What would it take for Russia to be #1?
Posted 03 April 2004 - 01:13 PM
. Who had the biggest interest to proof that is not profitable to follow Al-Quida requests?
Spain Confirms Matchup of Bomb Materials
Posted 03 April 2004 - 06:30 PM
The above is an invention of the author and not not valid. The first half may be true, the second is imagination.
>>> In Russian social system a person applies the society values to him/herself and for this reason the person is more stable", said a Russian sociologist in an RBC interview. He thinks that the main problem is Western model aspirations for absolute domination. "All people subdued by Anglo-Saxons must accept their civilization values and regulations, otherwise these people may be wiped out like 200 million Indians in North America. <<<
I understand this very superficial view from a very superficial science (Sociology)and see how you relate it to your point of view. You are frustrated with interference from western ideology.
Quite frankly, it is in both our interests to allow nations to develop the way they see fit. The US uses freedom and compassion as tools to interfere in the affairs of other nations. They are simply tools to gain access.
Americans, however, no longer have any control over their government and it is the international corporate bankers that pull the strings. So generalizing about the individuals who create societies are the maunderings of a quasi-science (Sociology).
The American ideal of isolationism was thought to be cold and uncompassionate by those who feel government should be philanthropic, basically the interfering do-gooder and socialist democrat, but was unfortunately abandoned - to save freedom and democracy of course.
I am with you in saying America should stop it's interference in the affairs of other nations. It's success in becoming the greatest nation has been it's more powerful weapon. Force has never created an enduring effect.
"North Atlantic Terrorist Organization" Perhaps!
I recently read Claude Frederic Bastiat's treatise on "The Law".
An excellent essay in my estimation. I can post the URL for it if you like?
It is amazing to read it and discover the same ideological battle was being fought when it was written in 1850 as today.
Unfortunately now that the capitalist corporate international bankers have seized the wealth of the planet and are underhandedly imposing socialism on us all it is a losing battle unless people awake from their consumerist stupor.
Posted 03 April 2004 - 11:22 PM
I would you recommend to watch TV Polonia on Globcast satellite. It is French satellite with many countries but unfortunately it is necessary to pay subscription ; for Poland $22 per month. Many serials and movies are going with English dubbing. I haven
Posted 04 April 2004 - 10:26 AM
Will get back to you Woj and Pliny.
re the Polish Economic Forum: these can be held where there is little on no interference in public/private life. It is good condition-
ing/training of the public to not do so. The publicity of this and what people have to put up with for "security" and "peace"
is part of re-education to appreciate the loss of freedom for these.
After all the more freedom we are prepared to forego the freer we become!
Anyone want that for a signature?
Posted 04 April 2004 - 04:48 PM
The movie 'Saving Grace' presents a Pope (the lion, but a good one) that decides to leave his position of power (in which he was a puppet of the Foxes and other predators) and live among the little people. The little people meanwhile are faking an epidemy in order to get hand outs (socialism) while others search a landfill (the jungle) for food. Well, the Pope--presenting himself as a foreigner--decides to create and direct this helpless people to build an aqueduct--the water well that will bring happiness to the town. While in touch with the Vatican, the Foxes offer everything to help build it, but he refuses because it was important that the people themselves recovered their sense of pride.
They find a lot of resistance and sabotage but at one point he does use force punching the bad guy (the hyena) in the face and the little people come to support him in the face of physical threat (in other words, the little people abandon their indifference). One of them is killed, but everybody decides to go ahead with the aqueduct and it gets done. The hand outs and the search for garbage stop and everybody enjoys the fruit of their effort.
Like I say, the Water Well needs to be constructed by the little people themselves, particularly when the lions in the real world are mostly bad...
THE SCREEN: TOM CONTI STARS IN 'SAVING GRACE'
By WALTER GOODMAN
THERE'S no more engaging actor around than Tom Conti, but not even he, with the assistance of such notables of international moviedom as Giancarlo Giannini, Erland Josephson and Fernando Rey, can lift ''Saving Grace'' out of its slough of sentiment.
