Post Reply  Post Thread 
Pages (3): « First [1] 2 3 Next > Last »

Globlizaton Correction

Author Message
Killer300
Unregistered


Post: #1
Globlizaton Correction

Okay, title is kind of awkward for I can't figure out what to call this. So, I'll try this. We must correct the effects of globlization. Now, this has been stated before constantly, but here's the difference with this thread. We might have a crisis and an opportunity coming up.

The global market is on a ticking time bomb. Soon, an economy is going to crash somewhere, and the interconnectedness of the global economy will cause economic collapse. It doesn't have to be the USA, it could be a country as small as Greece. All that's required is that there are lots of assets involved with it. So, we're sitting on a bomb that's going to explode soon. The reason why isn't interconnectedness itself, it's because the global economy is too fragile. This fragility comes from neo-liberalism and various other pressures. Other pressures include the agriculture situation, which could also cause an economic collapse from a 2nd Dustbowl causing food prices to skyrocket.

So, this is a crisis, but how's it an opportunity? Such a collapse might allow global idealogical change, including the destruction of neo-liberalism. We must move though, we must be ready. Otherwise, that bomb will go off, and civilization itself may collapse. We need to have a plan, but not just a re-application of old concepts. We need plenty of new ones too, for we live in a world far different than the 20th century, even the late 20th century.

02.08.2011 15:29
Quote this message in a reply
Triniteras
Unregistered


Post: #2
RE: Globlizaton Correction

Killer300 Wrote:
Such a collapse might allow global idealogical change, including the destruction of neo-liberalism.

moo cows moo, sure

03.08.2011 05:11
Quote this message in a reply
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,854
Words count: 1,597,451
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #3
RE: Globlizaton Correction

The continuity of the modern ecologists with the fascists is easily demonstrated. A case in point is the work of Friedrich Georg Jünger. In his 1939 book The Perfection of Technology, Jünger writes: "We must realize that technological progress and mass education go hand in hand. ... Technological progress is strongest in those places where mass education has most progressed. ... [The masses] are the most usable, docile material for the technician, without which he never could realize his plans. ... For us, the notion of mass is connected with heaviness, pressure, dependency, and vulgarization." For the oligarchs of the Conservative Revolution, the idea of educated masses is a horrible vision, because it would mean the end of that oligarchical elite.

For the same reason, they oppose the idea of the nation-state based on technological progress. And many of them, including Friedrich Hilcher and all the different representatives of the Pan-European Union, want to destroy the nation-state and replace it with regionalism, tribalism, estates. If you look at the present destabilization of many countries, the attempts to rip countries apart—as in Italy, where the Northern League is trying to split up the nation into several parts, or the Chiapas upheaval in Mexico, or similar things around the world—the basis for that is the ideology of the Conservative Revolution.

The epoch of six hundred years of history is now coming to an end, and with it, all the evil ideologies emanating from Venetian oligarchism through the Enlightenment to deconstructionism, and they themselves are digging their own graves.

The crime of the U.N. Cairo conference was so enormous, because there, people dared to propose what the Nazis never dared to say with publicly with such clarity. But, being confronted with such an enormous evil, will trigger an impulse for Good in the world, and we have to reassert now the principles of the Council of Florence and the Golden Renaissance, which means nothing less than that each human being must have a chance to live a life as imago viva Dei and capax Dei. This is only possible, however, if we bring the political and economic order into coherence with the laws of God's Creation.

The world cannot survive partially; mankind, as never before, is all in the same boat, and we will only save ourselves on the basis of the highest conceptions. These are the conceptions discussed, for example, at the Council of Florence by Nicolaus of Cusa, who said that concordance in the microcosm is only possible through the maximum development of all microcosms. That means the maximum development of all individuals and all nations.

The sovereign nation-state must be defended, because it is only through the representative system, that the freedom of the individual is guaranteed. Any supranational institution annihilates such freedom. It is, therefore, in the self-interest of each individual and each nation, to work toward the maximum development of all others. All nations, together, must be focused on the joint task of the development of mankind.

We have to have an idea of man and of society in which the beautiful soul, the person who with compassion does what is necessary, the Good Samaritan who helps without even thinking about himself, is what is normal. Because what we have now, is not normal, it's a disease. We are suffering from the fin de siècle, the end of an epoch. The nastiness in society, the stabbing-in-the-back, treating each other like low creatures, looting small nations for your own profit—all of these things are not human, they are not part of what we are meant to be, as man in the image of God.

A new Renaissance means a change of values, so that people want to be creative as their purpose in life, that people are so thirsty for true knowledge, for discovery, for art, for music, for discovering the laws of composition of the late Beethoven, of Schubert, of Schiller, in order to be, then, able to do something creative themselves. And I think that Nicolaus of Cusa was correct when he said that once people have tasted the "sweetness of truth," they try to find more of it, and more and more.

Excerpt from Helga-Zepp LaRouche's article "The Case of Martin Heidegger"


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache
06.08.2011 16:21
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Killer300
Unregistered


Post: #4
RE: Globlizaton Correction

*nuclear facepalm* As I've said before, if you want to critisize ecologists, do it properly. Calling them Fascists just makes you look ignorant, for reasons I've already stated. You really think Henry Theorou was a Fascist? I hope not.

06.08.2011 16:23
Quote this message in a reply
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,854
Words count: 1,597,451
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #5
RE: Globlizaton Correction

I could say that Henry David Thoreau was a wicked man, the myth of “the noble savage,” or the related notion of the nobility of “the simple life" is fairly disgusting.
In such a "society" with such views, people with diseases and illnesses had no room.
What do environmentalists in general prescribe? Antidevelopment policies, abortion (under the guise of so called women's rights/ they don't give a shit about them), sterilization and other unorthodox methods of population reduction. They are against nuclear power (which offers the highest energy flux density required for the planet to sustain its present and future population). Their antidevelopment so called conservation policies target especially poor countries, which need development more than anyone else and they are also against agriculture even though they claim that they want so called self-sustaining agripractices (such a radical change would cause huge shortages and price increases, not to mention sucking of subsidies from those countries who can afford to give them).
They are not only hypocritical in regards to nature, because by "saving" endangered species, they actually interfere with nature, who has wiped out more than 90% of the species that have ever lived on this Earth.
Btw if that's the only thing you got out of that excerpt, then your soft spot for so called ecology is a soft spot for esoterism, and not for true scientific inquiry and development.
That means that you don't care for why, all you're interested in is a particular what, just for the sake of that what.


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache
06.08.2011 18:44
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Killer300
Unregistered


Post: #6
RE: Globlizaton Correction

Pro choice is feminist. The woman's choice to control her own body, not ours. If you want to debate further, open a seperate thread.

As for Henry Theorou, the guy who was a die hard pacifist, who influenced Ghondi, who I admit had issues himself, and Martin Luther King Jr is a Fascist? That's, frankly, bullshit.

Also, for your nature statistic, there's a huge difference. Nature does wipe out species, however it does so slowly, and more importantly gives chances for species to adapt. More importantly, it doesn't suddenly unbalance ecologies left and right, while humanity DOES. The former is over a time scale of millions to billions of years. Ours is a time scale of less than 100,000.

As for anti-development, again, not true. If you destroy the resources of an area, the area will be forever impoverished, which is what happens when you strip mine forests. The same goes for abusing soil, as the Great Dust Bowl demonstrated. If anything, these ecologists are the only thing standing between these countries and permanent poverty from their resources being forever gone. The Norse in Greenland were wiped out from bad resource management, while Iceland survived from smart resource management, which meant conservation. The same goes for these places. Of course these nations need to industrialize, however if they destroy their resources in the process, they will be unable to do so.

06.08.2011 18:53
Quote this message in a reply
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,854
Words count: 1,597,451
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #7
RE: Globlizaton Correction

Killer300 Wrote:
Pro choice is feminist. The woman's choice to control her own body, not ours. If you want to debate further, open a seperate thread.

As for Henry Theorou, the guy who was a die hard pacifist, who influenced Ghondi, who I admit had issues himself, and Martin Luther King Jr is a Fascist? That's, frankly, bullshit.

Also, for your nature statistic, there's a huge difference. Nature does wipe out species, however it does so slowly, and more importantly gives chances for species to adapt. More importantly, it doesn't suddenly unbalance ecologies left and right, while humanity DOES. The former is over a time scale of millions to billions of years. Ours is a time scale of less than 100,000.

As for anti-development, again, not true. If you destroy the resources of an area, the area will be forever impoverished, which is what happens when you strip mine forests. The same goes for abusing soil, as the Great Dust Bowl demonstrated. If anything, these ecologists are the only thing standing between these countries and permanent poverty from their resources being forever gone. The Norse in Greenland were wiped out from bad resource management, while Iceland survived from smart resource management, which meant conservation. The same goes for these places. Of course these nations need to industrialize, however if they destroy their resources in the process, they will be unable to do so.

Really? What parts of the land have they developed so much, that are in such an immediate danger of being depleted? Heck the west is barelly in such an extreme situation, how could the third world be in it? Have they dams? Railways? Roads? Hospitals? Schools? Communication infrastructure (internet)?

We already interfere with nature, if we didn't we won't be here today, we would have been extinct, or in any case no different than prairie dogs.
Bertrand Russell was also a "pacifist", yet after one reads his core beliefs and what he prescribes for humanity in general, one is terrified by the nature of that pacifism, which is inherently evil.
Thoreau's civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power, it's this not his views of the "evils" of industrialization that influenced King and Gandhi. You've heared of Indira Gandhi? She was a champion for the sovereign right of India to research and develop peaceful nuclear power among other things. She was assassinated for it.
Understand that these so called ecologists don't give a shit about the environment, they don't give a shit about truthfull scientific inquiry, all they are interested in is to preserve their rising popular aura of prestige, and their own little habitat to ride their goddamn bikes, take pictures, tweet, smoke weed and have sex, they only care to exagerate and even fabricate data so that they can get the spotlight, more academic high places, more lobbying power, more funding and more subsidies for the business interests they represent.
I never said that Thoreau was a fascist, I was saying that certain beliefs are dangerous in the minds of those who take themselves a little bit too seriously and are in high places of power with a profound hate toward human beings.
This planet has been through worser things than pollution. It has been through earthquakes, continental drifts, plate tectonics, erosion, world wide floods, world wide fires, gamma rays, volcanos, bombardment of meteorites, the magnetic reversal of the poles, recurring ice ages, sun spots, solar flares etc. Hell life still continues to surprize us, for it can live in the most HOSTILE places on Earth, were nothing can grow, not because of man's economic activity, but of nature's whims. Heck bacterias even form inside nuclear reactors.
Understand that I'm not for pollution, I'm for responsable development, I'm as green as it comes, I just put human beings above so called endangered species, grass, wind mills and solar panels.
Don't talk to me about women's rights, in regions of the world where they have no roads, schools or hospitals. It's exactly like saying, instead of creating jobs in a poor community, to stop them from stealing in order to survive, we won't create any jobs in that community, instead we will cut the hands of those who steal to eat.
Untill you understand the actual political world you live you, you'll be nothing more than an esoteric ideologist without cause or purpose, only illusion of delusion.


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache

This post was last modified: 06.08.2011 19:20 by Helsworth.

06.08.2011 19:17
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Killer300
Unregistered


Post: #8
RE: Globlizaton Correction

Did I say humanity could never interfere with nature? No, and neither do they, even primitivists don't claim that. My point was the need to harvest resources in a way that didn't led to them being exhausted.
Also, for these ecologists that supposedly don't care, how do you explain the people that tie themselves to trees in order to avoid them being harvested? How do you explain the people that break into labs in order to get animals out?(I don't agree with it some cases by the way, I'm just using it as an example.) There are different levels of commitment, and some aren't true followers, but that isn't something you can apply to the entire movement.

You see, you're sterotyping an ENTIRE movement based on a tiny portion of it you find convient, which are Eco-Fascists. It doesn't matter that many ecologists are also civil rights leaders, it doesn't matter that many ecologists are also nationalists that want to protect their country from foreign exploitation, and it doesn't matter that they are one of the primary enemies of globlization, you don't care. People like you are being used far more than them to encourage corporate exploitation and to make sure industrialization doesn't occur.

So you disgust me, because you're attacking an entire idealogy by claiming they all act like a tiny part of it. This is not only completely disregarding most of the movement, but also causes you to miss out on what could be great compliments to your idealogy. I don't know how or when you became like this, but you have become more Fascist than these people ever have.

06.08.2011 19:29
Quote this message in a reply
Helsworth
Heathen
****


Posts: 8,854
Words count: 1,597,451
Group: Super Moderators
Joined: Nov2008
Status: Offline
Reputation: 146
Experience: 859
Glory Points: 260
Medals: 11

Post: #9
RE: Globlizaton Correction

Killer300 Wrote:
Did I say humanity could never interfere with nature? No, and neither do they, even primitivists don't claim that. My point was the need to harvest resources in a way that didn't led to them being exhausted.
Also, for these ecologists that supposedly don't care, how do you explain the people that tie themselves to trees in order to avoid them being harvested? How do you explain the people that break into labs in order to get animals out?(I don't agree with it some cases by the way, I'm just using it as an example.) There are different levels of commitment, and some aren't true followers, but that isn't something you can apply to the entire movement.

You see, you're sterotyping an ENTIRE movement based on a tiny portion of it you find convient, which are Eco-Fascists. It doesn't matter that many ecologists are also civil rights leaders, it doesn't matter that many ecologists are also nationalists that want to protect their country from foreign exploitation, and it doesn't matter that they are one of the primary enemies of globlization, you don't care. People like you are being used far more than them to encourage corporate exploitation and to make sure industrialization doesn't occur.

So you disgust me, because you're attacking an entire idealogy by claiming they all act like a tiny part of it. This is not only completely disregarding most of the movement, but also causes you to miss out on what could be great compliments to your idealogy. I don't know how or when you became like this, but you have become more Fascist than these people ever have.

It's an ideology which has infected the left and right. It can manoeuvre how it likes unde the guys of being green, even when it's de facto malthusian. I see people making more fuss about trees than the condition in their hospitals or centers for the mentally challenged, by the way they don't share the same interests. Unlike these people, I'm no adept of Nietsczhe, Heidegger, Russell or Malthus. Unlike these people and unlike you, I know how worked is measured and what energy flux density is. I was an environmentalist, untill I say how much corruption, hypocrisy and ignorance resided in it. Unlike them I don't lobby for what a sovereign country and its sovereign people can develop and what they cannot. Unlike them I don't feel that an international dictatorship can handle "resovling" the environment's problems better than individual democratic countries can. Unlike them I don't accept nature as God Himself, unlike them I don't substitute scientific truth for statistical manipulated hogwash of so called man made global warming, unlike them I don't support international fiscality on individual actions of human beings which produce CO2, unlike them I don't see the development of the third world as an ecological nightmare. Unlike you I'm not brainwashed by the proposition that 200+ years of industry is the biggest threat that humanity/the planet have ever faced.
They are fascist because they'd use tanks if they had them to make people do what you wanted for the "good" of the environment, while I'd use reason.
The fact remains that their green agenda is this: instead of creating jobs in a poor community, to stop them from stealing in order to survive, we won't create any jobs in that community, instead we will cut the hands of those who steal to eat.

http://www.ecofascism.com/

Every time someone mentions wind or solar power as the answer to our energy needs, the image that should form in your mind is that of 1 billion or more dying and starving children. If you do not yet understand why this is the case, you are forgiven. By the end of this piece you shall have been given the essential concepts and facts both to understand this ugly truth, and to act to prevent it.
http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=artic...nergy.html


https://www.patreon.com/SerbanVCEnache

This post was last modified: 06.08.2011 19:55 by Helsworth.

06.08.2011 19:53
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Killer300
Unregistered


Post: #10
RE: Globlizaton Correction

Unlike you, I measure the costs of said energy. There have been many reports in the United States of nuclear waste from nuclear plants operating fine leaking into rivers, causing cancer. Now, I could go get Xaoc, and let you two argue that one out. That'll just be a repeat of last time.

Also, you're making this a conspiracy theory, a really bad one. Not only do many ecologists have no relations to the people you just listed, but social ecologists are heavily anti the very elements that created Fascism, while also critisizing other parts of the eco movement for similar issues, i.e. adopting spiritualistic and mystic elements.

As for infecting both the right and left, this is both true and false. Yes, many enviromentalists claim to be post left and right, however they're either moderates who are just normal progressives, or are so called post left which is the most radical left type. These can be primitivists, the type you should be worried about, but not all of them. For the right, there are Eco-Fascists, but as I've said and will keep on saying, they're a tiny minority. For the left, you have the radical elements, ecologists of various types, and moderates who, as mentioned before, claim to be post left and right. The former I've already talked about, and discussed at length.

As for your claims of them blocking hospitals, nope. Except for primitivists in certain circumstances, and some crazy eco-Fascists, they aren't. You probably just either took dialogue completely out of context, very Fox News like of you, or got it through a filtered source that is full of crap. Either way, it's wrong.

It appears you saw some radical elements of the movement, and didn't like elements of it. You also perhaps saw funding elections, and because you got a knee jerk reaction to it, also was disenchanted from that. However, you went too much the other way. You're like the former Socialist turned Austrian economist we talked to way back. Remember him? You sound like him right now.


http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_arc...lanet.html
Here's something YOU need to read. All of it. Despite the other title, he actually critisizes heavily anti-growth, simple living, and similar politics. Don't come back until you read it.

06.08.2011 20:09
Quote this message in a reply
Pages (3): « First [1] 2 3 Next > Last »
Post Reply  Post Thread 

View a Printable Version
Send this Thread to a Friend
Subscribe to this Thread | Add Thread to Favorites

Forum Jump: