market/libertarianism.
As Chompsky said the fittest get the most power to control the forces against the less fitter to achieve the "natural" advantage.
The advantage can be that of the state against the people or a
private elite struture against the people. A combination of the two is fascism, which is what exists in the main under the free market. There are too many benefits from the state (taxpayer)
subsidizing big business to allow govt to shrink too small.
Would the Carlisle Group or Haliburtons want to see the US govt shrink so that the defence forces were just that? Clearly the US has a fascist govt in the cabal around the chief fascists Bush.
The second world war could not have been without the US
corporations helping to build the Nazi war machine.
Non-intervention is as impossible as vacuums in water.

"missed a great opportunity to keep his mouth shut"
beautiful.
  • 0

#3351 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 21 July 2004 - 02:37 PM

Bader; @I didnt see any issue re competition@

I have to disappoint you , I am very much against competition, for reasons that I didn
  • 0

#3352 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 21 July 2004 - 06:24 PM

Bader; @Being a criminal enterprise it is guaranteed that the vitim will be paying for the cost of operating the system that robs them.
The globe pays for the global games, user never pays!@

July 21 (Bloomberg) -- J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., the second- biggest U.S. bank, had a quarterly loss after setting aside $2.3 billion to help settle lawsuits.
Citigroup added $4.95 billion to its legal reserves in the second quarter.
http://quote.bloombe...moO0&refer=home
So investors money going to lawyers to settle claims of the victims. Your @
The globe pays for the global games, user never pays! @- motto of the day.

There are too many benefits from the state (taxpayer)
subsidizing big business to allow govt to shrink too small.
U.S. Companies Consider Going Private to Skirt Law:
Small public companies facing the higher costs of complying with the Sarbanes-Oxley law of 2002 are considering going private .

It's hard to believe that tougher laws and regulation can stop fraud. The cost of regulation is taking its toll on small businesses. The average cost for all companies in the survey was almost $2 million for about 12,000 hours of internal work and 3,000 hours of external work, plus added auditor fees of $590,000, or an increase of 38 percent.
Worth Staying Public?

``The Sarbanes-Oxley law was the straw that broke the camel's back by diverting profits that small companies need for growth to compliance areas.''
More small public companies are going private to escape from regulation overkill.
intercepts; leonberton@bloomberg.net.
  • 0

#3353 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 21 July 2004 - 07:10 PM

<i don't know if i agree or not >

We wouldn't have to wait until ALL agree to morality and politics, which could become an excuse to do nothing. Some will always look for *interests* but these can displaced from political office or leadership. Particularly we in the West should be seen to look for JUSTICE, not VESTED INTERESTS.

Think of a NEUTRALITY like that of Switzerland: STRONG DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS, STRONG DEFENSE, JUSTICE--political and social--abroad, without force.

We may add OIL EFFICIENCY, wich is right at the heart of the conflict.
  • 0

#3354 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 21 July 2004 - 08:04 PM

<But if we believe that morals for humans is nonsense then we
must accept this ( and not complain nor try to curb it) as survival of the fittest, they are getting fitter to survive all the time.
Notice the comparison (non intervention in natural survival
competition- law of the jungle-unhealthy competition) with the free-market/libertarianism.
As Chompsky said the fittest get the most power to control the forces against the less fitter to achieve the "natural" advantage.
The advantage can be that of the state against the people or a
private elite struture against the people. A combination of the two is fascism, which is what exists in the main under the free market. There are too many benefits from the state (taxpayer)
subsidizing big business to allow govt to shrink too small.>

Once again, a great analysis, me dear Bader. But I'll expand it with the compass. Let's call it "THE COMPASS OF THE POLITICAL JUNGLE"...;)

-RIGHT-AUTHORITARIAN LION chooses the "law of the jungle" that is not so; it's simply camouflage to disguise monopoly by the predators. They HATE COMPETITION. They PROMOTE WARS OVERS RESOURCES. It may be guided from behind the curtains by the Fox. It's a HUNGRY LION that wants to sell the water that should be FREE.

-RIGHT-LIBERTARIAN opposes the lion on the grounds that it violates "true" law of the jungle. They proclaim COMPETITION IS THE ULTIMATE VIRTUE, and claim that their system will be as stable as that of real jungle, where species often--but not always--live in coexistence. They don't talk much how the weak little animals will be able to survive in the real jungle, but they only have one defense: COOPERATION. Of course, Right-Libertarian must accept this COMPETITION since not doing so would make them just another bad lion. They don't hide ANYTHING. If someone wants to be eaten they do it VOLUNTARILY.

-LEFT-AUTHORITARIAN claims it will organize the little animals to save them for the jungle. Their solution though resembles THE HERD.;) The little animals must accept an AUTHORITARIAN SHEPHERD, which ultimately leads to DEPENDENCY and INEFFICIENCY.