The movie, which opens today at the Coronet, is based on a novel by Celia Gittelson about an imaginary pope, Leo XIV, a man-of-the-people sort of pontiff who wanders away from the Vatican one day and ends up in a picturesquely poor southern Italian hill town, where the main occupation is pretending to be afflicted by an epidemic so relief agencies will send in food. What the town needs is an aqueduct and community spirit, and Leo overcomes much resistance to build both. I have not read the novel, but I assume it was for young readers.
Mr. Josephson and Mr. Rey play a couple of Vatican officials who keep the secret of the Pope's absence from the world. Mr. Giannini plays a goatherd who is redeemed, along with everybody else, by Leo. All are wasted. There is also a deaf girl and a bad boy who is good deep down and townsfolk, who look just the way townsfolk from the south of Italy are supposed to look.
The early scenes in Rome arouse hopes of an unconventional spoof: an official of the Vatican Bank suggests to the Pope that big depositors be given a lock of his hair. But once Leo escapes and begins his good works, everything goes slack. The predictable proceedings, languidly directed by Robert M. Young, are too much for Mr. Conti. The humorous squint, the slightly cracked delivery, the quizzical expression that have served him so well in other roles come to seem affectations as he struggles to squeeze something more than obvious charm out of being a saint in a children's fable.
Posted 04 April 2004 - 04:56 PM
The law in this instance has become the philanthropist and is no longer just.
It is evident Anatol France expected more from the law than justice. The quote is not valid because it violates the definition of law per Bastiat. When the law becomes the philanthropist it is already plundering it's people and doing it's part to create men that sleep under bridges, beg in the street and steal bread, for it is no longer concerned with justice.
>>>In socialism, didn-t exist the political role of bank. Bank was part of the state.<<<
The international banker created and ran the USSR and was nothing more than a grand social experiment.
Posted 04 April 2004 - 05:09 PM
It means that Swiss are not involved in any work in own country.
Swiss invest their high standing franc (with full service of foreign domestics who manicure their grass around residences) in places with the best returning. This returning Swiss invest in another laundry operation.
If money laundry operations is called democracy I congratulate democracy.
Swiss CANTONAL SYSTEM Goal is only to maintain Status Quo>
Just imagine if America was like Switzerland:
-Policy of neutrality (no Iraq)
-A rifle per household (but nobody gets killed)
-A policy of "vote with you feet." In other words, you wouldn't have ONE CHOICE like in America.
Sure it can be improved, but HOW?
This is what I would do: some cantons would stay capitalist (perhaps in the real sense of the word like libertarians), while others go into coops. In other words, YOU VOTE WITH YOUR FEET BETWEEN POLITICAL AND ECONOMICAL CANTONS.
As for their banking polices, it would be totally irrelevant because the money wouldn't be leaving the poor countries that would be leading the change/revolution, and if it does we can cooperate to create wealth with or withour money...
Posted 04 April 2004 - 06:48 PM
True. In Marxism you got one choice, but how different is it in Capitalism? In the former you obey the commands of a party bureaucrat, in the latter you obey the command of your boss. Where's the diff?
In Capitalism, man is the lion of man; in Communism, is the other way around...
The only real freedom is to have OPTIONS--and then leave and join freely between options.
Posted 04 April 2004 - 11:32 PM
No, still it is. Hamburger costs in MacDonald the same price for Rich and Poor. Rich can invest his money and from this passive income can buy his hamburger without touching any work. For the rich and poor, speed ticket costs the same. The payment for hearing in court is identical in case of Rich and Poor but it doesn
Posted 05 April 2004 - 12:13 AM
An excellent essay in my estimation. *******
I think that Claude Frederic Bastiat is correct , when in 1850 says;
***Since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty or property of another individual then for the same reason cannot lawfully to used to destroy the person, liberty or property of individuals or groups. ****
On this only approximation of law, we can condemn war on Iraq.
Can we also not to notice the rightness in another statement? *******
Posted 05 April 2004 - 10:36 AM
which is how Switzerland can be improved?
Financial freedom will ensure plenty of options. Lion likes one water-well and few options. Under socialism, the state
determines the few options, in capitalism the money system
limits the options. Because the state doesnt tell the people what they cannot do they think they are free although they cant afford to do what they would realy like to. Not exactly and absolutely true but also not untrue for far too many.
Woj: boring stability of the socialist society is probably missed by those who do because of its predictability and being the devil-you-know. I am satisfied from what I see that the socialist Left
have submitted to free market/corporate policy which includes the rape and plunder which the IMF uses to conform economies to the "functioning core". Generally speaking the Leftwing parties only represent more social policy compared to rightwing parties along with the free market-globalist policy (capitalism).
The other diference between them (tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee) is that the Left will be directly moving towards a UN world govt.
You mentioned the NZ Labour (left) govt will withdraw troops later from Iraq and Aussie Labour will do the same if they become the Govt. Like Spainish Left will remain to support UN greater role, or return if they (UN) take over.
When NZ Labour became govt they scraped our Skyhawks and turned down a good offer for F16s. Clearly our Army is only equiped to do UN peace keeping duty. We bought Canadian armoured troop carriers which are not very mobile off road!
apart from being expensive. Trudeau whom Pliny mentioned will be a globalist of the Left and centralizing things means
authoritarianism, as the Lion single waterhole represents. This is why Lenin dreamed of global centralized "'democracy"= international socialism. The closest they will get is demon-crazy.
I would like to know just how the Soviet banking system worked and how they came to borrow from the west.
I havent done much reading on history but I got the impression Molotov went cap in hand to the US (the manufacturer of the
Bolshivist Govt system) because it had failed. This was about 1930. Being largely a rural based country rather than a heavily industrialized nation like Britain, it has always amused many why Russian was chosen and the grotesque way they went about agricultural reforms which palled the Third Reich into a sideshow
little wonder the experiment failed. I expect the war did wonders from them in regards giving it an opportunity to be regenerated and huge inflow of resourses free from the so called capitalist giant the US- supposedly mortal enemies.
Perhaps it is true that without Hitler being thrust into power by the Vatican and the Zionists there would have been no Soviet Union, UN or Israel in 1950- extend this to Cold War, Communist China, Korean War, Viet Nam war- on the way to trillions in debt.
Perhaps the five year plans were copies of the Marshall Plan, in which Wallstreet paid (lent) for the involvment of US corporations in the USSR development which perhaps began the foreign investment. Eventually further rewarded in the asset stripping
in the early nineties.
International Harvester was one of them, noticed recently they have the contact to build new armoured vehicles for the Patriot Act war on the US citizens.
So what grand magic will the Serb-Iraqi holocausts create?
But the Russians must know (recognize) the US near future.
Here's an interesting question- given the Marshall Plan for Europe
and supposedly the debt they would have had to the US and that
a couple of decades later US investment was held to be the biggest "economy" in the world outside the US, how come UE is
portrayed as a likely superceder of the US as the top world power, if the US dollar doesnt recover?
Perhaps it true the Fed is majority European in origin.
So here is another question: how much of the trillions of debt the US citizens carry is theirs and how much of it is the Soviet Unions, Europe and Israel. The stripping of Russian assets didnt relieve the US tax payer.
Posted 05 April 2004 - 10:54 AM
I was so surprised after how you argued that you then say we
were agreed that wealth was the goods and services not the money.
Fiat money is only notes and coins which has no debt, not bank credit (loans) which are debt. If 97% of the money supply was debt free notes and coins and 3% debt bank loans the nations would be a lot healthier.
If you agree with me who's credit is being monetarised by the banks and that real wealth is goods and services why then is there any need for gold to interfer? (adding an arbitary cost)
Unless you want the banks to continue to operate their charters-
authorizing power to create money at the tap of a computer key.
When credit is monetarized, the basis of the credit is the
security. If money is based on gold and not the nations/peoples
credit, then who ever controls that gold and money creation controls soceity, thus denying the people the ability to monetarize their own credit is to deny them their sovereignty-freedom, setting up an invisible govt over their political govt which is what the bankers have at present.
This is where we part ways.
Posted 05 April 2004 - 10:58 AM
Sumer was a collection of city states around the Lower Tigris and Euphrates rivers in what is now southern Iraq. Each of these cities had individual rulers, although as early as the mid-fourth millennium BCE the leader of the dominant city could have been considered the king of the region. The history of Sumer tends to be divided into five periods. They are the Uruk period, which saw the dominance of the city of that same name, the Jemdat Nasr period, the Early Dynastic periods, the Agade period, and the Ur III period - the entire span lasting from 3800 BCE to around 2000 BCE. In addition, there is evidence of the Sumerians in the area both prior to the Uruk period and after the Ur III Dynastic period, but relatively little is known about the former age and the latter time period is most heavily dominated by the Babylonians.
The Jemdat Nasr period lasted from 3200 BCE to 2900 BCE. It was not particularly remarkable and most adequately described as an extension and slowing down of the Uruk period. This is the period during which the great flood is supposed to have taken place. The Sumerians' account of the flood may have been based on a flooding of the Tigris, Euphrates, or both rivers onto their already marshy country.
Meanwhile, in the south, the Dynasty of Erech was founded by Meskiaggasher, who, along with his successors, was termed the "son of Utu", the sun-god. Following three other kings, including another Dumuzi, the famous Gilgamesh took the throne of Erech around 2600 BCE and became in volved in a power struggle for the region with the Kish Dynasts and with Mesannepadda, the founder of the Dynasty of Ur. While Gilgamesh became a demi-god, remembered in epic tales.
Sargon united both Sumer - from which Babylon would arise about four hundred years later may have extended his realm from the Medeterranian Sea to the Indus River. Trade from across his new empire and beyond swelled the city, making it the center of world culture for a brief time.
. His divine powers must have failed him as the Guti, a mountain people, ending that dynasty.
After a few decades, the Guti presence became intolerable for the Sumerian leaders. Utuhegal of Uruk/Erech rallied a coalition army and ousted them. One of his lieutenants, Ur-Nammu, usurped his rule and established the third Ur dynasty around 2112 BCE. He consolidated his control of all of the Sumerian city-states. He established the earliest known recorded law-codes and had constructed the great ziggurat of Ur, a kind of step-pyramid which stood over 60' tall and more than 200' wide. For the next century the Sumerians were extremely prosperous, but their society collapsed around 2000 BCE under the invading Amorites. A couple of city-states maintained their independence for a short while, but soon they and the rest of the Sumerians were absorbed into the rising empire of the Babylonians. (Crawford pp. 1-28; Kramer 1963 pp. 40-72)
Posted 05 April 2004 - 11:04 AM
Seated along the Euphrates River, Sumer had a thriving agriculture and trade industry. Herds of sheep and goats and farms of grains and vegetables were held both by the temples and private citizens. Ships plied up and down the river and throughout the Persian gulf, carrying pottery and various processed goods and bringing back fruits and various raw materials from across the region, including cedars from the Levant.
Sumer was one of the first literate civilizations leaving many records of business transactions, and lessons from schools.
They had strong armies, which with their chariots and phalanxes held sway over their less civilized neighbors (Kramer 1963, p. 74). Perhaps the most lasting cultural remnants of the Sumerians though, can be found in their religion.
Posted 05 April 2004 - 11:10 AM
The religion of the ancient Sumerians has left its mark on the entire middle east. Not only are its temples and ziggurats scattered about the region, but the literature, cosmogony and rituals influenced their neighbors to such an extent that we can see echoes of Sumer in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition today. From these ancient temples, and to a greater extent, through cuneiform writings of hymns, myths, lamentations, and incantations, archaeologists and mythographers afford the modern reader a glimpse into the religious world of the Sumerians.
Each city housed a temple that was the seat of a major god in the Sumerian pantheon, as the gods controlled the powerful forces which often dictated a human's fate. The city leaders had a duty to please the town's patron deity, not only for the good will of that god or goddess, but also for the good will of the other deities in the council of gods. The priesthood initially held this role, and even after secular kings ascended to power, the clergy still held great authority through the interpretation of omens and dreams. Many of the secular kings claimed divine right; Sargon of Agade, for example claimed to have been chosen by Ishtar/Inanna. (Crawford 1991: 21-24)
The rectangular central shrine of the temple, known as a 'cella,' had a brick altar or offering table in front of a statue of the temple's deity. The cella was lined on its long ends by many rooms for priests and priestesses. These mud-brick buildings were decorated with cone geometrical mosaics, and the occasional fresco with human and animal figures. These temple complexes eventually evolved into towering ziggurats. (Wolkstein & Kramer 1983: 119)
The temple was staffed by priests, priestesses, musicians, singers, castrates and hierodules. Various public rituals, food sacrifices, and libations took place there on a daily basis. There were monthly feasts and annual, New Year celebrations. During the later, the king would be married to Inanna as the resurrected fertility god Dumuzi, whose exploits are dealt with below.
When it came to more private matters, a Sumerian remained devout. Although the gods preferred justice and mercy, they had also created evil and misfortune. A Sumerian had little that he could do about it. Judging from Lamentation records, the best one could do in times of duress would be to "plead, lament and wail, tearfully confessing his sins and failings." Their family god or city god might intervene on their behalf, but that would not necessarily happen. After all, man was created as a broken, labor saving, tool for the use of the gods and at the end of everyone's life, lay the underworld, a generally dreary place. (Wolkstein & Kramer 1983: pp.123-124)
Posted 05 April 2004 - 12:11 PM
<No, still it is. Hamburger costs in MacDonald the same price for Rich and Poor. Rich can invest his money and from this passive income can buy his hamburger without touching any work. For the rich and poor, speed ticket costs the same. The payment for hearing in court is identical in case of Rich and Poor but it doesn-t mean that justice is identical in both cases. Because Rich can effort it, when Poor may not . >
People sleeping under bridge is offense to themselves and to society at large. Society must bring them the *opportunity* to work; they must in exchange lift themselves up. What we got now is intolerable though: the homeless occupy our better parks, most of them fed by charitable organizations or welfare, and in the process feeding the problem, giving them the fish indeed. The average family in the meantime is afraid to come out. They face a jungle out there..:confused:
It's not very different from the pigeons being fed at Trafalgar Square...
By the way, would you feed the pigeons?
Posted 05 April 2004 - 05:04 PM
Well, like I said before, if you are the feeling type you are going to cry, but if you are the thinking type chances are you are going to laugh...
HOMELESS SELF-SUFFICIENCY PROGRAM FAILS
NEW YORK: An experiment to make New York City's homeless people self-sufficient has failed, according to sources at City Hall.
Mayor Rudy Giuliani, in an attempt to remove homeless people from welfare roles, issued a dozen bb guns to a select group of the homeless, and told then to hunt pigeons.
"I thought it would help the homeless survive, and reduce the city's pigeon population," Giuliani said.
Initially, the homeless did shoot a few pigeons, and cook them. However, they quickly tired of having to try and shoot the pigeons from building ledges, and shifted to threatening to shoot people's pets as they were walking them in Central Park. In exchange for not shooting the pets, the homeless received money.
The idea caught on quickly, and homeless people starting buying their own bb guns, to participate in the pet hostage-taking.
"Now we have to disarm the homeless," Giuliani said.
Hillary Clinton, who is running against Giuliani for the New York Senate seat, pointed out that Giuliani's continued harassment of the homeless was an example of his cruel attitude towards the less fortunate.:confused: "Whatever happened to the idea of giving homeless people public jobs?" she asked. [The fox says the lion is not humane, but her husband never seemed to do much about the homeless--or the jungle for that matter--when he was in charge. Could it just be another case of fox-lion symbiotic* relationship?]
"They don't vote," was Giuliani's response.
*symbiosis: NOUN: 1. Biology A close, prolonged association between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users