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

#1081 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 12 September 2003 - 07:29 AM

If communism was the best system for Russia and only needing a few modifications and has successfully got on the winning side of competition with the West, since then it has undergone modifications in the last twelve or so years, it looks like the game of how Russia can become number one is over.

"Nationalism is part of the problem."
" Israel is nationalist isn't it?"

Every nation has a nationalist identity. Even in UE we still hear about the Germans, the Dutch etc.
What would it take for Russia (nationalist goal) to be number 1,
smacks of ultra-neo nationalism, similar to Nazi fanaticism,
remember Vladzo objected to its un-russianness.
Meaning- what is the point you are making DonQ, (you are not about to commit a hate crime against the nationalist Olympic Games are you??!!)

It was quite clear to me a long time ago that nationalism became a dirty word following the second world war (inspite of the focus
of the world on liberated countries that were colonial territories of
Euro countries (including Britain here).
The free-market revolution has effectively dealt to nationalism
but in such a way that people still fell they are independant and
free.
Two countries who probably think they are an exception would be the U.S. and Israel (Batman and Robin- both think they are Batman). While they rule the world now, so to speak, I believe their nationalism will be dealt to when their task is finished.

Getting back to tongue in cheek, DonQ, what's bad about nationalism, apart from trying to be number one?
  • 0

#1082 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 12 September 2003 - 06:13 PM

<Every nation has a nationalist identity. Even in UE we still hear about the Germans, the Dutch etc.
What would it take for Russia (nationalist goal) to be number 1,
smacks of ultra-neo nationalism, similar to Nazi fanaticism,
remember Vladzo objected to its un-russianness.
Meaning- what is the point you are making DonQ, (you are not about to commit a hate crime against the nationalist Olympic Games are you??!!)>

Howdy Bader
*Nationalism like religion must be played down if we are to survive*. In embracing *Humanism* though you only see human beings for what they are. And I'm not saying that winning the most medals would be bad, but that's a kind of positive competition the way we can say Scandinavia is #1--and all surveys tell us that--without any need for the Norse to come out and fly their flags...;)

<It was quite clear to me a long time ago that nationalism became a dirty word following the second world war (inspite of the focus
of the world on liberated countries that were colonial territories of
Euro countries (including Britain here).
The free-market revolution has effectively dealt to nationalism
but in such a way that people still fell they are independant and
free.
Two countries who probably think they are an exception would be the U.S. and Israel (Batman and Robin- both think they are Batman). While they rule the world now, so to speak, I believe their nationalism will be dealt to when their task is finished.

Getting back to tongue in cheek, DonQ, what's bad about nationalism, apart from trying to be number one?>

Remember, everytime America cries "God Bless America!" they are placing nationalism and religion above all, including the concerns and needs of the rest of the world. The same goes for Israel, etc, etc.

Bader, I rather have humanity take care of herself and overcome injustice, which is the root of all Evil...

No Lion No Problem!;)

Blood and Belonging: Journeys into the New Nationalism > Customer Review #2:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A revealing and relevant work!

First published in 1993, Michael Ignatieffs work focuses on nationalism in the post-Cold War world and identifies a crucial trend that is still encompassing every continent: where new nation-states are being forged and born, nationalism is the driving force, the backbone of this trend. It is far from being outdated or irrelevant in any way, and although nationalism brings identity and belonging, Ignatieff argues, it also is a harbinger of bloodshed. To demonstrate, he has taken a personal journey throughout the world and homed in on six separate nations in which nationalism is an issue, perhaps a rampant one. Each of these six case studies is a detailed chapter, a portrait of nationalism in practice. To use Ignatieffs own definition: "As a political doctrine, nationalism is the belief that the worlds peoples are divided into nations, and that each of these nations has the right of self-determination, either as self-governing units within existing nation states or as nation states of their own" (p. 3). Culturally, nationalism provides men and women "with their primary form of belonging" (Ibid.). Morally, it can serve to be an "ethic of heroic sacrifice, justifying the use of violence in the defense of ones nation against enemies, internal or external" (Ibid.).
In his Introduction, Ignatieff identifies two types of nationalism: (1) Civic nationalism, in which the predominant belief is that all those within a nation who subscribe to the nations political creed should be its citizens; and (2) Ethnic nationalism, in contrast, holds to the idea that belonging and attachment to a nation is inherited, not chosen; "It is the national community which defines the individual, not the individuals who define the national community" (p. 5).