-LEFT-LIBERTARIAN rejects the HERD, rejects the JUNGLE, but must accept COMPETITION from the RIGHT-LIBERTARIAN just like they do. They proclaim that the tool of the weak is COOPERATION, and that that shall make them STRONG. They must build their OWN WATER WELL.;)
  • 0

#3355 woj1@cyberonic.

woj1@cyberonic.

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10667 posts

Posted 22 July 2004 - 02:56 AM

Donq; @Think of a NEUTRALITY like that of Switzerland: STRONG DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS, STRONG DEFENSE, JUSTICE--political and social--abroad, without force.@

Neutrality and Justice in one time - isn
  • 0

#3356 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 22 July 2004 - 03:01 AM

Howdy Woj:
I am not disappointed in theoretical competition over the benefits of competition.
My comment was for DonQ in reply to something he said.
Marx had nothing to say because he wasnt up to competition,
he was a great man in monopoly.
He merely described what has happened within community since there was more than three people on earth. When the state acting as a corporation did the same- hired people to make things on low wages and sold those things to the workers, they were just as locked in if not more. At least in the West people could dream, and some made it.

Saying you dont like competition is the same as saying you dont like democracy, both are pro-freedom.

The Marxist ploy of using the businessman/capitalist as the boogy
man is the old Jewish elitist trick they have always used on their
people (eg anti-semitism), the circling the wagons mentality which centralises power and keeps the masses capitive under the elite,
no competition.
The businessman and the unionist are both subject to the "law"
of the banster. Marx merely used Hegels dynamics to divide and rule society. Just like Republicans and Democrats.
Debt is centralising and creating bigger and bigger monopolies
until we get to one world govt. Thats why Marx wouldnt expose the banksters apart from the likelyhood that they were financing
his efforts and promoted them to the universities worldwide.
A similar situation is developing today, same trick.
Anti-Europeanism and anti-capitalism/globalism will work for world govt as it did in creating a communist state. The puppeeter is still in charge, he has done it before and the people havent learnt anything, still falling for the same old plot acting out before their eyes.
You are right there can be no free enterprise under capitalism because the reason Chompsky said and that is the result of the
banking system- nothing can happen without money just like in a communist state, you have to have a permit from the Boss.
A dollar is a permit, that gives you voting rights/freedom in the economy.
With no (or limited) voting rights in the economy, the political vote
once every several years is not democracy anymore than in communism. The only difference is the Bureacrats determine what
can be produced and on sale, usually more limited than in capitalist society. However the "law" of the banking system is just as totalitarian. Both the banking system and the Soviet Union were predominantly Jewish so the ideology can be expected to be the same.
But you dont need to be concerned about free enterprise Woj because you oppose it anyway because it will free up competition.
Not to mention cooperation.
I am not defending capitalism and globalism, both are preditors,
representing might is right, like the US at present. If humans are not meant to have morals, then there is nothing wrong with this,
its the law of the jungle- recycling and reproducing matter. If we object to it hapopening to others its because we have morals.
Those who object while it is happening to them are just saying their last prayer.
  • 0

#3357 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 22 July 2004 - 06:48 AM

@"THE COMPASS OF THE POLITICAL JUNGLE"... They don't talk much how the weak little animals will be able to survive in the real jungle, but they only have one defense: COOPERATION. Of course, Right-Libertarian must accept this COMPETITION since not doing so would make them just another bad lion. They don't hide ANYTHING. If someone wants to be eaten they do it VOLUNTARILY.@

<-would you add some light of explanation to your scope, please .>

Sure. I don't know but I can't help it but think of Pliny. He was a good pal in the discussions here and he was a Right-Libertarian. He even spoke about visiting our kibbutz jokingly. We, right and left libertarians can choose to compete leaving out both the bad lion and the fox. We don't have to share the same viewpoints. To think that we are going to change all people into flower people is both wishful thinking and undesirable. Maybe too boring without competition.

We must expand the principle of democracy into the economics. The need for it can also be explained in terms of Yin and Yang. We need a balance of both, and there is an element of the other in each. Also we can argue that it can only is wishful thinking that the coops will take care of all business. The decision making of the corporation is unrivalled. They can also take risks. And if they are too bad, it's our gain...;)
  • 0

#3358 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 22 July 2004 - 07:05 AM

<The Marxist ploy of using the businessman/capitalist as the boogy
man is the old Jewish elitist trick they have always used on their
people (eg anti-semitism), the circling the wagons mentality which centralises power and keeps the masses capitive under the elite,
no competition.>

Howdy Bader
Exactly. Very sharp observation. And then each system used the other to justify explotation and sacrifice. They both did away with the capacity of people TO VOTE WITH THEIR FEET. Which is perhaps the best form of democracy...;)
  • 0

#3359 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 22 July 2004 - 09:56 AM

"We must expand the principle of democracy into economics"

Thats the critical issue DonQ.
The Right could then carry on their interest in private business
owned directly by individuals or groups and companies arent necessarily accountable to shareholders like they should
(certainly nothing like coop owners);
while the left can form coops of any size- multi-ownership;
and the majority of the people who arent in those two
collectives of misconception can do either.
It is fruitless choosing between left and right anything because they are both puppets off the same puppeteer in the current financial scheme of things.
Voting power (with the feet, out of the back pocket) that is there everyday, rather than a meaningless political vote once every three to four years, is real democracy.
The Libertarian Right who want everyone to take care of their own needs, who dont want to pay taxes for others benefit, think that just shutting the door on everyone else make them all go away- this is the ostrich approach. A square metre of sand solves all problems (that is one square metre to per head ).
The left libertarians if they are into coops are more realist and
practical. People can survive afloat in the sea attached in groups
where-as individuals will weaken and surcomb to the physical and psychological fatals. But if we have economic democracy no
one is lost at sea treading water, they are on solid ground using their feet to vote with.

In the last Australasian Social Credit Journal there's an article on the Michael Journal. Appears to be put out by the Pilgrims of St Michael in Quebec associated with the Louis Even Institute.
Monetary reform has a lot of support amongst Catholics.
In the last Michawel Journal quoted in the Astralasian one are reports of theri work and response around the world.:

"Poland
On December 5-7, 2003 a conference on Social Credit entitled, "
a finacial system at the service of the human person", was oganised by the Catholic Action of the Archdiocese of Krakow. The organisers invitedus to send representatives, so there were
from Poland Mr Janus Lweicki of Wroclaw and Dr Szczesny Gorski
of Poznan, who writies books and gives lectures on Social Credit. From Canada Alain Pilote who is in charge of the edition in English of Michael (thats the journal), and Mrs Diane Boucher of Quebec City who holds a masters degree in computer science and another in economics, and who was one of the main speakers at the conference. The official aim of this conference was to explain in a synthetic way the Social Credit idea, and to emphasise the possibilities of its implementation in Poland."

Mr Lepper would get a lot of support from these people Woj if he wants to have Poland control its own money supply (debt free).
The main reason countries want to join the UE is because of the money needs but its all debt and that means no sovereignty-
pawnbroking.

Here's more-
"Social Credit is circulating from country to country Our Pilgrims in Ecuador acquired a small truck that holds 70 bundles of leaflets. They are satisfied. They sent 1,000 leaflets to a Bishop in Columbia who asked for 100,000. They will send him 10,000 per week."

So you are not alone DonQ as a pamphleteer fighting the puppeteer.
  • 0

#3360 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 22 July 2004 - 10:50 AM

Here is one paragraph from Diane Boucher's (M.Sc, M.A.) address at the three day seminar at Zakopane, Poland- (The first part of her speach is in the jounal also)

"The associatiuon of men in production gives rise to unearned increment, which is growing enormously more important than the earned increment. The ownership of real credit is common or social because the cultural inheritance and the increment of association are commonly and socially owned: "It is both pragmatically and ethically undeniable that the ownership of these intangible factors vests in the members of the living community, without distinction, as tenants-for-life. Ethically, because it is an inheritance from the labours of past generations of scientists, organisers,, and administrators, and pragnatically, because the denial of its communal character sets in motion disruptive forces, threatening, as at the present time, its destruction." "

The words she quoted came from Douglas.

I will translate that in terms of a Kibbutz/coop.
Real credit is the skills,knowledge, tools, machinery/technology,
plant and buildings etc owned by the coop/people.
In the present system they can be monetarised- used as colateral
to secure a bank loan because as a going concern the coop can repay using the real credits income. Note who owns the real credit -
the basis of producing money- not the banksters but the people!
So in an economic democracy the people can monetarise their
national real credit themselves and not borrow mere figures on paper from the banks with a debt accumulating against them.
The continued expasion of the real credit over time and generations becomes afar greater incemental gain (cultural inheritance) for the people than the increment that come from the present generation now existing and running the enterprise.
Because nationally the real credit of the nation goes on through generations, each generation is really tenants for life with the duty to preserve and protect what they inherited for nothing for their own childrens future. Personal property and savings arent so important in a such a society because there is no cause to fear
for the future and ones needs- in contrast to our present system. In the debt driven rat race people have to more selfishly try and secure both property and savings because the system isnt designed to serve (prosperity and security for people/individual, only an elite.
There is no question about the social input and ownership when we apply this nationally just as in a coop/kibbutz.
In capitalism the benfits of the increment are stolen by the dynamics of the authoritarian (to use Chompsk's word) debt-money system; and in communism it is stolen by th elite who run the state authoritarian system.
Its easy to see the security and prosperity that precludes the
right and left struggle against each other which divides and lets the Lion rule.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru