What would it take for Russia to be #1?
Posted 30 August 2003 - 12:19 PM
When we talk about culture, we mean our Slavs ethnicity. We left Caucasus for India about 4000 ?years ago ; we were together, we spoke one language , we believe in reincarnation of our spirits, we ask for help our gods of nature ; Peron, Swarozyc etc.
From India we brought new a new god of Swiatowid;
Posted 30 August 2003 - 03:39 PM
//"Education must, then, be not only a transmission of culture but also a provider of alternative views of the world -----.//
<You are wrong, those in control want education and transmission of culture ....>
Woj, those in control do *not* want education, they want to *control* education. They don't want you for example to acquiring new knowledge on the Internet, but they want you reading *their* newspaper.
<Aesop follows the lamb and lion comparison, those in control found the people- rats resemblance.
Many studies are designated for the rat society and their findings transmitted to people culture.>
Not ony rats but also the Foxes (who run politics), Hyenas (the ones that do the "dirty work), the Ostriches (the fancy politicians who are the face of the system), the Vultures (who eat from the lion's scraps), the Parrot (who learned to roar and in the end is eaten), the Snake (who run the media for the lion), the Owl (the scientist who's paid by the system to look the other way) and a few other animals...
< Identical strategy also was applied in Iraq.
10 years of sanctions, before actual military activities.
But now those on top face a new challenge; how to design an experiment with rats which would show how to run an Iraqi oil for US profit. Any suggestions?>
They must control tha water wells in other jungles as well as at home. Then the little animals beg for it...:confused:
In Iraq though the rats seem to behave different from laboratory animals...
Posted 30 August 2003 - 04:38 PM
*If you look at a lion in the jungle, you see beautiful trees and beautiful animals around the lion. You see the sun. You see Africa. You know what the lion sees? A meat market! It doesn't care about the sun. It doesn't care about the wind, or the trees or the green grass. Its mind is set on food.*
EPA ruling fuels threat of lawsuit
Environment agency decides not to regulate carbon dioxide as pollutant
Environmentalists declared yesterday that because of an EPA decision not to regulate carbon dioxide as an air pollutant, they will join a tangle of lawsuits against the Bush administration over global warming.
"We're going to sue them," David Bookbinder, a Sierra Club lawyer, said after the Environmental Protection Agency informed the organization and two others that it would turn down their petition that it restrict emissions of carbon dioxide in automobile exhaust.
He said the Clean Air Act defines a pollutant as "any air-pollution agent or combination of agents, including any physical, chemical, biological or radiological substance or matter, which is emitted into or otherwise ends up in the ambient air."
He said that definition must include carbon dioxide, which atmospheric scientists say traps heat and is causing the Earth to grow warmer as it accumulates in the atmosphere.
EPA informed the Sierra Club, Greenpeace and the International Centre for Technology Assessment that it lacked authority to regulate carbon dioxide.
"The Bush administration is again ducking its legal and moral responsibility to address global warming," Bookbinder said. "But instead of just admitting that it isn't doing anything about global warming, now the Bush administration is saying it's not their job."
Posted 30 August 2003 - 10:14 PM
I remember reading a brief overview about how some were educated perhaps in feudal England and may have been the middle class and above if such existed them. However education
began by first setting the young person into a role within the
village economy. They were taught a skill, a division of labour, so to speak which also gave them an appreciation of the importance of the next persons role and contribution- a practical appreciation of society.
The next level was to send them abroad, to say France where
their skill was a means of immediate contribution and a source of living. There they learnt about "other" people again and perhaps a better or other way of doing things, thinking etc. Not to mention another language.
The third level was to then go to Varsity where they would learn
somthing higher/deeper and not suffer any bullshit because they already knew how people lived and what was real and what wasn't!
I take it you think that Russia doesn't need anything from outside
as you/they have enough within themselves to become a superpower (singluar you put it) but the greatest or one of the
greatest hinderances is the "mood" of the people.
Can't say I disagree and I advocated a cultural revival to restore
a better disposition/mood.
Then they will get the bread and knife (practical benefits of the vast human and natural resourses) they rightfull are entitled to.
THis begs the ''which comes first the chicken or the egg'' question about where to deal to the origins of the weakness, is it within people or is it originating from systems.
One might hope that a cultural revival will disect this quandry
at least in terms of a common ground to start renewing even if
not perfect, since the common ground will be owned by the
majority and thus have meaning and resolve.
Regards the security of the natural resources, is it not already too late and as common in history, its the fifth column inside who
sell out for a part of the action, happened in my country as the
free market revolution got underway led by gov bureaucrats, acadenmics, big business and politicians.
Posted 31 August 2003 - 09:14 AM
// "We're going to sue them,";//
As much I am for environmental protection around the world, USA environmental agencies are legalized mafia of special interest groups. They have legalized right to harassment and extortion. They are form a leading division of Democratic Party who pushes the government to subsidize by tax payers
Posted 31 August 2003 - 11:08 AM
Life of Slavs as a nomads was quite comfortable, because they could find pastures, water, and animals in forest. Slavs used 6 wheels cart with horses, covered by boiled wool . Fire resistant wool protected them from cold and fire. As a nomads Slavs created rather egalitarian system, with higher positions of shamans who made an animal offerings and provided medical care and the metal smiths . Anyway, the difference in standard of living between the people was not very significant. Because Slavs had horses and live rather outside of Roman Empire in wooded areas, they were practically safe. Romans who fought in centuries (10x10) and without horses were not a big danger for Slavs.
In years 2000bc- 1300 bc of Copper age, Slavs initiated the peasant time agriculture , combining farming and animal husbandry. First Slavs crop was the poppy. Slavs started from the cultivation of poppy; because it was easy to grow, has high in nutrition values and wide medical application as a pain medication.l.. And Slavs needed it. Everybody remember western pictures of horrors the operations without anesthesia, but Slavs had it already there.. .
Posted 01 September 2003 - 03:03 AM
The UN doesn't even have any feedback from the peoples it claims to represent, not even--as far as know--a forum like Pravda where the people can discuss issues. I think it plays the role of rubber stamp for the powers that be...
Posted 01 September 2003 - 03:21 AM
do you like the Switzerland -s model only to govern Russia or for US as well?>
Like I said, Russia could possibly benefit best from the Scandinavian model because of her socialist past. As you mentioned, cooperatives can be created--by promoting cooperative education, financing--as an alternative. Perhaps we should create a ministry of economy and cooperatives, which by the way exists in some Third World countries.
It would be a tougher sale to individidualistic Americans though, in which case the can use the Swiss system.
How could you explain the situation that Scandinavian , Norwegian , Knut Hamsun, ( Knud Pedersen) recipient of Nobel reward in literature for ?Hanger
Posted 01 September 2003 - 03:50 AM
'So far, American foreign policy has been guided by the vice president's gloomy theories that fear and force are the best motivators in the world, that war is man's natural state and that the last great superpower has sovereign authority to do as it pleases without much consultation with subjects or other nations.'
'The General Accounting Office issued a report last week noting that the vice president shaped our energy policy with clandestine advice from "petroleum, coal, nuclear, natural gas, electricity industry representatives and lobbyists."'
Who's Losing Iraq?
By MAUREEN DOWD
Karl Rove has got to be nervous.
The man who last year advised Republican candidates to "focus on war" is finding out that the Bush doctrine of pre-emption cannot pre-empt anarchy.
Now, General Rove will have to watch Democratic candidates focus on war.
We're getting into very volatile territory in the Middle East.
As Paul Bremer admitted last week, the cost of the Iraq adventure is going to be spectacular: $2 billion for electrical demands and $16 billion to deliver clean water.
We're losing one or two American soldiers every day. Saddam and Osama are still lurking and scheming ? the "darkness which may be felt."
After a car bomb exploded outside a Najaf mosque on Friday, killing scores of people, including the most prominent pro-American Shiite cleric, we may have to interject our troops into an internecine Shiite dispute ? which Saddam's Baathist guerrillas are no doubt stoking.
With Iraqis in Najaf screaming, "There is no order! There is no government! We'd rather have Saddam than this!," we had one more ominous illustration that the Bush team is out of its depth and divided against itself.
You can't conduct a great historical experiment in a petty and bickering frame of mind. The agencies of the Bush administration are behaving like high school cliques. The policy in Iraq is paralyzed almost to the point of nonexistence, stalled by spats between the internationalists and unilateralists, with the national security director, Condoleezza Rice, abnegating her job as policy referee.
The State Department will have to stop sulking and being in denial about the Pentagon running the show in Iraq. And the Pentagon will have to stop being dogmatic, clinging to the quixotic notion that it only wants to succeed with its streamlined force and its trompe l'oeil coalition. Rummy has to accept the magnitude of the task and give up running the Department of Defense the way a misanthropic accountant would.
Big deeds need big spirits. You can't have a Marshall Plan and a tax cut at the same time.
It has also now become radiantly clear that we have to drag Dick Cheney out of the dark and smog. Less Hobbes, more Locke.
So far, American foreign policy has been guided by the vice president's gloomy theories that fear and force are the best motivators in the world, that war is man's natural state and that the last great superpower has sovereign authority to do as it pleases without much consultation with subjects or other nations.
We can now see the disturbing results of all the decisions Mr. Cheney made in secret meetings.
The General Accounting Office issued a report last week noting that the vice president shaped our energy policy with clandestine advice from "petroleum, coal, nuclear, natural gas, electricity industry representatives and lobbyists."
Favoritism to energy pals led to last week's insane decision to gut part of the Clean Air Act and allow power plants, refineries and other industrial sites to belch pollutants.
Another Bush-Cheney energy crony is Anthony Alexander of Ohio's FirstEnergy Corporation, which helped trigger the blackout after failing to upgrade its transmission system properly since deregulation. He was a Bush Pioneer, having raised at least $100,000 for the campaign.
This logrolling attitude has led to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers allowing Halliburton ? which made Mr. Cheney a rich man with $20 million worth of cashed-in stock ? to get no-bid contracts in Iraq totaling $1.7 billion, and that's just a start.
All this, and high gas prices, too?
When he wasn't meeting secretly with energy lobbyists, Mr. Cheney was meeting secretly with Iraqi exiles. The Iraqi National Congress leader Ahmad Chalabi and other defectors conned Mr. Cheney, Rummy and the na?ve Wolfowitz of Arabia by playing up the danger of Saddam's W.M.D.'s and playing down the prospect of Iraqi resistance to a U.S. invasion.
According to The Los Angeles Times, U.S. and allied intelligence agencies are investigating to see if they were duped by Iraqi defectors giving bogus information to mislead the West before the war.
Some intelligence officials "now fear that key portions of the prewar information may have been flawed," the story said. "The issue raises fresh doubts as to whether illicit weapons will be found in Iraq."
Karl Rove has got to be nervous.
Posted 01 September 2003 - 04:32 AM
There is a lot to the post on Tolstoy I liked and there are things in relation to cooperatives that calls for some reflection in relation to
issues raised on that post.
I should expect he would be very pro- the coop model.
He seems to differentiate between the internal factors and external, which I like, as in the less concern for sociologic laws but opposed to legal codes (shackles) which enslave. "The task is to safeguard the
communal-agricultural order (people based not state based)
against destructive influences from without. (eg state- law makers)
I am not sure what he means by sociologic. I have been using the terms lore and law towards the same end.
The religious/moral factor is very much part of lore. One can't legislate morality, so the rabbinic approach to trying to achieve
social (political) correctness is a form of dictatorship like the Taliban. If the power of choice derives from the grass roots than
those with bad habits get a reputation that direct peoples feet
away from them.
I wonder what he would think of the Swiss referenda/veto of the public against the politicians as a means of non-conforming as he
proposed. While he sounds anti-state it would appear to be the abuse of power (lion) and he doesn't exclude it as a servant as
it should be.
The more interesting part was his indiffernce to the dialectic
construct of bourgeoisie v. socialists. "The task does not ...
consist in establishing communist anarchy in place of the capitalist order." which is the sentence which preceeded the one quoted above. Then there was his statement that Marx and Bastiat were "representatives of the same false principle, of capitalist culture, of landless workers, of state coercion."
I would say not just false but "put up" which is why I used the word construct - using the Hegalian dialectic dynamic to divide
If we go to the coop which should have developed along with a democratic based money system in the development of the
industrial revolution then the money system would have been
a development WITHIN as opposed to WITHOUT and ruling over the enterprise of man (economy) and there would be no point in the people charging themselves interest in a peoples- credit based money system. So with the shackles of the debt system not there and the people able to retain their synergism the
people would have been more self-sufficient and not shackled by the Banker Lion or the State Lion. Because the power to make choices ( economic ) operates at a lower level - no interest and no
taxes- there is no requirement for the communist/union dialectic against the boses etc.
Now Marx was supposed to have been a bright spark and a champion of the exploited yet he avoided the very key factors that
the little "animals" need to know about. Tolsoy is correct he was a false prophet and served the Lion as an expert in the use of the
Hegelian dialectic dynamic to perpetrate the exploitation of the
people while sporting a Robin Hood "cap".
The capitalist v Socialist/communist - Unions v Boses etc were
inevitable because of the money system which stole more than the increment of association (synergism). Later the cold war took this dialectic construct to a global standoff, after the New York
driven revolution in 1917. Check out the meetings of the Big Three at Yalta etc (Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill) where the Cold War was set right there, the U.S. proping up the Soviet Union for decades. More False dialectical stage-management.
Its interesting that inspite of the cold war Marx was still a great
thinking impact on civilization to Wsetern universities. No
exposure of the fraudulent money system nor recognition of synergism there either. One shouldn't be suprised.
But the education systems in the shadow of the New York Lion,
East and West are very different in many ways which is to be expected. Under the Soviet system it seems that Animal Farm
is not true as planned outcome but evolution arising from a natural dialectical time machine, shall we say, and in the West, where they don't teach that the Media has traditionally jumped on anyone who tries to tell about the Lion and his ways by denigrating the author by calling it a conspiracy theory.
So the long and short of it all is to keep the little ones squabbling and in ignorance of the Lion and his methods and more so of what they are missing out on and fully entitled to.
Recall the comments about thhe LIE in earlier posts?
Posted 01 September 2003 - 04:34 AM
Thus, each and every revelation we come accross society is really unbearable for people to even to consider it: because they're already conditioned to be on their side, unaware of it, and thinking this is the right thing to do.. (Which is worst)
It's funny to see how education everywhere is built to condition us.>
Education is designed to make a sheep out of you. If you are lucky you come out black.
<It just takes a moment to think about things. I, used to be as much as blind as the crowds, or even worst. But actually, if you ask me, these 'Lions' are pretty obvious.>
Though they were shaken out of complacency after Sept. 11. Now if we don't tame the beast we are doomed...
<P.S.: Isn't it funny how we all learn about the old Roman policies of the bread and the circus and the people can't see this one of the things we're subjected to. If you were to see in Ghost Land, you'd laugh to see how that is effective.>
Today's trash television and junk food makes us look back on the Roman Circus with nostalgia...
Posted 01 September 2003 - 04:57 AM
The Law of The Jungle
By Rebecca Johnson
In the past two months [2002 article], while proclaiming the importance of wide and unconditional support for its military actions in Afghanistan, the United States has i) boycotted the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty entry into force conference; ii) announced its intention to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; iii) pulled the plug on six years of multilateral negotiations to strengthen and verify the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention; and iv) flouted the Geneva Convention in its treatment of prisoners captured during the conduct of its self-defined "war on terrorism".
But John Bolton, US Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, objected to criticism portraying US policy as unilateralist: "trying to characterise our policy as "unilateralist or multilateralist is a futile exercise", he told the first Conference on Disarmament plenary of 2002. "Our policy is, quite simply, pro-American".
Hmmm... isn't that a bit like a bank robber objecting to being called a thief? "I'm pro-me-and-my-family," he'd say, as if that were a self-evidently admirable thing: "the bank is just an institution, and it is at fault for denying me access to what I want".
Before banks, we ourselves were responsible for keeping and protecting our money. We might hope to keep it safe as property or jewels or hide it in a sock under the bed, depending on our resources and inclinations. Some, but not all, would get robbed, in which case they might lose everything, including their lives if they got in the way. Instead of the relative anarchy of that situation, we've now chosen to trust banks (flawed though they may be), and they generally do a good job of holding and protecting money on behalf of many different people, small savers as well as big investors. Likewise, arms control treaties enshrine security norms and constraints on behalf of many different nations, weak as well as powerful. For the most powerful nation to pick and choose which treaties it likes is to steal security from the rest of the world and, ultimately, its own citizens.
Bolton listed various agreements that the Bush Administration liked, such as the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). He mentioned three treaties limiting nuclear testing: the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty, the 1974 Threshold Test Ban Treaty and the 1976 Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty. The PTBT banned atmospheric testing. It was an important agreement at the time, but not even the Bush administration is contemplating a return to the days of huge mushroom clouds with radioactive fallout blowing across Nevada (or the Pacific). Even when they were signed in the 1970s, the other two were sham treaties, superpower public relations exercises intended to divert civil society pressure from a total test ban. They promised to limit yields to 150 kilotons when neither the US nor USSR had any reason or desire to go higher.
The CTBT was not on the list of favoured agreements. Bolton later told UN journalists that President Bush "opposes the CTBT" and would not seek Senate ratification. If international non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament are to have any collective meaning, then they have to impose credible legal and practical constraints on the armaments and force capabilities of the large nations as well as the small. Four thousand people dying violently in Afghanistan should be treated as a tragedy as appalling as four thousand people dying violently in New York - for their families and friends it no doubt is.
Once upon a time in the heyday of the British Empire, some rich aristocrats would get away with stealing from the state (by not paying taxes) and from tradespeople (by not paying their bills). Poor people were imprisoned or transported into semi-slavery for stealing bread. The practices of Enron and its ilk notwithstanding, the "civilised nations" (a concept employed frequently by Bolton and his President) are supposed to have moved away from such corrupt inequality before the law. Yet that appears to be what the United States wants to reintroduce, at least for itself, in international politics. Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, approving of "the new American unilateralism" that Bolton coyly denies, wrote in June 2001 that "we now have an administration willing to assert American freedom of action and the primacy of American national interests... the new unilateralism seeks to strengthen American power and unashamedly deploy it on behalf of self-defined global ends" (emphasis added).
If the US only backs treaties that serve the interests of the haves, then they will lose whatever moral force they have. What will then be the basis for insisting on inspections in Iraq and North Korea or condemning the treatment of American prisoners of war? Does America really want to revert to the law of the jungle? Will the rest of the world really let this happen?
Posted 01 September 2003 - 01:04 PM
Irano-Scythe knowledge of ironsmith brought Slavs to Iron age, and to time of the biggest prosperity to our ancestors. Knowledge of Iron production not only improved our Slavs weaponry, but also agriculture.
We Slavs created iron plow what revolutionize an agriculture. Since that time , not all our population had to stay on land to produce food. Iron plow gave Slavs opportunity to relieve some people from agriculture to
Posted 02 September 2003 - 10:14 AM
"will the rest of the world let this happen?"
Yep, just like they let the invasion of Iraq go ahead.
Some said they wouldn't support it. Wow! Such opposition!!!!
Did Hussein represent the Iraqi people?
Did his government represent the Iraqi People?
Same in the US, many have woken up but still many can't face reality.
WE've said a lot about education, here a segment that is written
" Meanwhile, this expensive stupidity facilitates U.S. funding of the bloody work of death squads, juntes, and terror regimes abroad. It permits the war we are waging- an unfair, illegil, unjust, illogical, and expensive war which announces to the world the failure of our intelligence and, by the way, the creeping weakness of our economic system. Every man, woman and child killed by a bomb, bullet, famine or polluted water is a murder-
and a war crime. And it signals the impotence of American education to produce brains equiped with the bare necessities for democratic survival: analysing and asking questions."
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users