As the book is from Ignatieffs personal perspective, it becomes all the more interesting; part-memoir, part-journalism. His journey in examining and chronicling instances of nationalism in practice begins in the former Yugoslavia, where Croat and Serb nationalism is the backbone behind the creation of two new Balkan states, and a host of highly-destructive and de-stabilizing warfare, committed in the name of preservation and righteousness of Serbia and Croatia. From there he moves on to a newly-reunified Germany, and shows the reactions of a reunified East and West, two peoples that share a common blood and identity, yet were separated for nearly fifty years as two separate countries. In that time, separate growth of identity, outlook (and nationalism) entrenched itself on both sides...so what is the reaction of the two, who overnight, are back together again, after fifty dark years? Germany is confronted with either turning toward a civic nationalist future, or returning to its ethnic nationalist past while trying to contain a virulent nationalism known to many as Neo-Nazism. A similar scenario can be found in the Ukraine, Ignatieffs third destination, where for the majority of the 20th Century, its people lived under Soviet rule. What happens when autonomy comes, and there remain traces of the old order (ethnic Russian citizens) and the new nation (ethnic Ukrainians)?

In the fourth case study, Ignatieff leaves Europe and comes to Canada, where he examines the ongoing issue of separatism in the predominantly French province of Quebec. This example is more outstanding and noteworthy because it is different: Quebec is already part of a vast, highly industrialized nation and practices a great deal of autonomy within the Canadian framework. Why do the Quebecois, obsessed with cultural and linguistic self-determination and distinction, still press for outright autonomy from Canada, even though they face grave prospects, not to mention an existing Aboriginal national voice from within? For the reviewer, a Canadian, this case is all the more relevant because it is close to home.

Ignatieff turns to Kurdistan, an illegitimate nation-state where its ethnic group, the Kurds, fight constantly with neighbors and even themselves to create their own nation; what do they want, and what kind of nationalism is driving this desire? Ending off in Northern Ireland, a land infamous among newsgroups for pipe bombs and terrorists and constantly-rivaling nationalism (Republican and Loyalist), Ignatieff looks at these long-standing and fighting nationalists, Protestant Loyalists who want to remain British versus the Irish Republican Army (IRA), the most violent terrorist group in Western Europe today.

Ignatieff ends off with these words: "Whats wrong with the world is not nationalism itself...Whats wrong is the kind of a nation, the kind of home that nationalists want to create and the means they use to seek their ends" (p. 189). A revealing and rewarding book for everyone, it remains as relevant in this global village as it was almost ten years ago when first written. Once again, Michael Ignatieff has hit gold, and has created a masterpiece in the process.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blood and Belonging: Journeys into the New Nationalism > Customer Review #3:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A redefinition of nationalism?

Ignatieff makes a clear difference between the ethnic and civic nationalisms. While praising the latter, the author explains the roots and the consequences of the politics of ethnicity and belonging. He rightly points out that ethnic nationalism is based on division, while civic nationalism is based on the union of different peoples (such as the case in the United States). But what Ignatieff fails to realize is that civic nationalism can be as dangerous, cruel and vicious as ethnic nationalism.

source...

http://www.religion1...0374524483.html
  • 0

#1083 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 12 September 2003 - 06:25 PM

//Israel is nationalist- , isn't it?//
<Depends on, if being a Jew is nationality or religion.>

They put their nation first before any other concern. Just ask the Palestinians. Both nationalism and religion must be played down and bring the real human being forth, whether Jew or Arab...

//Nationalism; Provide me a positive working example.//

<Germany, Russia. They are practically single ethnicity countries and doing just fine. Russia has only problem with non Slavic population.>

It doesn't mean they practiced "Nationalism," the way the Finns--much more homogenous--don't practice nationalism.

// And so did Gandhi, which proves nonviolence is the way to go, particularly now that we are threatened by extinction...//

<I don-t understand the sentence, who is threatened by extinction?>

We are threatened by extinction because Nationalism and Religion, plus a dosis of Greed... Very bad combination indeed.

<Gandhi won because Indians were persisted in their passive opposition to an occupation. Gandhi was nonviolent but too many of Indians paid price for the violence of English.. >

The only way of the 'most endangered species' is nonviolence. No 'military victory' can accomplish that in the age of WMD...;)

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
  • 0

#1084 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 12 September 2003 - 06:33 PM

<When West criticizes Russia, Yugoslavia or any Slav country is doing this to make more money in Slavs pocket or rather to grab Slavs land, Slavs bases , Slavs market and resources?>

They don't need to 'take over' once their economy is a mess. Then it becomes useful for the lion to wait for them by the water hole...;)

True independence doesn't come from nationalistic discourses--the way Castro does and then waits for the American $$$--but from developing the water well--the economy. Then you go around nice and quite without bothering the lion too much...;)

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
  • 0

#1085 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 12 September 2003 - 07:01 PM

Thanks but no thanks...:confused:

"Because *nationalism took precedence over universal values*, argues Sternhell, Israel has not evolved a constitution or a Bill of Rights, has not moved to separate state and religion, has failed to develop a liberal concept of citizenship, and, until the Oslo accords of 1993, did not recognize the rights of the Palestinians to independence."

full text...

http://pup.princeton...itles/6183.html
  • 0

#1086 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 12 September 2003 - 07:10 PM

//the way Castro does and then waits for the American $$$--//

<Castro is considered a living miracle because he survived so many US attempts on his life. Anyway Cuba is saved under China umbrella of Renminbi. (China $$$)>

//but where is your benevolent authoritarian regime? Just give me such an example... //

<SYRIA >

Authoritarian regimes are very much threatened by the Big Lion--Syria is the best example of it and it even gives a good excuse for it--just remove the Little Lion and the little animals will run to embrace the new lion.

It would be another story though if the Little Animals were themselves part of the defense game and were rejecting *all* kinds of lions, eg. Switzerland...;)

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
  • 0

#1087 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 12 September 2003 - 08:19 PM

> > They didn't eat white bread (or anything made from white flour), soft
> > drinks and mayonnaise as well as so much sugar. This has all been
> > introduced in the last 100 years and the results are very obvious.
>
> Hasn't white bread been around since the Roman times?

I think their "bread and circus" policy was much better than the "junk
food and talk shows" policy practiced today. At least, their bread and
gladiators were real.

Oh the good ol' times! ;)
  • 0

#1088 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 13 September 2003 - 10:44 AM

Are all isms bad, I don't accept the assumption that it is inherently
bad, but like alcohol which is not bad in itself can be made a
bad influence by misuse.
The thesis on nationalism could have just as easily be written on politics or say the motorised vehicle.
I have taken a contrary stand to you DonQ, besides someone may be pleased to see we aren't always in agreeance. wink wink.

Who (which nation) is playing up nationalism and religion?

If people can't say God bless America or Viva La France then we might as well finish it off by banning flags, national anthems,
national defences forces and replace all languages with a mongrel tongue and make national pride xenophobic and politically incorrect. (sounds like the UN, just around the corner)

Name one country that places the concerns and needs of the world before its own interests.

What has nationalism (as is commonly found around the world) to do with inhumanity and injustice? In the case of Israel in regards the Palestinians, the zionist nationalism
if it is not different from everyone elses nationalism would mean most other countries would be the same. Not so. Either its nationalism is extreme or the culture (Talmud teaching that non-jews are cattle) is the root of this or both.

How do you separate nationalism from independancism (new word?) eg Gandhi's India or then again Switzerland.

Sternhell and Israel:
makes the same assumption that nationalism is only bad when he says it was the cause of Israel not having a constitution etc
down to how it treats the Palestinians. This merely expresses
prejudice it would seem.
If a people don't want politics and religion totally seperated that is their business. My understanding is that the State in Israel funds political parties, their religion and business enterprise,
one of the few socialist states left today.
It's also my understanding (meaning I could be wrong) that the majority of Jews are athiest, and the minority of religious ones
that only accept the Torah ( Old Testament) are second class citizens in Israel (all the more interesting given that the Old Testament is supposedly the basis of their claim to displacing
another people by force).

