Heart of Darkness: Capitalism as a Religion
Jerry Kraus
in the world -- and, effectively, "conqueror" of half of Africa,
remains an extraordinary illustration of both the best and the worst
in the human character, and in the human condition. The son of a
country cleric, he transferred his early religious faith into a
passionate fervor for the expansion of the British Empire by whatever
means were necessary, as a manifestation of social Darwinism for the
improvement and perfection of the human species. And, in so doing, he
created an entire sub-culture of "eager young men", passionately
attached to him and his "vision" -- not of a better world, but of a
more British world.
Rhodes travelled to the diamond mines of South Africa as a teenager in
the early 1870's, did well, used his money to take a degree at Oxford,
returned to South Africa and used his charm and experience to take
over the mineral markets of Africa. As his power and wealth
increased, he obtained the legal right to use his companies to raise
money for private armies, and to take huge tracts of African land from
the natives by armed force. He was even successful in direct
confrontations with the imperial armies of the other nations of
Europe. It was Rhodes and his shareholders, against the world!
Rhodes started out as a champion and friend of the black natives, and
ended up by exploiting them and denying them their rights. Basically,
he was interested in money and power, and would take whatever route
led most directly to this end. I don't believe Rhodes was
particularly a racist. After all, it was Rhodes who caused the Boer
War, in which virtually all women and children of the White Boer
colonists were exterminated in concentration camps by the British
imperialists. He would destroy anything in his way, regardless of
race, age, gender or creed.
Rhodes was certainly one of the models for the character of "Kurtz" in
Joseph Conrad's famous novella "Heart of Darkness". While the novel
is more commonly associated with the Belgian Congo, and the cruder
violence of small-scale traders in ivory against the natives, it seems
clear that Conrad had in mind the broader implications of imperialism
and exploitation in general. And no one ever was better at these than
Rhodes! Fusing the "vision" of Rhodes with the crude tortures
employed by imperialistic thugs against helpless natives gets to the
"heart" of things here: religious perversion. The concept of
tortured, mutilated natives worshipping their exploiters presents a
pretty clear picture of what the capitalist-imperialists had in mind.
And, it clarifies the parallel to the Roman imperialists with their
Emperor-Gods that Conrad makes at the beginning of the book.
Because, this perversion of human nature is the "Horror" of which
Kurtz dies whispering. The reduction of religion and human purpose to
exploitation and control. Capitalism at its most extreme.
Just as in the Vietnam War, and Francis Ford Coppola's classic
adaptation of "Heart of Darkness" as "Apocalypse Now". Just as now,
with American mercenaries exploiting the people of Iraq for oil, money
and power. Aided by Vice-President Richard Cheney's private
Blackwater armies...the Horror...the Horror...
Mich...@gmail.com
A blade of metal in the hands of a surgeon can save a life, but in the
hands of a villain can take a life. Your rants seems to say "blame
the knife". News flash: evil people use whatever means are at their
disposal to do evil deeds. The question is if every knife was
destroyed would it do more harm or good. The same is true of
capitalism.
Note: These statements are in no way meant to confirm and indicate
agreement with your version of history (some of it is true, some of it
is fiction, and some I don't know).
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
I never said capitalism was all bad. Just that it has often been very
bad. As, of course, has communism. Capitalists regularly point to
Stalin as the exemplar of communism, ignoring the fact that communist
controls are what has brought China to superpower status. And, also,
ignoring the fact that the average Russian actually lived longer under
Stalin than he does now: purges and Gulags are, apparently, not as bad
for the health as poor social services.
I'm not aware of anything fictitious in what I have said. Please
specify, if you can.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Did you know that L. Ron Hubbard -- founder of the Church of
Scientology -- considered himself to be the reincarnation of Cecil
Rhodes? Interesting parallel to my notion of Capitalism as a
Religion.
Fred Weiss
> I'm not aware of anything fictitious in what I have said. Please
> specify, if you can.
You mean other than Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" having anything to do
with Cecil Rhodes?
King Leopold ll of Belgium, maybe - and the atrocities committed by
the Belgians in the Congo, almost certainly. But it had nothing to do
with Rhodes.
But when you are one of your frothing-at-the-mouth rants about
"capitalism", facts (not to mention reality) don't seem to concern you
in the least.
Fred Weiss
Zanthius
Idealism, Linux, and open source is the only system worth living for.
Michael Gordge
> As his power and wealth
> increased, he obtained the legal right...
Who gave him this "legal right"?
Where did they who gave him that "legal right", get their "legal
right" to do so from?
Your ideas are typical of the retarded lying confused scumbag left.
You're clearly blaming capitalism, which without government cronyism
intervention MUST RELY ENTIRELY upon voluntary interactions between
peaceful human beings, each and every single one seeking a greater for
lesser value in the result of their trade, as is in their nature to do
so.
You're blaming that moral system (voluntary interactions) of human
behaviour for a problem which IN REALITY CAN NLY BE created by
disgusting envy ridden socialism / tribalism / croynism.
Michael Gordge
Jerry Kraus
Well, actually, Michael, if you check it out, you can confirm that the
terms under which Rhodes had his corporation established did give him
the legal right -- granted by the British Government -- to raise
armies and to use armed force to take land and subdue the native
populations, as well as to fight the armies of the governments of
others nations.
"The BSAC had its own paramilitary police force, which was used to
control Matabeleland and Mashonaland, in present-day Zimbabwe. The
company had hoped to start a "new Rand" from the ancient gold mines of
the Shona, but the gold deposits were on a much smaller scale, so many
of the white settlers who accompanied the British South Africa Company
to Mashonaland became farmers. When the Ndebele and the Shona - the
two main, but rival tribes - separately rebelled against the coming of
the white settlers, the British South Africa Company defeated them in
the two Matabele Wars (1893-94; 1896-97)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Rhodes
You see, many in Britain were just as greedy as he was, and they
didn't give a damn how he made money, as long as he did!
Jerry Kraus
Do try to think outside the box a bit, Fred. I know it's difficult
for a bookseller, but try. Rhodes and Kurtz were visionaries,
Leopold of Beligium was not. Rhodes built a great empire, like the
Romans described at the beginning of "Heart of Darkness", who are
compared to Kurtz. Leopold just took the Congo. Rhodes established
an almost religious sense of mission amongst his "young men", as did
Kurtz. Leopold's agents were just small-scale greedy thugs. And, in
the Congo, there was never anyone remotely of the stature of Rhodes or
Kurtz. Kurtz is Rhodes, but less subtle, and more brutal. Poetic
license, you know.
Michael Vilkin
Actually, every economic system has its flaws.
Hunter-gatherers needed caves. Those who were stronger, or had bigger
sticks, they killed weaker inhabitants of caves, raped their wives,
and procreated themselves. I hate to think about it, but we all are
ancestors of those savages.
Romans destroyed Jerusalem, killed most of the men and raped most of
the women. Since then, Jews have a law that a baby of a Jewish woman
is a Jew, regardless of who donated the semen. About 100,000 young
Jews were taken to the Roman Empire as slaves. Legend has it that they
settled in the island of Sicilia and started Italian Coza Nostra.
In Russia Marxist Jews pulled off bolshevic revolution. Stalin killed
millions of people.
Who is to blame, Marxist Socialism?
Just name one economic system that makes it impossible to kill people.
I can not.
Even the theory of the most be-e-utiful system in the world -
communism - says that all people should be armed, and those that don't
want to work for common good should be lined against the wall and
shot.
Hell, don't we need communism for one year?
We would get rid of millions of worthless people. Gangs, welfare
community, carrier criminals...
Immortalist
> On Feb 20, 3:08 pm, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 20, 3:46 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'm not aware of anything fictitious in what I have said. Please
> > > specify, if you can.
>
> > You mean other than Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" having anything to do
> > with Cecil Rhodes?
>
> > King Leopold ll of Belgium, maybe - and the atrocities committed by
> > the Belgians in the Congo, almost certainly. But it had nothing to do
> > with Rhodes.
>
> > But when you are one of your frothing-at-the-mouth rants about
> > "capitalism", facts (not to mention reality) don't seem to concern you
> > in the least.
>
> > Fred Weiss
>
> Do try to think outside the box a bit, Fred. I know it's difficult
> for a bookseller, but try. Rhodes and Kurtz were visionaries,
> Leopold of Beligium was not. Rhodes built a great empire, like the
> Romans described at the beginning of "Heart of Darkness", who are
> compared to Kurtz. Leopold just took the Congo.
> Rhodes established
> an almost religious sense of mission amongst his "young men", as did
> Kurtz.
Reminds me of Weber;
Weber wrote that capitalism evolved when the Protestant (particularly
Calvinist) ethic influenced large numbers of people to engage in work
in the secular world, developing their own enterprises and engaging in
trade and the accumulation of wealth for investment. In other words,
the Protestant ethic was a force behind an unplanned and uncoordinated
mass action that led to the development of capitalism. This idea is
also known as "the Weber thesis"...
...In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber argues
that Puritan ethics and ideas influenced the development of
capitalism. Religious devotion, however, usually accompanied a
rejection of worldly affairs, including the pursuit of wealth and
possessions. Why was that not the case with Protestantism? Weber
addresses this apparent paradox in the book.
He defines spirit of capitalism as the ideas and habits that favour
the rational pursuit of economic gain. Weber points out that such a
spirit is not limited to Western culture if one considers it as the
attitude of individuals, but that such individuals -- heroic
entrepreneurs, as he calls them -- could not by themselves establish a
new economic order (capitalism). The most common tendencies were the
greed for profit with minimum effort and the idea that work was a
curse and burden to be avoided especially when it exceeded what was
enough for modest life. As he wrote in his essays:
In order that a manner of life well adapted to the peculiarities of
the capitalism... could come to dominate others, it had to originate
somewhere, and not in isolated individuals alone, but as a way of life
common to the whole groups of man.
After defining the "spirit of capitalism," Weber argues that there are
many reasons to find its origins in the religious ideas of the
Reformation. Many observers like William Petty, Montesquieu, Henry
Thomas Buckle, John Keats, and others have commented on the affinity
between Protestantism and the development of commercialism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism
> Leopold's agents were just small-scale greedy thugs. And, in
> the Congo, there was never anyone remotely of the stature of Rhodes or
> Kurtz. Kurtz is Rhodes, but less subtle, and more brutal. Poetic
> license, you know.- Hide quoted text -
Rich Rostrom
> After all, it was Rhodes who caused the Boer
>War, in which virtually all women and children of the White Boer
>colonists were exterminated in concentration camps by the British
>imperialists...
>
>Just as in the Vietnam War, and Francis Ford Coppola's classic
>adaptation of "Heart of Darkness" as "Apocalypse Now". Just as now,
>with American mercenaries exploiting the people of Iraq for oil, money
>and power. Aided by Vice-President Richard Cheney's private
>Blackwater armies...the Horror...the Horror...
The historical falsehoods in your screed
are obvious to any literate adult. One can
only conclude that this is a false flag
display to discredit criticism of capitalism
How much are you being paid for this,
you putrid tool?
--
| People say "There's a Stradivarius for sale for a |
| million," and you say "Oh, really? What's wrong |
| with it?" - Yitzhak Perlman |
Fred Weiss
> ... Kurtz is Rhodes, but less subtle, and more brutal. Poetic
> license, you know.
No, just your license.
There is no evidence I am aware of that Conrad had Rhodes in mind when
he wrote "Heart of Darkness", nor does any knowledgeable Conrad
scholar think so.
But why should your literary babblings be tainted by the truth anymore
than your screeds on political or economic theory?
Fred Weiss
ZerkonX
> Cecil Rhodes,
Carroll Quigley wrote, in The Anglo-American Establishment:
"THE RHODES SCHOLARSHIPS, established by the terms of Cecil Rhodes's
seventh will, are known to everyone. What is not so widely known is that
Rhodes in five previous wills left his fortune to form a secret society,
which was to devote itself to the preservation and expansion of the
British Empire. And what does not seem to be known to anyone is that this
secret society was created by Rhodes and his principal trustee, Lord
Milner, and continues to exist to this day."
Sean
"ZerkonX" <Z...@X.net> wrote in message news:pan.2008.02...@X.net...
Doesn't sound very "secret" to me then.
Mich...@gmail.com
Unless you have some proof as regards to the following claim that you
made this would fall into the fictitious category.
"Aided by Vice-President Richard Cheney's private
Blackwater armies"
Also whose numbers are you using when making your claims about life
under Stalin? It is estimated that 20 million people died/disappeared
durring Stalin's purges (where those people counted).
Michael Gordge
>
> Well, actually, Michael, if you check it out, you can confirm that the
> terms under which Rhodes had his corporation established did give him
> the legal right -- granted by the British Government -
"legal" does NOT mean "right", dont be silly.
If one man has no right to kill steal, then that man can not then form
a gang of himselves (e.g. via mobocracy) and grant the authority to do
so into the hands of a third party, e.g. the fucking government.
In other words, the government's right to grant Rhodes his rights was
BOGUS.
The ONLY moral right of any formed government in a civilized world is
to have the absolute monopoly on the use of retaliatory force. The
laws of any moral government are shields not swords and must be based
on nature.
Just as, to tax, is a bogus fucking right which of course the envy
ridden dopey evil anti-human fucking left never want to talk about.
If you dont like individual human beings or groups of them, (crony
capitalists) being given a bogus right to steal, then you must take
that bogus right away from the fucking government so as they dont have
it to give to anyone.
When you take away the right of the government to hand out rights,
rights which the human indivuals who form the government dont have,
when you take that power away from the government, then and only then
can you ever expect to see things get better.
Just as one lie needs another to cover the first and so on and so
forth, so toooo, one law based upon a lie, requires a zillion more to
cover the first fucking lie.
Tax is the first fucking lie.
Purge the scourge of dishonesty from politics, because until you do,
then things WILL and things DO only get worse.
Michael Gordge
Jerry Kraus
>
>
>
> > Leopold's agents were just small-scale greedy thugs. And, in
> > the Congo, there was never anyone remotely of the stature of Rhodes or
> > Kurtz. Kurtz is Rhodes, but less subtle, and more brutal. Poetic
> > license, you know.- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Immortalist, you do me too much honor. To be compared with Max Weber
-- probably the greatest and most dedicated of all sociologists -- is
a great compliment indeed. Mind you, he was pretty eccentric too!
Like Weber, I see a close liason between all forms of social
organization: religious, economic, political. Understanding these
interrelationships could solve a lot of problems, I suspect. Did you
know that Max Weber was thinking of going into politics in Germany,
just before he died rather young, in his fifties, I believe? He
probably would have figured a way to prevent the economic disasters of
the twenties in Germany and the coming of the Nazis, if he had lived.
Jerry Kraus
Well, I'll confess it is an original idea, Fred. And, I realize
original ideas do make you -- and many other people, too! -- extremely
uncomfortable.
Joseph Conrad was true genius. Twenty years a successful officer on
sail and steamships, then a novelist in French, Polish and English.
He recognized that the ruthless, grandiose brutality of Rhodes was
just as evil, if not moreso, than the crude tortures of his small-
scale competitors in the Belgian Congo. But, Rhodes killed en masse,
at a distance, through his agents. He had his doctors murder patients
suffering from smallpox, and provide false death certificates, to
cover up an epidemic that would drive away workers. He had his police
machine-gun villagers who refused to work for slave wages. He
persuaded the British Government to exterminate the entire Boer
civilian population of women and children in concentration camps in
the Boer War.
But, as Joseph Stalin observed, "one death is a tragedy, a million
deaths is a statistic". Conrad deliberately transferred the
personality characteristics of Rhodes to the smaller-scale, cruder
tortures of the Congo: severed limbs, heads impaled on spikes as
decorations, and the "unspeakable horror" -- which the narrator never
reveals -- that the narrator observes in Kurtz's hut. What could it
have been? Something with religious-sexual implications. Crucified
Natives? Disemboweled genitilia as table decorations?
Conrad was saying, that Rhodes was as bad or worse than these cruder
torturers, that he was evil personified, despite his slickness and
skill. Just like Dick Cheney.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/lifeexpectussr2.html
http://robertlindsay.blogspot.com/2007/08/joseph-stalin-worlds-greatest.html
Michael Gordge
ht...appeal to higher authority.com
In other words ewe cant defend your own fucking disgusting anti-human
ideas, thought not.
Michael Gordge
Mich...@gmail.com
suppose to give me confidence that they are correct?
> http://robertlindsay.blogspot.com/2007/08/joseph-stalin-worlds-greate...
>
> http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7023-14.cfm
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
There are three links here, from three different sources, where are
your figures?
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/lifeexpectussr2.html
http://robertlindsay.blogspot.com/2007/08/joseph-stalin-worlds-greatest.html
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7023-14.cfm
It's common knowledge that Russia is currently experience a
demographic catastrophe caused by the wonders of "Capitalism" on its
people and economy. They're dying in droves from lack of basic needs,
which were supplied to the majority of the people under Communism.
Many died, but far more lived healthier -- if not, happier -- lives
under Commun ism. Sorry, just the facts. Check it out for yourself,
if you don't believe me.
a425couple
> Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:
> This idea is also known as "the Weber thesis"...
> ...In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism,
Ahh! Someone interested in discussing Max Weber.
What newsgroup do you generally hang out in?
Sean
A major effect of this spirit, as Durkheim noted, is that the entrepreneur
performs his tasks with an earnestness of purpose that places them at the
center of his life, and endows them with intrinsic dignity. There is nothing
degrading about them. Such an approach to monetary gain is markedly
different from the sordid passion of greed, for monetary gain was not to be
used for luxury or self-indulgent bodily comfort, but rather was to be
saved, and accumulated. Neither could the resulting frugality be mistaken
for miserliness, as the accumulated resources were to be reinvested in
worthy enterprises. The spirit of capitalism constituted a sort of moral ''habitus''
which burdened the possessor of money with a steward's obligation toward his
own possessions.
Likewise, the individual entrepreneur isn't allowed to become overly
absorbed into or preoccupied with himself. His existence revolves around an
objective concern outside himself, which unceasingly demands his devotion
and thus, becomes a test of his self-worth. By its very nature, these
economic practices require reference to a goal; however, increase in capital
becomes the ultimate point of reference.
Ultimately, the point of the spirit of capitalism is to attribute moral
significance to entrepreneurial activity and lend meaning to the existence
of those committed to it.
"Fred Weiss" <fred...@papertig.com> wrote in message
news:669792c3-58f5-4caa...@u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Michael Gordge
> It's common knowledge that Russia is....
Who gives a flying fuck about you and your propganda bull shit man
made statistics?
Deal with the principle, force vs freedom.
How is the non payment of tax a worse crime than murder?
Capitalism is nothing more simple to explain than the act of peaceful
human biengs desiring to obtain, in their own minds, a greater for
lesser value in their trades via voluntary associations and exchange
with other peacful human beings.
Why the fuck would you deal with someone holding a gun at your head,
unless of course a dopey fucked in the head masochist sadisitcal
socialist / communist?
If you say you are not forced to pay tax, then (a) you're a fucking
liar and or (b) an evil anti-human masochist / sadist AND (c) you'd
support any and all calls to abolish the compulsion of it.
Fact is you ARE forced to pay tax and YOU would have it no other way.
WHY? Because you are too fucking scared and to fucking lazy to think
and act according to your own nature.
You do not like being forced to follow other's ideas, as is evident by
your irrational hatred of capitalism, and YET capitalism leaves you
alone to deal with those who you trust and who you desire to deal
with.
You support and endorse an ideology which in reality you dispise when
it happens to you, being forced to conform to values you do not freely
choose. You're a fucking hypocrite, the worst kind.
Michael Gordge
Michael Gordge
> Did you know that......
You wanted to see some figures?
How Many Did Stalin Really Murder?
By far, the consensus figure for those that Joseph Stalin murdered
when he ruled the Soviet Union is 20,000,000. You probably have come
across this many times. Just to see how numerous this total is, look
up "Stalin" and "20 million" in Google, and you will get 38,800 links.
Not all settle just on the 20,000,000. Some links will make this the
upper and some the lower limit in a range. Yet, virtually no one who
uses this estimate has gone to the source, for if they did and knew
something about Soviet history, they would realize that the 20,000,000
is a gross under estimate of what is likely the true human toll.
The figure comes from the book by Robert Conquest, The Great Terror:
Stalin's Purge of the Thirties (Macmillan 1968). In his appendix on
casualty figures, he reviews a number of estimates of those that were
killed under Stalin, and calculates that the number of executions 1936
to 1938 was probably about 1,000,000; that from 1936 to 1950 about
12,000,000 died in the camps; and 3,500,000 died in the 1930-1936
collectivization. Overall, he concludes:
Thus we get a figure of 20 million dead, which is almost certainly too
low and might require an increase of 50 percent or so, as the debit
balance of the Stalin regime for twenty-three years.
In all the times I've seen Conquest's 20,000,000 reported, not once do
I recall seeing his qualification attached to it.
Considering that Stalin died in 1953, note what Conquest did not
include -- camp deaths after 1950, and before 1936; executions
1939-53; the vast deportation of the people of captive nations into
the camps, and their deaths 1939-1953; the massive deportation within
the Soviet Union of minorities 1941-1944; and their deaths; and those
the Soviet Red Army and secret police executed throughout Eastern
Europe after their conquest during 1944-1945 is omitted. Moreover,
omitted is the deadly Ukrainian famine Stalin purposely imposed on the
region and that killed 5 million in 1932-1934. So, Conquest's
estimates are spotty and incomplete.
I did a comprehensive overview of available estimates, including those
by Conquest, and wrote a book, Lethal Politics, on Soviet democide to
provide understanding and context for my figures. I calculate that the
Communist regime, 1917-1987, murdered about 62,000,000 people, around
55,000,000 of them citizens (see Table 1.1 for a periodization of the
deaths).
As for Stalin, when the holes in Conquest's estimates are filled in, I
calculate that Stalin murdered about 43,000,000 citizens and
foreigners, over twice Conquest's total. Therefore, the usual estimate
of 20 million killed in Soviet democide is far off for the Soviet
Union per se, and even less than half of the total Stalin alone
murdered.
But, these are all statistics and hard to grasp. Compare my total of
62,000,000 for the Soviet Union and 43,000,000 for Stalin to the death
from slavery of 37,000,000 during the 16th to the 19th century; or to
the death of from 25,000,000 to 75,000,000 in the Black Death (bubonic
plague), 1347-1351, that depopulated Europe.
Another way of looking at this is that the annual risk of a person
under Soviet control being murdered by the regime was 1 out of 222.
But, compare -- the annual risk of anyone in the world dying from war
was 1 out of 5,556, from smoking a pack of cigarettes a day was 1 out
of 278, from any cancer was 1 out of 357, or for an American to die in
an auto accident was 1 out of 4,167.
Now, I must ask, with perhaps an unconscious touch of outrage in my
voice, why is this death by Marxism, so incredible and significant in
its magnitude, unknown or unappreciated compared to the importance
given slavery, cancer deaths, auto accident deaths, and so on.
Especially, especially I must add again, when unlike cancer, auto
accidents, and smoking, those deaths under Marxism in the Soviet Union
were intentionally caused? They were murdered.
Anyway, when you see again the figure of 20,000,000 deaths for Stalin
or the Soviet Union, double or triple them in your mind.
Fred Weiss
> On Feb 21, 4:32�pm, Michae...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Your numbers come from �"Maoist Internationalist Movement" and this is
> > suppose to give me confidence that they are correct?
Maybe that's also where he gets his "theory" that "Heart of Darkness"
was based on Cecil Rhodes.
> It's common knowledge that Russia is currently experience a
> demographic catastrophe caused by the wonders of "Capitalism" on its
> people and economy.
By "demographic catastrophe" do you mean its rising standard of
living? That "common knowledge"? As bad as Putin's economic policies
are - they are hardly free market in many instances - they are
infinitely better than what existed under the communists. Maybe that
at least in part explains his enormous popularity in Russia - a
popularity which however in other respects is unfortunate. Russia
could be doing even better than it is, much, much better and Putin in
many respects is thoroughly despicable.
> They're dying in droves from lack of basic needs,
> which were supplied to the majority of the people under Communism.
Supplied? You mean like waiting on long lines for bread - much of the
grain for which had to come from the US because the communists had
destroyed Russian agriculture - a failure they acknowledged by
reluctantly allowing small private plots which by the end were
supplying the majority of the country's food?
You know, there's a reason why communism simply imploded, withered
away so to speak of its own horrendous failures, whimpering and
without a fight.
Well, obviously, you don't know.
> Many died, but far more lived healthier -- if not, happier -- lives
> under Commun ism.
Uh, huh. This sort of apologetics which was common when the facts were
unknown because of censorship is one thing. To still be spouting it
now when we fully know the horrors that people endured under communism
is inexcusable.
Btw, right now when they have a choice the vast majority in eastern
European, the former Soviet Republics and the Russians themselves are
*not* voting for a return to communism. In fact they are tending
toward a far more low tax/free market approach than in western Europe.
I assume they know something, having experienced it, or heard it from
their parents.
Something which clearly you don't know - and don't care to know.
But you are another one who is really far too stupid to argue with.
Fred Weiss
no surrender
Jerry Kraus wrote:
> On Feb 21, 4:32?pm, Michae...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Your numbers come from ?"Maoist Internationalist Movement" and this is
Fred Weiss
*****
My God, I didn't know there were still any apologists for that failed
religion, communism. It was nothing more than evil thoughts put to paper by
a constipated, smelly old man in the London Public Library, and caused the
death of millions before it was finally killed. That anyone would have
anything kind to say about it is astounding.
Dennis
Jerry Kraus
> "Fred Weiss" <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote in message
http://www.personalmd.com/news/a1998031010.shtml
Life Expectancy Falls In Russia
NEW YORK (Reuters) -- The average life expectancy of Russian men
declined by more than six years between 1990-1994, researchers say,
while Russian women saw their life expectancy decline by more than
three years over the same time period.
Experts blame the trend on a post-communist surge in rates of heart
disease, suicide, homicide, and alcohol use among middle-aged
Russians.
"The rise in mortality was related to a number of factors," say
researchers reporting in the March 11th issue of The Journal of the
American Medical Association (JAMA), "including rapidly declining
social and economic conditions, poor personal health behaviors, and a
deteriorating healthcare system."
Experts at the (US) National Center for Health Statistics at the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia,
working with statisticians at MedSocEconomInform and the Ministry of
Health in Russia, tabulated and analyzed Russian mortality trends
during the years following the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
They say the overall life expectancy of Russian men declined from 63.8
years to 57.7 years, and that of Russian women from 74.4 to 71.2
years, between 1990-1994.
"In that five-year period, the annual number of (Russian) deaths rose
by almost 650,000, or about 39%," the experts say, with 65% of that
increase linked to deaths attributed to either heart disease or
injuries (including accidents, suicides, or homicides). They note that
the most dramatic rise in death rates occurred among young adults and
the middle-aged -- individuals between 25 to 64 years of age.
In comparison, the CDC experts note that US death rates continued to
fall during the first half of the 1990s. The average American man can
now expect to live an average of 72.4 years (up from 71.8 in 1990),
while American women can look forward to an average of 79 years of
life (up from 78.8 in 1990).
The researchers say that "In 1994, almost all the Russian cause-
specific death rates were substantially higher than the US rates: 2
times higher for diseases of the heart, 3.4 times higher for
homicides, 3.5 times higher for suicides, 6 times for stroke and other
injuries, and 16 times higher for other alcohol-related causes."
Alcohol may be a major factor behind declining life expectancy in the
former Soviet Union. The price of Russian alcohol has remained stable
or fallen between 1990-1994, despite a concurrent rise in the price of
food, housing, and other consumer goods. The study authors believe
rising public consumption of cheap, homemade, (and often toxic) liquor
has triggered a rise in binge drinking-related alcohol poisonings,
strokes, and violence.
Exacerbating the situation are falling incomes (38% of Russian
families now live in poverty), and steady increases in corruption and
crime. The authors believe "increasing poverty and the dissolution of
social controls may have played a key role in rising levels of
homicide and suicide in Russia."
Finally, deteriorations in the Russian healthcare system, including
what the experts call a "virtual disappearance from the market of
certain essential pharmaceutical drugs," continue to hamper both the
prevention and treatment of disease.
Still, the study authors believe that recent increases in Russian
death rates "may be coming to an end." They point out that during
1995, the life expectancy of Russian men and women actually rose, to
58.3 and 71.7 years, respectively. The study authors believe those
numbers could either signal the beginning of a turnaround, or, more
pessimistically, mark "the leveling-off of mortality rates at an
extremely high level."
In an accompanying editorial, Dr. David A. Leon of the London School
of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and Dr. Vladimir M. Shkolnikov of the
Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow note that the decline in Russian
life expectancy appears to have stopped. "In 1995 and 1996," they
write, "life expectancy at birth increased 2.2 years for men and 1.4
years for women, although these are still the lowest in more than 40
years."
Leon and Shkolnikov suggest that taking steps to reduce alcohol
consumption -- such as increasing tax on alcohol -- may help to raise
life expectancy. They also recommend "strategies to curtail tobacco's
influence," and "promotion of a more health conscious culture."
SOURCE: The Journal of the American Medical Association, (1998;279(10):
790-792, 793-800)
Jerry Kraus
Jerry Kraus
> On Feb 21, 6:01 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
My friend, every mistake made by a communsim is called a "murder", and
every murder made by a capitalist is called a "mistake", in the U.S.
So, the millions killed in Vietnam to profit the military-industrial
complex are called "collateral damage". The millions who are killed
in Iraq to profit the oil industry are called "displaced persons".
The millions who die in the U.S. because they have no health
insurance, or not enough, are simply ignored.
Jerry Kraus
>
> > Did you know that......
>
> You wanted to see some figures?
My friend, every mistake made by a communist is called a "murder",
Jerry Kraus
> "As long as I am getting rich, I feel well. It is my Presbyterian blood."
> A major effect of this spirit, as Durkheim noted, is that the entrepreneur
> performs his tasks with an earnestness of purpose that places them at the
> center of his life, and endows them with intrinsic dignity. There is nothing
> degrading about them. Such an approach to monetary gain is markedly
> different from the sordid passion of greed, for monetary gain was not to be
> used for luxury or self-indulgent bodily comfort, but rather was to be
> saved, and accumulated. Neither could the resulting frugality be mistaken
> for miserliness, as the accumulated resources were to be reinvested in
> worthy enterprises. The spirit of capitalism constituted a sort of moral ''habitus''
> which burdened the possessor of money with a steward's obligation toward his
> own possessions.
>
> Likewise, the individual entrepreneur isn't allowed to become overly
> absorbed into or preoccupied with himself. His existence revolves around an
> objective concern outside himself, which unceasingly demands his devotion
> and thus, becomes a test of his self-worth. By its very nature, these
> economic practices require reference to a goal; however, increase in capital
> becomes the ultimate point of reference.
>
> Ultimately, the point of the spirit of capitalism is to attribute moral
> significance to entrepreneurial activity and lend meaning to the existence
> of those committed to it.
>
>
> news:669792c3-58f5-4caa...@u72g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 20, 4:57 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> ... Kurtz is Rhodes, but less subtle, and more brutal. Poetic
> >> license, you know.
>
> > No, just your license.
>
> > There is no evidence I am aware of that Conrad had Rhodes in mind when
> > he wrote "Heart of Darkness", nor does any knowledgeable Conrad
> > scholar think so.
>
> > But why should your literary babblings be tainted by the truth anymore
> > than your screeds on political or economic theory?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
An interesting, and fairly accurate analysis. The true Capitalist has
a religious fervour for making money. But, as in any religion, one
must ask: is this a true God? And, as in any religion, the danger of
madness and uncontrollable obsession looms large.
ZerkonX
> Doesn't sound very "secret" to me then.
Right. Quigley let a lot of cats out of a lot of bags and he was in a
very good position to do so.
See bioblerb:
http://www.seanet.com/~barkonwd/quigley.htm
A secret can be kept by no one hearing as well as no one telling. In a
subject such as this it's more a matter of not many telling and not many
hearing.
Sean
"Jerry Kraus" <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e7abfaa7-2814-441b...@62g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
--------------------------------------------------
and then there's normal everyday people, who go about their life as best
they can no matter what they do, without all the mumbo jumbo and endless
obsessions, polarisations, and bickering about "who's the bestest in the
land".
The world's going to end if you live in a nation that happens to have a mix
of universal public /private health care services paid for by taxes and
individuals, as opposed to whatever happens in the USA as if it was some
kind of "free enterprise capitalistic nirvana" with the best of everything.
It isn't. But really, who cares?
Jerry Kraus
> "Jerry Kraus" <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sean, you're posting to a philosophy group. Philosophers like to try
to speculate on how to improve the world. Sometimes, they have good
ideas, that have some useful practical applications somewhere down the
road. Sometimes, they don't. If you don't care, why are you posting?
Sean
--------
I can only assume you have missed my drift ... :)
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, I suppose you might be effectively agreeing with me that
pursuing Capitalism, or any particular approach to a sufficiently
extreme degree, is uninteresting, undesirable and potentially
dangerous. This was Rhodes mistake. I suspect it had something to do
with his upbringing: deeply religious, son of a clergyman. He had a
deep need to feel an overwhelming sense of purpose of a relatively
simple, tangible nature. So, he turned money and the British Empire
into his Gods. And he destroyed a great many people as a direct
result of it.
A number of people here seem to think I'm some kind of hard core
communist, which I am not. I'm merely pointing out that some of the
condemnations of Communism are somewhat extreme and unbalanced. It
has its pros and cons, as does Capitalism. I had a friend once who's
father had escaped from Bulgaria after the second world war. He asked
his father what the difference was between Capitalism and Communism.
You know what he said?
"Not a thing."
Michael Gordge
>
> My friend,
In your fucking dreams, I wouldn't even waste my piss on you if you
caught fire.
> every mistake made by a communist is called a "murder",
200 million fucking mistakes? Pigs fucking arse. They were DELIBERATE
EXECUTIONS you lying fucking commie scumbag.
Not to even mention the 10's of million of DELIBERATE deaths and
absolute human misery in communist China last century. Fucking
communist North Korea where even today millions die and suffer in
absolute agony I suppose they are mistakes too?
What a fucking disgusting creep you are. How fucking dare you in the
21st century even think for a moment that fucking anti-human communism
has something other than absolute fucking misery to offer the world.
Fuck off and drop dead you fucking retard.
Michael Gordge
Sean
Sean:
Yes, pretty much I do agree with the thrust of the principles you are
presenting. Most people especially on ng's wear thick blinkers, and much of
the commentary and insults are quite unbalanced. Some think they already
live in Libertaria in the USA .. it's weird, they don't. It's a regulated
and controlled "market" and highly subsidised with taxes being redistributed
for any number of reasons. Illusions abound, and those that point fingers or
label others as socialist scum as if it;s a crime, and those that have
nothing better to do than complain about the way other countries run their
health care as one example are simply insecure about themselves and their
own system. Sure are ill-informed and not grasping the bigger picture.
Nothing is perfect .... because humans are not perfect. Doesn't matter what
system. They all need some improvement, all get manipulated in some form.
-----------------------------------------------
This was Rhodes mistake. I suspect it had something to do
with his upbringing: deeply religious, son of a clergyman. He had a
deep need to feel an overwhelming sense of purpose of a relatively
simple, tangible nature. So, he turned money and the British Empire
into his Gods. And he destroyed a great many people as a direct
result of it.
A number of people here seem to think I'm some kind of hard core
communist, which I am not. I'm merely pointing out that some of the
condemnations of Communism are somewhat extreme and unbalanced. It
has its pros and cons, as does Capitalism. I had a friend once who's
father had escaped from Bulgaria after the second world war. He asked
his father what the difference was between Capitalism and Communism.
You know what he said?
"Not a thing."
Sean:
Labels .... never tell the true story. People act like people in every
respect and range of possibilities, no matter what label of system one puts
on it. Extremism and obsession more often than not lead to unbalance in the
individual. It's a choice, and it;s a lesson. There's always something new
to learn about Life. Therefore the variations and possibilities, cheers
Fred Weiss
> Still, the study authors believe that recent increases in Russian
> death rates "may be coming to an end." They point out that during
> 1995, the life expectancy of Russian men and women actually rose, to
> 58.3 and 71.7 years, respectively.
Do you realize that it is 2008? If you don't it might explain the
feeling I often get that you seem to reside in an alternative universe
of your own bizarre imagining.
Average life expectancy in Russia is now about 66 years.
It did decline for a relatively brief period immediately after the
collapse of the Soviet Union, which is understandable. The economy
inherited from communism was a disaster and the policies enacted to
replace it were erratic and inconsistent.
But it should also be noted that life expectancy was also declining in
the period *prior to* the collapse of communism. For example, "life
expectancy for men, 66 years in the mid-1960s, sagged to 62 years by
the early 1980s".
As for the purported life expectancy numbers under Stalin, they have
about as much credence as tractor production figures or any of the
other phony numbers hailing the "great achievements" of Stalin which
were continually fed to the western press or the Russian people.
The relatively low life expectancy numbers in Russia are likely more a
factor of notorious life-style and cultural factors, including their
long-standing fondness for Vodka taken in large quantities.
I should also add that life expectancy/child mortality numbers are
predictably cited by socialist apologists to the exclusion of almost
all else because it is about the only positive thing that can be said
about those regimes. It only needs to be pointed out that living a few
extra years under tyranny and impoverishment is not exactly an
unqualified positive.
If people lived longer in prison, it wouldn't follow that we should
imprison the population.
Fred Weiss
Jerry Kraus
Michael...you're so...so...articulate.
Jerry Kraus
The point I'm making is simply that the social services offered under
Communist systems like Cuba are often superior to those available
under renegade and extreme Capitalist monstrosities like the current
U.S. Which, of course, is in the process of either collapsing or
being totally restructured. And that the lack of basic services kills
millions of people. Why not providing these services is not
considered "murder" in the U.S., I'm not quite sure. It would be in
Europe, where the state of the U.S. is considered a disgrace.
Your point about institutionalization increasing life expectancy is
interesting. Do you think that's why married couples live longer?
Or, is it just because someone's around to call an ambulance if you
have a stroke or heart attack? There may be a trade-off between
personal freedom and personal health and well-being, to some extent.
I'm all for personal freedom, but it always has its limits. The
limits imposed by the obsession with private property in this country
result in a massive legal system and an enormous amount of
litigation. Surely, this is as much a limitation on personal freedom
as the taxes and wealth redistribution practiced in Europe. With less
obvious constructive result.
Oh, by the way, I've been personally invited by the director of
Crocodyl.org -- a non-profit dedicated to corporate accountability --
to do a company profile of De Beers, on the basis of the title article
in this thread. Think I can put them out of business?
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oversimplification and stupidity certainly do as much damage a overt
malice. "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain."
Michael Gordge
> Michael...you're so...so...articulate.
I have a special bag of nouns and adjectives reserved to correctly
identify anti-human scumbag fucking queer retarded knuckle-dragging
issue avoiding cowardly simpleton dimbulb Marxist come Mugabe
parasitical disgusting commie cunts like ewe.
Michael Gordge
Strange Creature
> I never said capitalism was all bad. Just that it has often been very
> bad. As, of course, has communism. Capitalists regularly point to
> Stalin as the exemplar of communism, ignoring the fact that communist
> controls are what has brought China to superpower status. And, also,
> ignoring the fact that the average Russian actually lived longer under
> Stalin than he does now: purges and Gulags are, apparently, not as bad
> for the health as poor social services.
>
> I'm not aware of anything fictitious in what I have said. Please
> specify, if you can.
You are implying that communist controls
are what brought China to near superpower
status.
It has been put forth that if there were
no Mao, the spinoff effects from
Capitalism from Japan would have
made China far stronger in the present
day than it is now. It has also been
suggested at times that it was only when
Communism was partially repealed
from China in the 1980s that its economy
took off and it became relatively more
powerful..
This could be argued back and forth as
being true or not true, but the implication
that the idea that you put forth as
incontrontovertable as being 'true' rather
than debatable, but at the same time
being 'ignored' is false.
Since you were posting to soc.history.what-if,
what is the point of departure of your post?
Is the 'what-if' 'What if there were no
Cecil B Rhodes?' 'What if there were no
British colonies in Africa in the 1800s?"
'What if there were no European colonies
in Africa in the 1800s or in any other time
period?' 'What if there were no Communism?'
'What if there were no Capitalism?' Or is the
post about 'What is religion?' or 'What if there
were no religion?', if you bothered to
give some clear statement regarding
the first question.
If you are going to pontificate as
unequivocally true your set of ideas,
and at the same time crosspost to
soc.history.what-if, at least bother
to insert what the 'what-if' is.
forbi...@msn.com
Darn, now my comment about Harry Dope really being A. Harry
Knuckle-Dragger seem like plagiarism. The phrase hasn't been
heavily used recently and now I post then read the same phrase
in one day.
Jerry Kraus
wrote:
Good point. Thanks for asking. I've posted to the soc.history.what-
if site, among several others, because I'm aware there are some pretty
good historians on the site, and there are some controversial
historical issues I'm bringing up here, which I think are worth
debating, discussing and postulating "what-if's" about. For example:
- what if, Cecil Rhodes, with his personality, had been located in the
Belgian Congo, like Kurtz in "heart of darkness". Would he not have
been very much like Kurtz: more crudely brutal, more inclined to
encourage idolatry from the natives themselves, smaller scale in his
operations?
- what if, no character like Cecil Rhodes had ever appeared in
Southern Africa. Would there have been a Boer War, would the British
had conquered half of Africa?
- what if, the Europeans had never developed their technological
advantages allowing the development of imperialism. Would modern
Capitalism have ever developed?
- what if, a nation does NOT have a technological edge over its
competitors. Any nation: Rome, Greece, Britain, Spain, America etvc.
Can a nation without a profound technological advantage actually be
purely capitalist, in the normal sense of the term? Can a nation be
capitalist without being imperialist?
- what if, there were no religion. What effect would this have, if
any, on economics and politics?
Jerry Kraus
I repeat, "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain."
Michael Gordge
>
> I repeat,
Thats how ewe became a fucking queer commie cunt, it was drummed into
you until you started repeating it and believing it yourself. Fuck
off.
MG
Strange Creature
> - what if, the Europeans had never developed their technological
> advantages allowing the development of imperialism. Would modern
> Capitalism have ever developed?
>
> - what if, a nation does NOT have a technological edge over its
> competitors. Any nation: Rome, Greece, Britain, Spain, America etvc.
> Can a nation without a profound technological advantage actually be
> purely capitalist, in the normal sense of the term? Can a nation be
> capitalist without being imperialist?
In a lot of ways the technological advantages
that the Europeans had from the 1400s to
the 1700s was a spinoff of the emergence
of the institution of science during that
time period. The knowledge and capability
from the institutions was not transmitted as
rapidly to other areas, giving advantage to
the relative location of origin.
The rates of this happening was different
in comparison with the 20th century,
where you had radio, television, the
internet, and the like.
This could merge into the question,
could one have had an industrial
revolution like had happened in the
later 1700s in England, and throughout
the 1800s in much of Europe and
the United States, if there were
no scientific institutions, universities,
or the like that had been developed
earlier? I think that has already
been done an array of times in
soc.history.what-if.
> - what if, there were no religion. What effect would this have, if
> any, on economics and politics?
Again, you have to generate definitions.
In an ancient polytheistic context, the
belief in the existance of alternate or
lesser gods and faiths, which can act
in parallel and at the same time as
that of other greater gods, can
merge with the simple idea, that ideas or
general phenomenon exist, and can be
exhibited in various specific forms.
Deism, theism, and atheism can
exist in various forms in different
contexts, and organized religion
can exist without theism (most
noteable in some types of
Buddhism).
Organized religion in Europe
and the Middle East in the
middle ages, and the institutions
of science which grew up later
on, seem somewhat distinguishable
from each other, or other phenomenon
also, as either an institution or a
theoretical category. If you are
talking about something earlier than
classical Greece, however, it is
not often even easy to draw a distinction
on either level simply between the two.
Roy Jose Lorr
> On Feb 20, 1:57 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 20, 3:08 pm, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Feb 20, 3:46 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>I'm not aware of anything fictitious in what I have said. Please
>>>>specify, if you can.
>>
>>>with Cecil Rhodes?
>>
>>>King Leopold ll of Belgium, maybe - and the atrocities committed by
>>>the Belgians in the Congo, almost certainly. But it had nothing to do
>>>with Rhodes.
>>
>>>But when you are one of your frothing-at-the-mouth rants about
>>>"capitalism", facts (not to mention reality) don't seem to concern you
>>>in the least.
>>
>>>Fred Weiss
>>
>>Do try to think outside the box a bit, Fred. I know it's difficult
>>for a bookseller, but try. Rhodes and Kurtz were visionaries,
>>Leopold of Beligium was not. Rhodes built a great empire, like the
>>Romans described at the beginning of "Heart of Darkness", who are
>>compared to Kurtz. Leopold just took the Congo.
>
>
>>Rhodes established
>>an almost religious sense of mission amongst his "young men", as did
>>Kurtz.
>
>
> Reminds me of Weber;
>
> Weber wrote that capitalism evolved when the Protestant (particularly
> Calvinist) ethic influenced large numbers of people to engage in work
> in the secular world, developing their own enterprises and engaging in
> trade and the accumulation of wealth for investment. In other words,
> the Protestant ethic was a force behind an unplanned and uncoordinated
> mass action that led to the development of capitalism. This idea is
> also known as "the Weber thesis"...
>
> ...In The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Weber argues
> that Puritan ethics and ideas influenced the development of
> capitalism. Religious devotion, however, usually accompanied a
> rejection of worldly affairs, including the pursuit of wealth and
> possessions. Why was that not the case with Protestantism? Weber
> addresses this apparent paradox in the book.
>
> He defines spirit of capitalism as the ideas and habits that favour
> the rational pursuit of economic gain. Weber points out that such a
> spirit is not limited to Western culture if one considers it as the
> attitude of individuals, but that such individuals -- heroic
> entrepreneurs, as he calls them -- could not by themselves establish a
> new economic order (capitalism). The most common tendencies were the
> greed for profit with minimum effort and the idea that work was a
> curse and burden to be avoided especially when it exceeded what was
> enough for modest life. As he wrote in his essays:
>
> In order that a manner of life well adapted to the peculiarities of
> the capitalism... could come to dominate others, it had to originate
> somewhere, and not in isolated individuals alone, but as a way of life
> common to the whole groups of man.
>
> After defining the "spirit of capitalism," Weber argues that there are
> many reasons to find its origins in the religious ideas of the
> Reformation. Many observers like William Petty, Montesquieu, Henry
> Thomas Buckle, John Keats, and others have commented on the affinity
> between Protestantism and the development of commercialism.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism
Capitalism precedes any religious manipulation of the prime directives:
Live, Eat, Multiply.
Jerry Kraus
> Live, Eat, Multiply.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I believe your conception of Capitalism is rather similar to my own:
short term Greed, based on basic human instincts and desires. What is
called "freedom" in the United States is simply the ability to satisfy
one's immediate desires to a very high degree, or completely. The
religious component is superimposed upon it. Thus, bible-belt
Christians frequently insist that "Jesus" will provide all needs for
money, pleasure or power, simply when asked. There is certainly
nothing to justify this in the New Testament, and not much in the Old
Testament. Christianity is a transcendental religion, designed to
provide a refuge and defence against the overwhelming power of the
Roman Empire through propaganda and mysticism: in particular, the
belief in an afterlife. The fusion of Christianity and Capitalism in
the U.S. is a bizarre perversion yielding very peculiar offspring:
Churches with ATM machines for making donations, "Prison Ministries"
exploiting and controlling prisoners as slaves to the Church,
Political Machines based on the religious right from a religion that
says "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's":ignore politics.
The question is, just how confusing and dangerous are the perverse
associations between religion and Capitalism?
Roy Jose Lorr
Actually, religion in all its guises seeks to mitigate raw reality.
Some succeed more so than others, albeit at greater expense to the
utopian freedoms they expound. Once joined in the course of human
events it is impossible to separate economics and politics from
religion. Though we've come to classify schizophrenia (believing two
opposed concepts at the same time) as a mental disorder it is in reality
necessarily inherent in the human condition, for without the protection
this natural defense mechanism provides, humans would be too sane to
survive.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
I see religion, at its best, as being an alternative to conventional
systems: a source of inspiration and creativity. When it becomes a
tool of the powerful and a control structure based on irrational
desires and impossible goals, it becomes highly destructive and very
dangerous. This is, I believe, the real message of Joseph Conrad's
"Heart of Darkness". And, as I have said, I am quite convinced that
the "Kurtz" character in that novella is Cecil Rhodes, transplanted to
the crude, simple, vicious torture and idolatry of the Belgian Congo
in an effort to analyze and demystify his power over the British
people. Rhodes had been successful on such a grand scale that it was
hard to think of him as a lunatic in 1900. But, in fact, that's what
he was. A religious visionary with no religion other than destruction
and greed. And calling it "social darwinism" or "perfecting the
species". It should come as no surprise that the Nazis greatly
admired Cecil Rhodes. They were playing the same game.
Roy Jose Lorr
It is the game of least resistance.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's an interesting and rather accurate way of putting it. Social
Darwinism, and free-market Capitalism are very largely just a matter
of taking the path of least resistance: the easy, obvious, convenient,
and most direct path to sources of gratification. Sometimes, this can
work very well. But, not infrequently, the path of least resistance
can lead to cul-de-sacs, unforseen obstacles or -- falling over
cliffs! Analysis and foresight are always desirable and sometimes
essential. But, the greedy, the foolish and the impatient -- Cecil
Rhodes, Adolf Hitler, Richard Cheney, are examples -- choose the
immediate and short-term, over long terms benefits. And their short-
term successes lead to longer term disasters.
Roy Jose Lorr
Our lives are extremely short and so necessarily is our capacity for
long term planning. We try mightily to devise plans for the future that
will avoid the disastrous plans we've made in the past but the result is
always the same: more of the same. Fortunately we are in that cul de
sac you mention and not by accident. It goes with the territory of
surviving in a binary universe. Though we comprehend the mistakes we
make after the facts there is no way to avoid repeating them. The
perfect world we dream of is not possible in our physical universe, all
is transient. In fact, reaching toward utopia in a world where there is
no possibility of permanence is the most persistent of our repeated
flawed plans. It leads to our perpetually revisiting the worst in us:
rampant homicidal mania. We are a curious species which cannot learn to
live peacefully within our nature.
Its good to be an iconoclast but when has an iconoclast ever come up
with a viable solution to any perceived discrepancy in the human
condition. Perhaps the answer is that there are no real remedies for
natural faults other than those of a moral nature. Man is prone to
taking the most expedient moral or immoral road open to him: the course
of least resistance. It seems to me that however base and mean we
adjudge ourselves we are purposely set in our ways for good reason:
survival. Sadly, the only plan able to mitigate the harsh outcomes
inherent in the business of survival is the most universally rejected.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
It seems to me you are lapsing into a mystical pessimism. There have
been no shortage of real improvements in the human condition through
scientific/philosophical inconoclasts like Buddha, Aristotle, Jesus,
Giordano Bruno, Newton, Ghandi, Einstein. Not to mention technical
innovators like Archimedes, Galileo, Benjamin Franklin, Louis Pasteur,
Thomas Edison, Nicola Tesla, Alexander Fleming, Jonas Salk. What we
need to watch and control are charismatic megalomaniacs like Rhodes,
Hitler and Richard Cheney!
Michael Gordge
> They're dying in droves from lack of basic needs,
> which were supplied to the majority of the people under Communism.
> Many died, but far more lived healthier -- if not, happier -- lives
> under Commun ism. Sorry, just the facts. Check it out for yourself,
> if you don't believe me.
People dying happy.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime
III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS
8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan's Savage Military
9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey's Genocidal Purges
11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland's Ethnic Cleansing
13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State
14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito's Slaughterhouse
IV 4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS
15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea
16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico
17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia
Roy Jose Lorr
Interesting that you use 'mystical pessimism' to describe my mind set
when that is precisely the term I would use to describe the universal
way people have always responded to their surroundings. There isn't
room or time to go down your list to show that everyone on it fits the
same human condition I describe. However, from Buddha to Cheney they
all do. Tools change, the humans that make them don't.
Sean
"Michael Gordge" <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:247c0230-9665-4541...@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
People dying happy.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
---------------------------------------
You overlooked the happy people dying in Iraq 1991-2008
And Apartied un-democratic South Africa, and many many more.
As an advert for Funeral Insurance says "People die often."
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
You sound like a nihilist. I don't go that far. I see good and bad,
or, more precisely, degrees of good and bad. Everything is grey, to
some extent. But, I don't see Hitler and Ghandi as being equivalent,
or close to it!
One area in which I differ from our agressive friend Michael Gordge,
is that I don't always go along with conventional judgements of good
and bad. These change all the time. So, I see Stalin and Mao as
having had their pros and cons. Rather than seeing them as having
"murdered", I see them as having made some mistakes, while, on the
whole, having vastly improved the standard of living for their
people. And rather than seeing the early deaths of the poor and
underprivileged in Capitalist societies as somehow being their own
fault, I blame, to some extent, the rich and powerful who exploit them
in Capitalist societies.
Jerry Kraus
> "Michael Gordge" <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
> You overlooked the happy people dying in Iraq 1991-2008
>
> And Apartied un-democratic South Africa, and many many more.
>
> As an advert for Funeral Insurance says "People die often."
Or, the people who die from lack of adequate Health Insurance in the
U.S.
Or, the people whose lives are destroyed by childhood poverty, lack of
proper health care, and lack of educational opportunities in the U.S.
While the extremely wealthy party on their backs, and laugh at them!
Roy Jose Lorr
If anything, I am the opposite of a nihilist... as a believer in Moses'
God, I am forbidden nihilistic leanings. On the other hand, relativism
and nihilism, are entrenched features in the asylums where schizophrenia
is transmogrified into a legitimized definition of sanity.
There is good and there is bad: there is no middle ground between them,
no gray areas, no cracks in the ether in which to hide from that
mutually contradictory pair. The universe is binary as are its parts...
all is composed of paired opposites.
>
> One area in which I differ from our agressive friend Michael Gordge,
> is that I don't always go along with conventional judgements of good
> and bad. These change all the time. So, I see Stalin and Mao as
> having had their pros and cons. Rather than seeing them as having
> "murdered", I see them as having made some mistakes, while, on the
> whole, having vastly improved the standard of living for their
> people. And rather than seeing the early deaths of the poor and
> underprivileged in Capitalist societies as somehow being their own
> fault, I blame, to some extent, the rich and powerful who exploit them
> in Capitalist societies.
Why do you feel the need to act as an apologist for communism's monsters?
Jerry Kraus
> Why do you feel the need to act as an apologist for communism's monsters?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well...it was Communism that stopped Hitler. It was Communism that
finally got the Chinese back on their feet after over one hundred
years of being abused and exploited by the Western powers and Japan.
It was Communism that provided the incentive for Europe and the United
States to adopt social programs and supports to help people and
society. While not a Communist myself -- I think it's too extreme --
I'm certainly a Socialist. Swedish style social democracy seems to
be the best political system currently in the modern world.
As for the God of Moses, well, what exactly is "he/she/it"? I've been
studying Hebrew a bit lately, and the passage in Genesis that is often
translated as "God created man in his image, after his likeness"
really is much closer to "God created man as an idol, as an image."
In other words, the difference between God and man is as great as the
difference between man and one of his graven images! God is
incomprehensible and undefinable, by definition. The concept of
Western Monotheism is simply an attempt to understand reality
abstractly at all levels, without recourse to idols, images or any
other conventional, tangible object. And that is NOT simply paired
opposites, I'm afraid!
Roy Jose Lorr
> On Feb 26, 1:52 pm, Roy Jose Lorr <ken...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Jerry Kraus wrote:
>
>
>>If anything, I am the opposite of a nihilist... as a believer in Moses'
>>God, I am forbidden nihilistic leanings. On the other hand, relativism
>>and nihilism, are entrenched features in the asylums where schizophrenia
>>is transmogrified into a legitimized definition of sanity.
>>
>>There is good and there is bad: there is no middle ground between them,
>>no gray areas, no cracks in the ether in which to hide from that
>>mutually contradictory pair. The universe is binary as are its parts...
>> all is composed of paired opposites.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>One area in which I differ from our agressive friend Michael Gordge,
>>>is that I don't always go along with conventional judgements of good
>>>and bad. These change all the time. So, I see Stalin and Mao as
>>>having had their pros and cons. Rather than seeing them as having
>>>"murdered", I see them as having made some mistakes, while, on the
>>>whole, having vastly improved the standard of living for their
>>>people. And rather than seeing the early deaths of the poor and
>>>underprivileged in Capitalist societies as somehow being their own
>>>fault, I blame, to some extent, the rich and powerful who exploit them
>>>in Capitalist societies.
>>
>>Why do you feel the need to act as an apologist for communism's monsters?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> Well...it was Communism that stopped Hitler.
Hardly. There is not a hairs breadth of difference between nazism and
communism. They are both brands of liberal fascism.
It was Communism that
> finally got the Chinese back on their feet after over one hundred
> years of being abused and exploited by the Western powers and Japan.
China is only now getting back on its feet by adopting capitalist
economic measures.
> It was Communism that provided the incentive for Europe and the United
> States to adopt social programs and supports to help people and
> society.
I see, gulags asylums and homicidal mania are fine examples of social
reform that should be implemented in the capitalist West.
While not a Communist myself -- I think it's too extreme --
> I'm certainly a Socialist. Swedish style social democracy seems to
> be the best political system currently in the modern world.
Tell in your own words how you define Socialism.
>
> As for the God of Moses, well, what exactly is "he/she/it"?
God is the One Singularity that exists.
I've been
> studying Hebrew a bit lately, and the passage in Genesis that is often
> translated as "God created man in his image, after his likeness"
> really is much closer to "God created man as an idol, as an image."
Actually, your understanding of the passage is flawed. God did not
create man to resemble Himself... He created man as He imagined him.
Whichever language you use to read the Five Books of Moses (Genesis -
Deuteronomy) and the Book was given to be understood in every language
in the world, you should try harder to comprehend what you read.
> In other words, the difference between God and man is as great as the
> difference between man and one of his graven images!
Much greater. Man and his idols are captives of the physical
universe... God has no such limitation.
God is
> incomprehensible and undefinable, by definition.
Except for what God tells us about Himself.
The concept of
> Western Monotheism is simply an attempt to understand reality
> abstractly at all levels, without recourse to idols, images or any
> other conventional, tangible object. And that is NOT simply paired
> opposites, I'm afraid!
I'm afraid, you're way out of your depth here. Unless of course you can
explain how paired opposites are not consistent with monotheism or
anything else for that matter. If you do make the attempt do try to
keep the physical and metaphysical duly separated according to their
relationship as opposite pairs.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Since you're making metaphysical requirements and demands, I'm afraid
you're going to have to specify what system you are referring to.
Jewish Kabbalah? Hegelian Dialectics? Aristotelian Metaphysics?
Please, it is exceedingly vain to presuppose that your chosen
metaphysics are the only possible, in reality. Everything is
debatable, including fundamentals.
Roy Jose Lorr
I make no demands. I merely requested that you chose any system you
like, fundamental, metaphysical or otherwise that shows 'paired
opposites are not consistent with monotheism or anything else for that
matter.' Until you do there is no debate.
knucmo
A timely reminder.
If this doesn't discredit Marxist regimes in general, I don't know
what does.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are making a small error or two. These aren't Marxist regimes, in
most cases. And many of the people you say were "murdered" simply
died. People do. All of us.
Don't confuse right-wing Capitalist propaganda with the truth.
Capitalism's killed far more people than Communism ever has. They
just call it "collateral damage", or "people who don't know how to
take care of themselves", or, even, "people who were in the way".
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm simply saying that paired opposites are not the be-all and end-all
of philosophical analysis. They have their points, but limiting
oneself to a single analytical approach is simplistic and can lead to
confusion and crudeness.
Roy Jose Lorr
I did not ask that you confine yourself to one analytical approach. I
suggested the opposite: that you chose any approach you desire to
explain your assertion that 'paired opposites are not consistent with
monotheism'. Confusion and rudeness are both subject to remedy.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
I stated that monotheism could not be fully understand "simply in
terms of paired opposites". Not my conception of monotheism, which is
a comprehensive picture of the universe, and of reality as a whole.
Paired opposites are not the be-all and end-all of philosophy. Do you
have some deep personal attachment to paired opposites? Any single
approach will only take you so far, you know.
knucmo
<jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> A timely reminder.
>>
>> If this doesn't discredit Marxist regimes in general, I don't know
>> what does.- Hide quoted text -
>You are making a small error or two. These aren't Marxist regimes, in
>most cases.
6 of the regimes above all ascribed to the following tenets:
Planned economy
Collective farming
Nationalization
Single party state
Repression of civil liberties
Propaganda glorifying Marxism
That qualifies them as Marxist States.
> And many of the people you say were "murdered" simply
>died. People do. All of us.
Yeah, they simply died by rotting in the gulags, or they simply died
as a result of an inconvenient show-trial.
>Don't confuse right-wing Capitalist propaganda with the truth.
>Capitalism's killed far more people than Communism ever has.
Incorrect - capitalism nor communism doesn't kill anyone - they are
belief systems often invoked in the name of killing people. Marxist
regimes can and do people, and there is no 'bourgeois morality' to can
get in the way of this, as such bourgeois morality is dismissed by
Marx and Engels.
Capitalist regimes do kill people too, but not on the scale of those
above, and technically speaking, there is no justification for
militarism with capitalism.
> They
>just call it "collateral damage", or "people who don't know how to
>take care of themselves", or, even, "people who were in the way".
Just like those who resisted collectivisation were' kulaks' and
dismissed as 'class traitors' who got in the way.
Fred Weiss
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 07:28:13 -0800 (PST), Jerry Kraus
> >> If this doesn't discredit Marxist regimes in general, I don't know
> >> what does.- Hide quoted text -
> >You are making a small error or two. These aren't Marxist regimes, in
> >most cases.
>
> 6 of the regimes above all ascribed to the following tenets:....
The point of these charts is to illustrate that communist regimes have
been responsible for killing far more people than even the Nazis, who
are generally considered the modern paradigm of mass murderers.
Liberals - and of course outright Leftists - have not been overly
eager to make this fact known - and as you see here are often in open
denial on the subject.
> > And many of the people you say were "murdered" simply
> >died. People do. All of us.
>
> Yeah, they simply died by rotting in the gulags, or they simply died
> as a result of an inconvenient show-trial.
Or mostly of famine caused by communist economic policies, most
especially forced collectivization of agriculture.
> >Don't confuse right-wing Capitalist propaganda with the truth.
> >Capitalism's killed far more people than Communism ever has.
>
> Incorrect - capitalism nor communism doesn't kill anyone - they are
> belief systems often invoked in the name of killing people.
I don't know anyone who has ever invoked capitalism, per se, as a
justification for deliberately killing anyone. Leftists have made the
charge to take the heat off of their own mass slaughter and otherwise
disastrous economic policies.
Capitalism has in fact been a liberator. Its ascendancy resulted in
the abolition of slavery and the implementation of greatly expanded
rights for women. Even apart from legal rights, it gave women for the
first time the opportunity to be freed from the shackles and drudgery
of housework and childrearing. It gave the poor and workers vastly
increased opportunities to improve their standard of living and, in
the process of raising the standard of living and greatly expanding
the middle class, it freed children from the necessity of working
(which had always been true in the eras prior to capitalism). etc.
Fred Weiss
Christopher A. Lee
<fred...@papertig.com> wrote:
>On Feb 27, 7:38 pm, knucmo <knucmo23...@433234.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 07:28:13 -0800 (PST), Jerry Kraus
>
>> >> If this doesn't discredit Marxist regimes in general, I don't know
>> >> what does.- Hide quoted text -
>> >You are making a small error or two. These aren't Marxist regimes, in
>> >most cases.
>>
>> 6 of the regimes above all ascribed to the following tenets:....
>
>The point of these charts is to illustrate that communist regimes have
>been responsible for killing far more people than even the Nazis, who
>are generally considered the modern paradigm of mass murderers.
>Liberals - and of course outright Leftists - have not been overly
>eager to make this fact known - and as you see here are often in open
>denial on the subject.
A liar as well as an idiot.
Jerry Kraus
Well, Fred, to give a very simple illustration, during the early
industrial revolution in England -- a very capitalist period indeed --
the average rich man lived twice as long as the average member of the
lower classes. They ate better, had cleaner water, didn't have to
work as hard. In other words, the richer elements of the population
were systematically killing the poor, through social controls. Things
haven't really changed all that much. You choose to say Communists
kill, Capitalists don't. That is a lie.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, Chris, to give a very simple illustration, during the early
Christopher A. Lee
Where do I do that?
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ah, I thought you were agreeing with our bookseller friend, Fred. Was
I mistaken?
Jerry Kraus
Uh, Fred, black slavery was entirely a creation of Capitalism. Ask a
black man. They don't say that the slave traders were communists or
socialists. They say that they were greedy, capitalist bastards
exploiting people for money, the way greedy capitalist bastards always
do. Indeed, black slavery was enormously increased by that charming
inventor Eli Whitney, who invented the cotten gin. This provided an
unlimited capacity to process cotten, but slaves were still needed to
pick it. So, the more slaves, the more money you made. Indeed, I've
even written a little ditty a few years ago about this little
Capitalist/Slave interlude, and Eli Whitney's role in it. I present
it for your delectation:
The Ballad of Eli Whitney
Let me tell you the story 'bout a man they say
Changed the course of history.
He wasn't any soldier , and he wasn't any King,
But he sure was a wizard when he fabricated things.
He's the first one mentioned of inventor's fame,
Eli Whitney was his name.
Chorus:
Old Eli didn't give a damn,
Because he was an Engineering Man,
"I like makin' money and I'm good with my hands,"
"And I don't really give a damn."
Now Eli was a farmer's boy,
He learned his fabricatin' on the fly,
He could fix any tractor, he could make them spry,
But they still only paid him for cleaning out the sty.
"Now Eli, you're a genius Man,"
"But we don't really give a damn."
Chorus:
Old Eli didn't give a damn,
Because he was an Engineering Man,
"I like makin' money and I'm good with my hands,"
"And I don't really give a damn."
So Eli went down Harvard's way,
An education will make them pay,
A genius with a good degree,
And a first-class referee,
Can find a rich man who'll employ
Him as a tutor/servant/toy.
Chorus:
Old Eli didn't give a damn,
Because he was an Engineering Man,
"I like makin' money and I'm good with my hands,"
"And I don't really give a damn."
There Eli went and plied his trade
Finding new things to be made.
He thought it would be no sin
To come up with a cotton gin.
In just one day he had that sucker made.
Revolutionized the cotton trade.
Chorus:
Old Eli didn't give a damn,
Because he was an Engineering Man,
"I like makin' money and I'm good with my hands,"
"And I don't really give a damn."
But this time round, the Black Man's pain,
Didn't turn to Eli's gain,
All that money for the Northern Plants,
Not a cent in Eli's pants.
Eli learned his lesson well.
He must first control and sell.
Chorus:
Old Eli didn't give a damn,
Because he was an Engineering Man,
"I like makin' money and I'm good with my hands,"
"And I don't really give a damn."
So bein' a practical sorta guy,
Eli went the normal way
"If I wanna make money, it's no joke,"
"I better get to killen' folk."
So to put money in his pants,
He went into armaments.
Chorus:
Old Eli didn't give a damn,
Because he was an Engineering Man,
"I like makin' money and I'm good with my hands,"
"And I don't really give a damn."
(c) Copyright Jerome Raymond Kraus 2005
Jerry Kraus
> (c) Copyright Jerome Raymond Kraus 2005- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
If I do say so myself, I think this little ballad holds up rather
well. It summarizes Capitalism, too!
Fred Weiss
> Well, Fred, to give a very simple illustration, during the early
> industrial revolution in England -- a very capitalist period indeed --
> the average rich man lived twice as long as the average member of the
> lower classes. They ate better, had cleaner water, didn't have to
> work as hard. In other words, the richer elements of the population
> were systematically killing the poor, ...
That's a non-sequitur.
>.... Things haven't really changed all that much.
Oh, yes they have.
What hasn't changed is the quality of your arguments on this ng which
remain characteristically ignorant and illogical.
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
> On Feb 28, 6:13 am, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:
> > Capitalism has in fact been a liberator. Its ascendancy resulted in
> > the abolition of slavery and the implementation of greatly expanded
> > rights for women. Even apart from legal rights, it gave women for the
> > first time the opportunity to be freed from the shackles and drudgery
> > of housework and childrearing. It gave the poor and workers vastly
> > increased opportunities to improve their standard of living and, in
> > the process of raising the standard of living and greatly expanding
> > the middle class, it freed children from the necessity of working
> > (which had always been true in the eras prior to capitalism). etc.
>
> > Fred Weiss
>
> Uh, Fred, black slavery was entirely a creation of Capitalism.
You are merely once again illustrating your ignorance. Slavery, black
or otherwise, existed down through history and well before capitalism.
It also existed in Africa (as it did in the Americas among native
peoples) well before among the very tribes who supplied the slaves.
It was abolished for the first time in history in all of the civilized
- capitalist - countries by the mid-19th Cent.
Fred Weiss
Jerry Kraus
It only existed in the "civilized Capitalist countries" in the
nineteenth century! You are a liar, Fred. As usual. You make a good
capitalist. Capitalists are pathological liars. They have to be, to
justify the horrible things they do.
Jerry Kraus
You seem rather concerned about attempting to refute my arguments,
Fred. For someone who has such contempt for them!
Fred Weiss
> It only existed in the "civilized Capitalist countries" in the
> nineteenth century!
Uh, huh.
You're too fucking stupid to argue with.
Fred Weiss
Roy Jose Lorr
Waatsamatta yu can't reeed waat yu write?
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Roy, am I bothering you?
Jerry Kraus
Fred, you seem traumatized. Take a valium. You'll feel better.
Roy Jose Lorr
Does it bother you whether or not you bother me?
Next.
Day Brown
in "The Early Slavs" says we have the word because the Slavs were so
often enslaved. They were not good warriors, but farmers. But they
werent good slaves either, commonly escaping into the boonies where
they knew how to live off the land. The slavemasters knew this, and
this limited their abuse.
Tribal slaves were commonly household servants, became well known, and
integrated into the family. Tacitus reports how at German Tribal
meetings, even the women and slaves rose to speak.
Capitalism made a very different thing of slavery with the plantation
system. And in the tribal system, everyone was of the same race.
Capitalism did not abolish slavery, middle class morals and farmers
did that. Solon explained to the Greeks, that if they permited
slavery, then rich men would buy them out or drive them into
bankruptcy, and then farm the land with slaves. Which they did, in
fact, eventually do.
A closer look at European history reveals that it takes a strong
yeoman farmer class to create, and defend, a republic. Gibbon
commented how robust the Roman republic was when the legions were
manned by the sons of yeoman farmers who felt they had an investment
in the system to protect, and some say in the laws. This was destroyed
by what we now call an "all volunteer" army. Before, it was harder to
muster the support for military adventures when the fathers stood to
loose their own sons. After, the legions came to be manned by the
lowest classes and foreigners, some of whom could not even speak the
language.
What we have now is not capitalism, but cronyism using manipulation of
what mite otherwise be the free market to screw everyone else.
Jerry Kraus
Deaths from 1921-1953 in USSR:
Executions: 900,000
Deaths in gulag: 1.2 million, but only 25% political prisoners, rest
common criminals: 300,000
Deaths of kulaks in collectivization: 390,000
Does not include deaths to population transfers in WW2 and possibly
German war prisoner deaths. Does not include Ukrainian famine, which
was NOT deliberate. Holodomor figures: 1.5 million.
All figures from new Soviet archives unveiling.
Totals: 1.59 million killed.
Stalin saved probably 35 million lives. All progress in life
expectancy ended in early 1960's. Czarism killed 3 X as many per
capita year and out as Stalinism. Return to capitalism killed 15
million Russians, and Communism killed only 1.6 million.
Day Brown
> Deaths from 1921-1953 in USSR:
>
> Executions: 900,000
>
> Deaths in gulag: 1.2 million, but only 25% political prisoners, rest
> common criminals: 300,000
>
> Deaths of kulaks in collectivization: 390,000
>
> Does not include deaths to population transfers in WW2 and possibly
> German war prisoner deaths. Does not include Ukrainian famine, which
> was NOT deliberate. Holodomor figures: 1.5 million.
>
> All figures from new Soviet archives unveiling.
>
> Totals: 1.59 million killed.
>
> Stalin saved probably 35 million lives. All progress in life
> expectancy ended in early 1960's. Czarism killed 3 X as many per
> capita year and out as Stalinism. Return to capitalism killed 15
> million Russians, and Communism killed only 1.6 million.
Some gene pools can make capitalism or socialism work better. Some
have higher rates of corruption, which will be applied no matter what
your economic model is.
"Alpha male" is a term given us by pprimate field studies. It is a
combination of certain inherited hormone levels. Some gene pools have
more alphas, and are therefore more violent, draconian, and
mysogenistic. No matter what your economic model, alpha males will
figure out how to exploit it, curbed only by the power of women. The
more power women have, the more egalitarian the system,
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nice analysis, Day. As I've said, the differences between Communism
and Capitalism are fairly superficial. And, usually, they both suck.
forbi...@msn.com
> and Capitalism are fairly superficial. And, usually, they both suck.
Day Bronw words are aways worth reading.
Day Brown
smart is dumb luck.
Dumb luck had me look into the history of Kucha; even wrote a digital
novel about the place posted at my website. http://daybrown.org;
software issues make it hard to read, but I'm working on it. I have
notions of printing and binding ANZI books, where I'd have more
flexibility in the font and scale.
But I digress. Funny thing about the Kuchan graveyards, is that they
are full of middle class people. No lavish graves of the honchos.
Nobody buried with much other than herbs, pots, daily use items. &
herbs. No weapons.
There's no weapons cause there's no warrior class; and that's not
needed cause Kucha is way out the fuck in the Taklamakhan desert.
There's not enuf water in the few springs on the route to supply an
army. Kucha is kinda intimidating anyway when yoo get there. Built on
what out West we call a butte. But there's no palace in town. Its all
middle class adobe and the shrines for 22 religions.
The same cold dry alkaline soils that freeze dried the bodies- so we
can see what the best dressed 6th century Celts in the world wearing,
they also preserved documents. Even an entire library found by Chinese
Commie Taoist monks 30 years ago while cleaning out a Buddhist temple.
Behind a false wall. LIke a fucking movie. Everyone marvels at the
Dead Sea Scroll collection. Which would all fit in a footlocker.
Over the last 100 years or so, they've hauled enough documents out of
the Taklamakhan and Kara Kum deserts to fill 18 wheelers. And hardly
anyone in the cultures dominated by Christianity knows anything about
it. We marvel at ghost towns out west that are 150 years old. There
are ghost towns out east that are ten times older. The Chinese just
found another one last year that's been abandoned 2500 years.
Aryans domesticated the horse 6000 years ago, and arrive in China with
it, the cart, the wheel, bronze, and another language 4000 years ago.
And all along the way, from China to the Black Sea and the Dneipr to
Danube river basins. oases were found, trading towns were built along
rivers, and ports built on the Caspian and Black seas. It was a
mercantile, not military empire.
By the 7th Century, Kucha was well known as the translation center for
Occidental and Oriental documents. The desert has presevered samples
in 20 different languages. They even found a mail bag in the Kara Kum
that was lost in 341AD. Personal letters that fell off the camel
train, were tossed aside by robbers, died in the desert of thirst or
disease, or whatever. They have literally hauled tons of this shit,
and there's more tons yet to be found. The mail bag had letters
written on Paper. Everyone thot, until they saw these letters, that
paper had been invented in China hundreds of years later.
They keep finding stuff to show the world isnt what history said it
was. Nobody in China talks about it, but there's a whole vocabulary of
Shang words that have Aryan roots- related to horses, tack, harnesss,
bronze, the wheel, cart, wood working tools, joinery, etc. DNA is
revealing lotsa herbs and veggies came from China along this trade
route. Which was actually at least three main East/West routes-
summer, winter, and the mid range route for summer or fall.
Warfare, revolution, political unrest resulted in camel trains making
detours. All the while this is going on, people realize they are
loosing money. As a result, they learned to work it out. A lot of it
was worked out by women. Its all in a feminine hand. So, while each
city state along the silk road routes were in capitalistic competition
with each other, they had to be egalitarian and minimize the cost of
management. It was all too easy for any skilled craftsman to hop on
the next camel train to wherever they offered a better deal.
There were also the world's first transnationals- shipping offices run
by women who left us the letters to each other. Among other things,
arranging for their boys to get laid when they get to town. The women
dont want their men coming back with STDs from fucking cheap whores.
Kucha was notorious cause the brothels were owned by the city.
The Gautamid Queens of Kucha were also madams. Their salons must have
been big hits. The Kuchan wine was remarkable, dosed with
psychedelics. And because merchants had so many different cultures and
religions, there were all these shrines, and all these documents being
compared among Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, Zorastrianism,
Nestorian and Manichean versions, Vedas. damn near anything.
The Gautamas were so well informed because they always sent girls on
loan to royal courts. The priciest call girls in Xian were all Kuchi.
The Chinese found a remarkably well preserved noblewoman a few years
ago with type AB blood still in her veins. Nobody says anything, but a
med professional told me the Chinese dont *have* AB blood. The lady
had an Aryan ancestress. Well, we all know how call girls move up the
power structures.
For thousands of years, central Asia was a free trade zone, but it
didnt have slums or minorities. Aryans and Chinese have been found
buried in each other's costumes. Kucha left us frescos of rich
mercants decked out in the latest Chinese silks, but- with red hair
and blue eyes. If you recall, Alexander's army was halted in Parthia.
Its a region that was real hard on armies cause the rich target zones
were all so damn far apart.
By the time an army could get organized to leave, the call girls had
already left with the news they were coming. And on the Steppes, you
could always tell where the army was because of all the vultures
circling above them. So that by the time the army got there, all the
smart money had already left town with the girls, so that all the
troops found was an empty shell. No gold, no silver, no pussy.
Oh, the Longswords were often called for police action to track
bandits. And sometimes sent up into the hills to settle a blood feud.
Otherwise, it was a somewhat tarnished golden age of peace. Where men
ruled they did so in competition for women. The Gautamas had an
advantage in that they never bred the airheads, but drafted them into
brothels.
The road to Kucha was well known cause it was so very clearly marked:
with the skeletons of the dead. There are genuine acoustic reasons for
the noises of the desert at night, but those who cant keep their wits
leave the bones along the way, so Kucha was the survival of the
fittest. It all adds up to disconcerting history.