What would it take for Russia to be #1?
Posted 23 April 2004 - 02:57 PM
Haven't had much time of late to read and post. Just wanted to mention an item of note. I think it has some import but can't guess what's really up.
The Rothschilds have announced they are getting out of gold and oil and sticking with financial management.
There are a couple of headlines at Rense.com and am curious to see what others have to say regarding the significance of this.
>>> Human rights organizations and foundation main purpose is to override democratic legislation of the countries by special interest groups. <<<
Good one, Woj!
Looks like some interesting reading here. Will maybe have some time later today to do some catch up!
Posted 23 April 2004 - 03:03 PM
The Great Pyramid of Giza
Man fears Time, yet Time fears the Pyramids Arab proverb
The monument was built by the Egyptian pharaoh Khufu of the Fourth Dynasty around the year 2560 BC to serve as a tomb when he dies. the area is the museum housing the mysterious Sun Boat, only discovered in 1954 near the south side of the pyramid. The boat is believed to have been used to carry the body of Khufu in his last journey on earth before being buried inside the pyramid. The area covered by the Great pyramid can accommodate St Peter's in Rome, the cathedrals of Florence and Milan, and Westminster and St Paul's in London combined.
The Great Pyramids were built by the great Ancient Egyptian civilization off the West bank of the Nile as tombs for their magnificent Kings... Tombs where Khufu, Khefre, and Menkaure could start their mystic journey to the afterlife. http://www.britannic...hal&ct=&fuzzy=N
Posted 23 April 2004 - 10:31 PM
You said this:
"No one would need live in a park or at the rubbish dumps."
I would say no one needs to now. They just prefer it to state welfare or some other form of charity that may lead to some kind of "responsibility." Some truly have needs but they do not for long live on the streets or the dumps if they do not want to.
I do not say that there are people who want to live in parks and dumps, they will all say they don't want to, but where else can one have absolutely no responsibilities and complete freedom.
I have been pondering over your economic theory and wonder if it can be encapsulated as purely a collectivist plan? A sharing of the wealth, as it were. There has to be a body to administer this plan and that would be government.
A question I would ask is how would people maintain control over the wealth when a huge body must administer the system? It is not much of a stretch for the "Administration" to make choices overriding an individual or group who may be ill-informed regarding economics. Thus control is no longer in the hands of the people.
>>>Spontaneous order needs govt to effect the "order" which is one of the major reasons for govt to exists.<<<
Anarchism is an interesting subject. My original concept of it is as Chomsky stated - chaos, bombs, etc.
I have since come to think of it as the ideal if mankind were entirely rational and responsible, not only responsible to himself but for others and his environ.
Mankind, not having attained a high level of responsibility or rationality indicates some government is necessary. Government is not necessary to effect order.
I take a more libertarian stance on government as to it's mandate. It is the collective will to protect the safety and security of person and property. In other words the force that eliminates force.
The problem then is how does the populace control this force?
It eventually will be the only force left and so a tyrant.
Democracy has not been able to tame this beast and I believe it was because of economic and financial criminality.
Bye for now!
Posted 23 April 2004 - 11:00 PM
We are talking about changing the world for the better. Russia, USA, whatever. For the record, I've never seen any stats where USA is #1 other than military power.
What other kind of power is there? Never has great changes occured in this world where there wasn't a military force involved in some way. Either directly or indirectly. Social change happens over time, force changes things almost emediate compared to that.
Posted 24 April 2004 - 01:10 AM
I hope you don't mind my interjection.
Economic power is the only kind of power. Military power is non-existent without economic power to support it. The only reason The US is militarily superior to anyone is that it is economically superior.
I should state that in the past tense as it is growing quickly into an intolerable debt.
I also noticed your post on another thread regarding half the story. Do you have the other half or are you just implying there must be another half?
Posted 24 April 2004 - 01:18 AM
Good reply, thank you.
Posted 24 April 2004 - 01:30 AM
I didn't imply there was, only stating what seemed to be a known idea. Power wins.
In our case, economics plays a large role, but the bottom line is the front line. The hardest force writes the rules.....
The fighters on both sides do not fight and chance death for a paycheck, basic economics. They fight for their ideals. The stronger always win. The better equipt army doesn't always prevail. History.....
Well, it's late for me, a glass of wine and a book awaits....
Good night all.
Posted 24 April 2004 - 01:43 AM
We'll have to disagree on that conclusion. How could "insurgents"
be as well armed as American troops? I believe an economic base is necessary for any military action. Support is shown in financial terms. What effect one can have with a small financial base is called strategy.
It was learned a long time ago by the Rothschilds that having control of the money supply led to control of the country. Monarchs and despots looked to the bankers to finance their imperialistic interests. Mercenary armies fought, or at least augmented, most of the earlier wars.
Posted 24 April 2004 - 02:11 AM
A palace with legendary gardens built on the banks of the Euphrates river by King Nebuchadnezzar II
The Hanging Gardens of Babylon
The approach to the Garden sloped like a hillside and the several parts of the structure rose from one another tier on tier... On all this, the earth had been piled... and was thickly planted with trees of every kind that, by their great size and other charm, gave pleasure to the beholder... The water machines [raised] the water in great abundance from the river, although no one outside could see it. (Diodorus Siculus )
Fruits and flowers... Waterfalls... Gardens hanging from the palace terraces... Exotic animals...!
On the east bank of the River Euphrates, about 50 km south of Baghdad, Iraq. The Babylonian kingdom flourished under the rule of the famous King, Hammurabi (1792-1750 BC). It was not until the reign of Naboplashar (625-605 BC) of the Neo-Babylonian dynasty that the Mesopotamian civilization reached its ultimate glory. His son, Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562 BC) is credited for building the legendary Hanging Gardens. It is said that the Gardens were built by Nebuchadnezzar to please his wife.".
When Alexander's soldiers reached the fertile land of Mesopotamia and saw Babylon, they were impressed. When they later returned to their rugged homeland, they had stories to tell about the amazing gardens and palm trees at Mesopotamia.. About the palace of Nebuchadnezzar.. About the Tower of Babel and the ziggurats. It wasn't until the twentieth century that some of the mysteries surrounding the Hanging Gardens were revealed.
More recent archaeological excavations at the ancient city of Babylon in Iraq uncovered the foundation of the palace. Other findings include the Vaulted Building with thick walls and an irrigation well near the southern palace. A group of archaeologists surveyed the area of the southern palace and reconstructed the Vaulted Building as the Hanging Gardens
Nations which were meaningful in the past will be significant in the future, nomads will be nomads, countries with no past will have no future.
Posted 24 April 2004 - 02:21 AM
In our case, economics plays a large role, but the bottom line is the front line. The hardest force writes the rules.....>
But that observation amounts to the Law of the Jungle, something totally unsustainable in light of WMD being in the hands of a few determined and anonymous "wildcats"...
But there's an even greater challenge--and which I hope it the one that prevails: MORAL POWER.
<<<The Superiority of Moral over Political Power
What is moral power? The power which operates on the affections, passions, reason, and moral sentiment of mankind, and thereby controls them without physical force. It comprehends every description of influence, which, without applying or threatening to apply physical coercion, tends to determine the will, conduct, and character of human beings.
What is political power? The power of the State, body politic, or civil government, operating under the forms of law, and compelling, or threatening to compel subjection to its requirements by physical force. It comprehends every description of influence founded on the authority of the State, which either applies or threatens to apply physical coercion.
Taking these two powers, as they exist in this country, and as they are available to philanthropists and moral reformers, let us contrast them. We affirm that moral power is superior.>>>
<The fighters on both sides do not fight and chance death for a paycheck, basic economics. They fight for their ideals. The stronger always win. The better equipt army doesn't always prevail. History.....>
Some do fight for ideals and some for money (or opportunities), but I'd say most fight because of COERCION. Yeap, good old fashion coercion. The Romans used "decimation" (the killing of every tenth soldier) but it assumes many forms, from jail to a bullet in the back. The draft would only aggravate this practice over our young. The lion needs of coercion for unpopular wars.
<Well, it's late for me, a glass of wine and a book awaits....>
Posted 24 April 2004 - 02:27 AM
I got an even better idea: Conscript the sons of SUV owners. It'll be a lot more fair...
Hagel Seeking Broad Debate on Draft Issue
By Helen Dewar
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 22, 2004; Page A25
Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), a Vietnam War veteran and an influential member of the Foreign Relations Committee, wants the United States to consider reviving the draft as part of a broader effort to ensure that all Americans "bear some responsibility" and "pay some price" in defending the nation's interests.
At a committee hearing Tuesday and in subsequent interviews, Hagel said he is not advocating reinstatement of the draft, although he added that he is "not so sure that isn't a bad idea."
His main interest, he said, is to make sure that some kind of mandatory national service is considered so "the privileged, the rich" as well as the less affluent bear the burden of fighting wars of the future.
Hagel said he does not expect to see action on such a bill this year but wanted to spark debate that will "bring some reality to our policy-making" about future military needs. With American forces stretched thinner than they have been at any time since Vietnam and with wartime needs likely to continue indefinitely, "this is a steam engine coming right down the track at us," he said.
Appearing with Hagel on NBC's "Today" show, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.), ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, agreed with Hagel's goal of shared sacrifice and did not rule out a draft. But "I don't think it's necessary now," Biden said. The "whole notion of a shared burden is something we should be talking about well beyond the issue of just the draft," he said.
Legislation has been introduced in both chambers to revive the draft, which was ended in 1973 as the Vietnam War wound down and subsequently was replaced by an all-volunteer army. The bills are sponsored by Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D-S.C.) and Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.). No action has been scheduled on either measure.
Hagel, an independent-minded conservative with a penchant for provocative comments, supported the war in Iraq but has criticized many aspects of the administration's postwar operations. Rarely, however, has he taken on a more controversial subject than the draft.
"My colleagues are running away from this as fast as they can," he said. But "there isn't a one of them who doesn't understand what I'm doing," he added.
President Bush is right that the country is engaged in a long-term war, Hagel said, and the country is "making commitments for future years that we cannot fulfill" in fighting terrorism and trying to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction. Already 40 percent of the ground troops in Iraq come from the National Guard and reserves, and recruitment and retention will be a problem, he said.
Moreover, he said, all Americans should be asked to "share the sacrifice" of protecting their country. "It's unfair to ask only a few people to bear the burden of fighting and dying," he said.
Also, a mandatory national service requirement for civilian as well as military work could help meet many needs at home at the same time that it is providing personnel for the armed forces, Hagel said.
Posted 24 April 2004 - 06:48 AM
The idea is to vanquish it. The way to do that is to promote secular humanism and turn man into a mere stimulus-response mechanism operating on electro-chemical impulses. This degradation is enough to overcome morality through recognition of the irresponsibility of one's actions. Note the demand for drugs to control one's behavior, or putting it nicely to alleviate negative mental conditions brought about by "chemical imbalances".
Criminality is not anything to do with the individual, it's a malfunction of the processing of chemicals. More of an illness than anything and jail is not the place for them they need a hospital setting.
Did you know that if you move your arm it is an electro-chemical response to a stimulus? Nothing you decided!
Yes, degrading mankind to a lesser status has been the goal of the power-monger.
Posted 24 April 2004 - 02:28 PM
: Do I read really really stupid to you. Of
: course I've explored these ideas. I'm a small
: government guy.
: I've read all about this and you know what.
: My eyes didn't glaze over.
: What is it that you people want.
: What would make you happy.
Well, I'll try to make you happy. But before I'll to point out that I've handed out thousands of these proposals before the very eyes of the small government guys and not once they reached for one. Only the little people seemed to care. The arrogance that goes into serving the big lion the biggest scraps that go with it--and sure they are big compared to what little people get--make them not part of the solution but part of the problem! Perhaps you are the exception to the rule, so without further ado...
A ROAD TO FREEDOM (UNLIKE RUSSIA'S)
Why not build a new system? That offers PROSPERITY, SOCIAL JUSTICE and FREEDOM; that discards the defects of both Communism and Capitalism; and that places the system at the service of the human being, and not the other way around. Why not HUMANISM?
(same stuff proposed here left out)
: Was 100-180 million dead in the twentieth
: century by Kropotkins ideas and those like
: him not enough for you.
: Have you absolutely no respect for the memory
: of all those industrially slaughtered
: millions of Mums and Dads ..... Brothers
: Sisters and orphans.
: I thought that we had left that nightmare
: behind in the post-Reagan world and their was
: only North Korea and Iraq to deal with as an
: Can you do me a favor and not talk to us
: about some sort of universal enlightenment.
: Whenever democracies find themselves in a low
: crime environment they quite naturally
: economize on crime-fighting costs. So given
: that your average cop isn't just sitting
: around playing cards during his shift why for
: the love of Buffy and friends would you want
: to cut them entirely and just let your eyes
: glaze over and not take responsibility for
: what we already know is going to happen.
: Don't bother with the bogus pseudo-logic with
: regards to this because yes we do already
: know if we are not complete fools and no it
: can't necessarily be proved by countering
: what word games you have on the ready.
: Whenever a great nation defeats or reconciles
: with a long-standing adversary it always cuts
: back on defense spending.
: It always does so too much and so massive
: violence breaks out everywhere but that's
: another point.
: Are these cutbacks in the face of the absence
: of threats not good enough. You think the
: enlightenment will follow the cutbacks I
: I'm onto your act I'm right ahead of you
: fella. So try not to boor us with long tedius
: pseudo-logic which makes us folks who weren't
: born yesterday just assume that you yourself
: arrived from Mars Tuesday before last.
The things proposed here are not the thing of crackpot tyrants--of whom you often are the best allies--but the stuff that happens in the most civilized nations on Earth. Sorry to say, America is behind, way behind, and I wouldn't only cite cases like Canada--where healthcare is guaranteed for all--but also like Israel, where the kibbutz are a venerable institution. So, sorry, you ain't #1, but there's a solution to it...
Posted 24 April 2004 - 02:49 PM
The best example is in Lithuania where west sponsored organization manage to impeached Lithuanian president Rolandas Paksas for offering Lithuanian citizenship the Rusian citizen , Mafia man in West opinion. Roland Paksas is very popular to majority Lithuanians and they wanted Paksas participating in presidential electiom on 13 of June. The Central Election Commission decided by a vote of six to two on 22 April to accept the registration documents of recently impeached former President Rolandas Paksas. The commission thus ignored the recommendation of the Chief Public Service Ethics Commission that Paksas should not be allowed to run because the Constitutional Court had ruled that he violated the law on conflict of interest in state service and was thus barred from working in state service for three years. Election Commission Chairman Zenonas Vaigauskas said that the lack of any article in the constitution and election laws barring dismissed officials from running convinced him to accept Paksas's registration. The Homeland Union is expected to ask the Supreme Administrative Court to reverse the commission's decision. SGhttp://www.rferl.org/newsline/3-cee.asp
Chief Public Service Ethics Commission fight very openly against democratic decisions of the nation.
Posted 24 April 2004 - 04:15 PM
Did you know that if you move your arm it is an electro-chemical response to a stimulus? Nothing you decided!
Yes, degrading mankind to a lesser status has been the goal of the power-monger.*******
You are both wrong, chemicals make us immune to stimulus.
For example social testing proving that
Posted 24 April 2004 - 04:47 PM
Posted 24 April 2004 - 05:01 PM
>>>Obedience is enhance when a role relationship is established and accepted in which the individual is subordinated to another person.<<<
The key here is "established and accepted". Anyone who wishes to be an authority must establish himself and be accepted first.
The social structure tends to do this for the individual. As you say though, if some will not accept an authority others may not as well.
>>>The values prescribed by the situation replace their individual values; duty and loyalty.<<<
Obviously, the individual who knows how to drive the car will be the authority. Knowledge is the key. Sane people - most people - will agree to authority that guides or professes to guide one in the direction of success; not failure, survival; not death.
In corrollation to that, the ability to understand the behavior and motivation of authority is needed. Unfortunately, this understanding is lacking and the worst criminals can be chosen as authority.
The improvement of conditions is possible only with an understanding of ourselves and our behavior. Starting with the basic premise of our social scientists that man is an animal is not conducive to understanding ourselves. This is proven by the stagnant condition of our social sciences in which it has degraded itself to a mere control technology.
>>>Fresh food, and exercise , drug free environment not necessary makes you more human being; in contrary you may be become more closely ?nazi
Posted 24 April 2004 - 06:48 PM
Soeren Gade was appointed Denmark's new defense minister Saturday, a day after his predecessor resigned amid criticism that the military exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein to justify the war in Iraq.
UN idea to fulfill US wishes and smuggles Turky to UN on stealing land didn
Posted 25 April 2004 - 12:16 AM
Its all bout the use of power to capture your "market" (host) that you bleed.
I dont go for that Rand type approach that people chose to live in the park to avoid washing dishes (responsibility) as you suggest
Pliny. That is just 19 century class-speak, like the poor are poor
because they are inferior. It smacks of self-richeousness. I have heard it all in my country.
The great sham of the liberatrian/free market approach is that the advocates despise paying taxes to support lesser beings although they were educated by the social state schooling system, enjoyed free doctor visits and hospitals etc but having made good from middle class families they then want to shut out the lesser being who traditionally actually paid more taxes than the rest.
The greater part of their self-richeousness is that they dont want
the rest to have the means of being more responsible because
thats what it comes down to. If you want people to be more responsible then give them the power. This is one of the threads of history.
The monetary sytem I advocate does just this- gives all the power to be able to return to making choices and learning to take responsibility, which will not come overnight because of the
capitalist system has made a huge dependant socialist block
within. This is why Pliny you think it is "purely a collectivist plan"
which is the third different summary you have made, showing you really havent grasped what it realy is about.
Collectivism is the very thing it prevents which is why the British Socialist leaders were the biggets opponents of the Social Credit
School of thought. I thought you might make this mistake.
It comes back to a point I raised previously, there is a challenge
that is very rarely exposed and that is the one about whether
one will be preared to empower all or not. If one is not democracy is not an option. That is why we only see the sham democracy because few people will actually be prepared to empower everyone so that there is a true free market and a
chance for govt to serve the majority not the few who control the power.
This is why the coop is such a big challenge because it is about win-win for everyone, most people are too selfish for that but they hate the result of the elitist alternative unless they can be included in the windfall. (the theme of the Donq Jungle story)
"Govt isnt necessary to effect order" was your response Pliny to my statement, then you repeat what I said by saying " It (referring to govt) is the collective will to protect safety and security" What is order then?
We both agree it is to serve the people.
I dont accept your projecting of the spectre of big uncontrolable bureaucracy into the system I advocate as an argument, but rather as lack of argument.
I dont believe Anarchy can operate without some form of Govt,
thats why the Rand school will accept law and order and defence forces not being privatised (because it would cost them personally too much given they have more property to pretect), it would be cheaper if everyone helped pay for the protection of their property.
So where ever there is govt there is the opportunity for bureaucracy to become too big and subverted to small powerful
interests. That is no blank cheque argument. You claim my system would reguire huge bureaucracy- and must be by govt-on what grounds?
I have specified the monetary authority could not be under govt control for reasons we both agree on. Where all have been empowered monetarily the ability of the elite to control will be so much reduced which means that any system that empower all to become more responsible means the vacuum the elite enjoy starts to disappear and they have to compete- what a pity they can't rest on their self-richeous laurels.
I dont for a minte believe you are one of them but that is the game and they set the rules. It is easier to make the rules when your system makes people unable to be responsible. Classic transparent example is communism, classsic hidden examples are the various forms of capitalism.
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users