I think there is an ideological principle here. Nationalism is a natural defence against the internationalists desire for global authority and a major hinderance to them. Which is why it became a dirty word after the last world war simultaneously with the advent of the U.N. and needless to say largely because of the
endless profile of the Third Reich and Hitler who is probably the
most publically profilled person in the history of the world in
spite of the fact that a contemporary regime and leaders were responsible for far greater tyrany and mass murder of unwanted
civilians.
(the li is a vital part of the li-on)
  • 0

#1089 MarquisDeSade

MarquisDeSade

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 59 posts

Posted 13 September 2003 - 05:40 PM

i do agree with you on education for this one. have we not have enough ideas? we have lots of them and i think there are just too many. yes, true that a good idea is powerful. when the first step is not make, irregardless of the power of the idea it is redundant.

my actions would be to get into position of power to educate the "small animals" of your motherland. how? all up to your own means. once good people are up in position of power, the "small animals" benefits - as in the case of curitiba. unless, your neighbours and fellow citizens possess the maturity. it shall not be difficult to propose changes.

different areas different systems of current mechanisms. if you want to work for the interest, holistically, for the community. efforts are needed and executed.

discussions and debates are definitely good or even,better still, productive - as most can see in this thread. an architect plans the design and construction of a building. but without the execution, the building is only a drawing. so have you done the first step?
  • 0

#1090 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 13 September 2003 - 08:36 PM

<discussions and debates are definitely good or even,better still, productive - as most can see in this thread. an architect plans the design and construction of a building. but without the execution, the building is only a drawing. so have you done the first step?>

Howdy Marquis
As for the practical steps I've done the following:

-I've put together a few of these writings (the stories and the solution) on leaflets and the little people love it (which is the point of Bader's suggestion of exposing the lie or cover of the lion to disarm him).

-Spread these writings through the Internet.

-Optional: Pray it works...;)

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
  • 0

#1091 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 13 September 2003 - 09:10 PM

Thanks MarqDS, and I agree with what you said and now I understand better where you are coming from. I was thinking since your last post that you were probably not so much opposed to what me and DonQ were on about but frustrated and wanting to see some action for real good (not just talk).

"my actions would be to get into a position of power to educate"

When us rebels are few and far between we can only look at
an informal approach to educating people to take the spin out of history, News, formal education etc and see through the smoke and mirrors.
The most powerful medium is the net and (pat on the back) Donq has alread taken action. I have been considering it but would prefer to work in with another or a few. Then you need to click
so to speak to work smoothly.

We all have different talents as well. Someone might say stop all this gobble-degook DonQ and Bader and give me the basic
principles and what it is supposed to achieve and from that they
design a strategy and another person says about b....... time
now I can get on and do something.

No one or few can do it all, wasn't it Shakespeare who said all the worlds a stage and each must play a part. Some of the worst
records of history are the maniacs who thought they and their
comrades had it all.

Thus the human resourses are the greatest and the greatest problem is how to get the masses with all those talents to play
the their part for humanism not Lionism.

After we agree its a maountain, its still a mountain.
What foothill do you suggest we tackle next? ( I might be useless outside base camp)
  • 0

#1092 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 13 September 2003 - 09:23 PM

<Are all isms bad, I don't accept the assumption that it is inherently
bad, but like alcohol which is not bad in itself can be made a
bad influence by misuse.
The thesis on nationalism could have just as easily be written on politics or say the motorised vehicle.
I have taken a contrary stand to you DonQ, besides someone may be pleased to see we aren't always in agreeance. wink wink.>

Howdy Bader
We already disagreed on 'evolution,' remember?:confused:

Well, as for the 'isms,' cooperativism doesn't sound that bad, *so long as it is not imposed*, right?

Another thing going for cooperativism is that it doesn't have such a strong bonds with the nation--remember, they got their own water well--and consequently the little animals would be freer from the lion, even a tamed one...;)

<Who (which nation) is playing up nationalism and religion?>

Most nations do. That way their lions keep their little animals busy...;)

<If people can't say God bless America or Viva La France then we might as well finish it off by banning flags, national anthems,
national defences forces and replace all languages with a mongrel tongue and make national pride xenophobic and politically incorrect. (sounds like the UN, just around the corner)>

We would be going to the othe extreme...:confused: But isn't the lion the most perfect example of the globalization doctrine? The lion got no flag, except perhaps that of Big Money. How can the little animals defend against him, if they are tied up by flags, anthems and religions? And I don't mean to get rid of symbols but only to play them down (like in a president of a nation not using them to rally support against his enemies--chances are opposed by business interests).

<Name one country that places the concerns and needs of the world before its own interests.>

I don't think many countries care that much about their own people, except when it comes to voting...:confused: But even if I grant you that some may be good indeed for their little people--and I think Israel is far better than America at that--how about the concerns of other little people? How about the Palestinians, immigrants, etc, etc?

<I think there is an ideological principle here. Nationalism is a natural defence against the internationalists desire for global authority and a major hinderance to them. >

Who desires global authoritity, the real internationalists--coops, NGOs--or the Lion--the "Master of the Universe"-- by having the absolute control over the resources?

Source: 'September 11th and Its Aftermath: Where is the World Heading?' by Noam Chomsky

"No sane person is opposed to globalisation. The question is what form it takes."

'Let me finally turn to the last of the questions that I mentioned -- the process that-s called "globalisation." But first let-s be clear about the notion. If we use the term neutrally, globalisation just means international integration, welcome or not depending on the human consequences. In Western doctrinal systems, which prevail everywhere as a result of Western power, the term has a somewhat different and narrower meaning. It refers to a specific form of international integration that has been pursued with particular intensity in the last quarter century. It-s designed primarily in the interest of private concentrations of power, and the interests of everyone else are incidental. With that terminology in place, the great mass of people around the world who object to these programmes can be labelled ``anti-globalisation,-- as they always are. The force of ideology and power is such that they even accept that ridiculous designation. They can then be derided as ``primitivists-- who want to return to the ``Stone Age,-- to harm the poor, and other terms of abuse with which we are familiar.

It-s the way you-d expect a dedicated propaganda system to work, but it-s a little surprising as it-s so powerful that even its victims accept it. They shouldn-t. *No sane person is opposed to globalisation. The question is what form it takes*.

The specific form of international integration that-s being pursued is called ``neo-liberal,-- but that too is highly misleading. The policies are not ``new-- and they are by no means ``liberal.-- That should be particularly obvious here. The history of England and India for two centuries illustrates very graphically how liberalism can be shaped into an instrument of power and destruction. And the current version keeps that tradition, maintains the traditional double-edged doctrine of free trade and liberalism -- fine for you so that I can demolish you, but I-m going to insist on the protection of the powerful Nanny State and other devices to ensure that I-m not subject to market discipline, except when the playing field is what is called ``level,-- that means tilted so sharply in my favour that I-m confident that I can win. That-s a good part of the history of India for a couple of hundred of years.

The fact that the new versions simply adapt the traditional ones to current circumstances shouldn-t actually come as a surprise. It-s exactly what we would expect simply by a look at the designers v the richest and most powerful states, the international financial institutions that follow their directives, and their array of megacorporations tending towards oligopoly in most sectors of the economy and heavily reliant on the state sector to socialise risk and cost and to maintain the dynamism of the economy, often under a military cover.

These power concentrations often modestly call themselves the ``international community-- but perhaps a more appropriate term is one that-s used by the business press. Last January, at the annual Davos Conference, they were described by the London Financial Times as `-The Masters of the Universe.-- [the Lion;)] Since the Masters profess to be admirers of Adam Smith, we might expect them to abide by his description of their behaviour, although be only called them the ``Masters of Mankind.--After all, this was before the Space Age. Smith was referring specifically to what he called "the principal architects of policy" of his day -- the "merchants and manufacturers" of England who made sure that their own interests are "most peculiarly attended to," however "grievous" the impact on others, including the people of England. I-m sure you know he condemned with particular vehemence the crimes of England in India in his day. ``The principal architects,-- he wrote, adopt the "vile maxim of the masters of mankind: All for ourselves, and nothing for anyone else.-- And that persists.' [Adam Smith himself dispised the Lion!]:confused:

most interesting article...

http://www.medialens...ptember_11.html
  • 0

#1093 GIJOE

GIJOE

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 844 posts

Posted 14 September 2003 - 12:54 AM

We who speak with glaring aggressivness, do so from our pain and suffering, for our own beloved men in the field,
And while they are in harms way, no matter what yours or my political belief system is, as Americans we have the obligation and tremendous honor to stand behind them, to the last man.......



G I Joe
  • 0

#1094 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 14 September 2003 - 07:45 AM

I think there is no issue until nationalisn is developed to the extreme and then associated with anti-social behaviour.

The coop is not independant but one of many interdependant
very healthy social structures that people not the state can create. The relationship between the gov (as opposed to the abstract state) and social structures like coops which enable
people to be more self-sufficient don't need to be strong.
Legal entity issues which we haven't discussed are important here- perhaps anothet time.

Little animals are no more kept busy by nationalism and religion than sport or gambling and even tv(media control). And on top of these political parties and economic policy are more usable by the Lion to divide and rule. Increasingly the world bank and imf are dictating to govs re social policy. (If some countries are prepared to pay 50% taxes to maintain their social policy it will be by taxes not borrowing but how long can it last?)

The reason nationalism is a bad word today is so nations will accept global regimes (supranationalism) to discipline them. If that is not the motive, but to reduce the role of gov then the vacuum that might theoretically be caused by retreating gov will be filled by something else and the people will not be able to control that.
This in part has already happened under free-market reforms
which has caused gov to play a lesser role in some respects and allow global factors to affect the lives of peole and their business
prospects ( causing many to fold while creating new opportunities)
Nationalism will be the safest when democracy is strong because
the influence of the public will prevent the likes of Nazi type
nationalism. So if people push for the demise of nationalism
rather than the increase in democracy the alarm bells start ringing for me.
Globalisation and Chompsky:
The word Global has only assumed a new importance since the free-market ideology came on stream through Reagan and Thatcher and started to get a real hold in the West during the eighties. The term was commonly referred to as international
and tended to refer to international relations. Globalisation to me
tends to refer to global regimes and structuring based on it not
the more innocent agreements to faciliate easier trade and
tourism etc. I thought it obvious that the more global structure is
demanded as a licence to trade etc the more nationalism, in
particular sovereignty, would be displaced by regimes the democractic nations will have not control over and the power elites not answerable to the publics of the nations. That is Lion territory pure.

I should imagine that the relationship between say the East India Co ( hardly likely to be just British anymore than the Bank of England was prior to 1946) and the India elites who enjoyed
the business just as within the countries overtaken by free-market reforms certain locals suddenly become rich and powerful
thanks to the reforms that enabled public assets etc to fall into private hands most questionably .
Currently in Russia there are those who are anxious to see Putin doesn't allow any movement towards revisiting certain transaction as just mentioned. we had them in NZ. Eg when the Bank of NZ was privatised and sold the gov bailed the new owners out twice after it was sold - socialising risk- as Chompsky put it.
It was nice to see a ballanced account by Chompsky in mentioning the the British public also suffered instead of the usual
spin that every Indian suffered and every Englishman gained.
The U.S. people are starting to suffer from glabal policy today as well
as other peoples. Thats globalisation, in my view, plundering all nations for fuit of all nations resources. The Patriot movement in the U.S. know they are being sold out but their patriotic
objections to treason are naturally presented as nationalistic
fanaticism just as those in various European countries are.
Please observe that it is the socialists who have been getting out
and attacking the nationalist party campaigners legitimate public
rallies to the point of getting their heads beaten in. And for why
so foreign corps can take jobs away from locals by mass immigration and reducing wages. These policies are corporate/global ones that are largely for reducing the cost of labour the Left traditionally fought.
The only reason the Left could abandon their traditional ground
to assist the global capitalist forces is the common goal of
world gov. It is at world gov level I bleieve that the old left hope to find a new place in the sun because it will incorpoate a lot of communistic bureaucracy. Why have they capitulated to the free-market, because the international bankers own the two contestants on their Hegelian way to global centralised control
which Lenin called international centralised democracy.

The Lion hasn't got it made yet but his goal achievement is getting very close.
  • 0

#1095 Bader

Bader

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1757 posts

Posted 14 September 2003 - 08:18 AM

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"

Here's a story about exposing the Lion, how to negotiate the
system (medis control of information to the public) that normally protects the schemers.

www.copvcia.com

front page is interesting, as a claim to being what the media should be doing, they have list of achievements.
Then enter the main site, click up near the top, to go to
fromthewilderness the sister website and then scroll down the
news articles (there's one on Russian OIL) to 05/16/03 which is about a full page ad of revelation entitled as at the top "pay no
attention...."
You will find much else of interest.
  • 0

#1096 GIJOE

GIJOE

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 844 posts

Posted 14 September 2003 - 04:52 PM

When I hear the name CHOMPSKY I cant help but think of
far left socialist, communisty Lenin, Stalin Beria Trotsky
Castro Mao and the whole stinking warped group, that held the world back for over a half century and kept millions starving and
prisoners


G I Joe
  • 0

#1097 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 14 September 2003 - 06:55 PM

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"

Howdy Bader
Unless you feel threatened by the puppets, in which case you must aim for the puppeteer (the lion), who is hiding behing the curtain. I put it in these words...

"My struggle is not the puppet, but against the puppeteer";)

<Here's a story about exposing the Lion, how to negotiate the
system (medis control of information to the public) that normally protects the schemers.>

www.copvcia.com

Can you please copy the story?
  • 0

#1098 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 14 September 2003 - 07:04 PM

<When I hear the name CHOMPSKY I cant help but think of
far left socialist, communisty Lenin, Stalin Beria Trotsky
Castro Mao and the whole stinking warped group, that held the world back for over a half century and kept millions starving and
prisoners>

Chomsky is like everything else: You must not take anything at face value, for example his take on Cuba is off, not coming down hard enough on Castro (a lion). Another limitation with Chomsky, is that he doesn't seem to have an specific solution...:confused:

But this article--and many others--seems to be right on the money. Do you have any specific problems with it?

By the way, who you think is being critical of the system yet credible? I know though the version of the Lion sounds pretty unbelievable to me. He's a hungry stupid Lion...;)

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
  • 0

#1099 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 14 September 2003 - 07:43 PM

Should the Third World follow globalization--China, Argentina--or something else? Well the answer may depend on whether you are a little animal or a lion and on your idea of the good life...;)

'Demographically, in other words, Kerala mirrors the United States on about one-seventieth the cash. It has problems, of course: There is chronic unemployment, a stagnant economy that may have trouble coping with world markets, and a budget deficit that is often described as out of control. But these are the kinds of problems you find in France. Kerala utterly lacks the squalid drama of the Third World--the beggars reaching through the car window, the children with distended bellies, the baby girls left to die.

(snip)

The combination of a stagnant economy and a strong commitment to providing health and education have left the state with large budget deficits. Development expert Joseph Collins, for all his praise of progress, calls it a "bloated social welfare state without the economy to support it," a place that has developed a "populist welfare culture, where all the parties are into promising more goodies, which means more deficits. The mentality that things don't have to be funded, that's strong in Kerala--in the midst of the fiscal crisis that was going on while I was there, some of the parties were demanding that the agricultural pension be doubled."

But the left seems to be waking up to the problems. Professor Thomas Isaac--described to me as a "24-karat Marxist" and as a wheel in the Communist Party--said, "Our main effort has been to redistribute, not to manage, the economy. But because we on the left have real power, we need to have an active interest in that management--to formulate a new policy toward production." Instead of building huge factories, or lowering wages to grab jobs from elsewhere, or collectivizing farmers, the left has embarked on a series of "new democratic initiatives" that come as close as anything on the planet to actually incarnating "sustainable development," that buzzword beloved of environmentalists. The left has proposed, and on a small scale has begun, the People's Resource Mapping Program, an attempt to move beyond word literacy to "land literacy."

Residents of local villages have begun assembling detailed maps of their area, showing topography, soil type, depth to the water table, and depth to bedrock. Information in hand, local people could sit down and see, for instance, where planting a grove of trees would prevent erosion. And the mapmakers think about local human problems, too. In one village, for instance, residents were spending scarce cash during the dry season to buy vegetables imported from elsewhere in India. Paddy owners were asked to lease their land free of charge between rice crops for market gardens, which were sited by referring to the maps of soil types and the water table. Twenty-five hundred otherwise unemployed youth tended the gardens, and the vegetables were sold at the local market for less than the cost of the imports. This is the direct opposite of a global market. It is exquisitely local--it demands democracy, literacy, participation, cooperation. The new vegetables represent "economic growth" of a sort that does much good and no harm. The number of rupees consumed, and hence the liters of oil spent packaging and shipping and advertising, go down, not up.

With high levels of education and ingrained commitment to fairness, such novel strategies might well solve Kerala's economic woes, especially since a stabilized population means it doesn't need to sprint simply to stay in place. One can imagine, easily, a state that manages to put more of its people to work for livable if low wages. They would manufacture items that they need, grow their own food, and participate in the world economy in a modest way, exporting workers and some high-value foods like spices, and attracting some tourists. "Instead of urbanization, ruralization," says K. Vishwanathan, a longtime Gandhian activist who runs an orphanage and job-training center where I spent several days. At his cooperative, near the silkworm pods used to produce high-quality fabric, women learn to repair small motors and transistor radios--to make things last, to build a small-scale economy of permanence. "We don't need to become commercial agents, to always be buying and selling this and that," says Vishwanathan. He talks on into the evening, spinning a future at once humble and exceedingly pleasant, much like the airy, tree-shaded community he has built on once-abandoned land--a future as close to the one envisioned by E. F. Schumacher or Thomas Jefferson or Gandhi as is currently imaginable."What is the good life?" asks Vishwanathan. "The good life is to be a good neighbor, to consider your neighbor as yourself."'

source...

http://www.ashanet.o...ala.199803.html
  • 0

#1100 donquijote

donquijote

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3919 posts

Posted 14 September 2003 - 09:13 PM

Howdy Bader, Woj
We were talking the othe day about nationalism and it lingered in my mind. What if instead of using something totally abstract for national identity--the flag, the anthem--or something which makes you different in a suspicious way--religion, politics--we used something material that everybody liked? Suppose that symbol of national identity was 'food' and suppose that we spice it up--in its erotic connotation--wouldn't the little people prefer it?

Guess what, people love it! My first writing over 11 years ago was the 'Guarapo Revolution,' and--after its huge success--I modeled the Jalapeno (Mexico), Arepa (Venezuela, Colombia), Banana 'Revolutions'...;)

While most other activists struggle to convince an overwhelmingly skeptical public, I just shout the 'Guarapo Revolution' and most people--at least those who most count: women, young people--stop in their tracks to get it. They get two leaflets: the Guarapo Revolution itself and the little stories with the solution proposed here...

Best of all, they want the Party, the Guarapo Party! All we got to do is *throw the party*.;) That's what the little people want. At least that's my experience in the Latin American realm...

But I would have many more arguments for it:

-The leaflets are passed on, not wasted.

-The names really stick.

-It would secure food (not risk the famines or scarcities some revolutions--USSR, China, Cuba--are known for).

-It would stand up to junk food, a favorite method of globalization.

-It would constitute a 'back to basics' movement.

-It would distance the lion since he only seems to know how to roar.:confused:

-The little people would have something better to think other than the afterlife.

-It would be something really worth living and quite fun, the revolution Emma Goldman would have liked to dance indeed...

The surveys in English don't convey the full power of it, but if you can visualize the Brazilian Carnival, you get the idea...:D

http://webspawner.co...ers/donquijote8 (Spanish)

http://webspawner.co...ers/donquijote9 (English)
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru