A Liberal Authority Speaks
Sir Frederick Martin
Chavez says capitalism may have ended life on Mars
by Eyanir Chinea Eyanir Chinea – 23 mins ago
CARACAS (Reuters) – Capitalism may be to blame for the lack of life on the planet Mars, Venezuela's
socialist President Hugo Chavez said on Tuesday.
"I have always said, heard, that it would not be strange that there had been civilization on Mars,
but maybe capitalism arrived there, imperialism arrived and finished off the planet," Chavez said in
speech to mark World Water Day.
Chavez, who also holds capitalism responsible for many of the world's problems, warned that water
supplies on Earth were drying up.
"Careful! Here on planet Earth where hundreds of years ago or less there were great forests, now
there are deserts. Where there were rivers, there are deserts," Chavez said, sipping from a glass of
water.
He added that the West's attacks on Libya were about water and oil reserves.
Earlier this month, the U.S. National Research Council recommended that NASA's top priority should
be a robot to help determine whether Mars ever supported life and offer insight on its geological
and climatic history.
It would also be the first step in an effort to get samples from Mars back to Earth.
A NASA team recently tested a space suit in a setting with extreme conditions akin to some of those
found on Mars -- an Argentine base in Antarctica -- for possible use on a visit to the Red Planet.
sarge
Ah, come on. Liberals are capitalists.
Is there a recent US liberal politician who talked about capitalism
remotely like this? I mean, I know you are having fun at Chavez's
expense. Or letting him make fun of himself, really. But to label
him a liberal is
kinda weird.
Sir Frederick Martin
sarge
Yes, socialist is fair game. Bernie Sanders, perhaps, needs to take a
stand on his fellow socialists opinions.
Sir Frederick Martin
tooly
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's like drugs there Sarge...liberalism leads to socialism which
leads to marxism [class warfare, social justice argument, and
redistribution politics], and then to the 'hard stuff', communism
[when social democracy fails due to unsustainability, and people march
in the streets of Madison threatening to kill the Tsar instead of
taking cuts in their social welfare, however it may be]. And we
haven't even begun to really tackle those cut backs yet [like social
security and medicare].
Sheese...if they get that mad for just 'bandaids', what are they going
to do when we have to cut off arms and legs? Uh..well...I mean, what
are the union bosses gonna do?
That's the plan anyway; to make it 'fail' by the 'pushers' as it were
[radicals wanting to 'transform' capitalism to socialism].
'Liberal' is just 'socialist lite' [as it's become in today's world;
thanks to Obama's crew anyway].
Zinnic
So --About turn! Quick march to the 'welfare' of Capital fascism and
National socialism? Just asking!
tooly
> On Mar 23, 8:36 am, tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> So --About turn! Quick march to the 'welfare' of Capital fascism and
> National socialism? Just asking!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually, it's an interesting question you ask...but not for reason of
anyone entertaining nazism, but as to the connectivity of a political
spectrum that allows argument to attach 'left leaning' thought
'eventually' to Karl Marx's prophesy of communism [a world ruled by
intellectuals etc], and those 'leaning right' to that of nazism.
Connectivity.
I offer that we exist upon a dynamic 'roller coaster' through time,
where we 'swing' back and forth from 'right to left' as the times
'call for' in the mass 'sense' to things. We've all read of the
classical explanation of 'change' being found in the desire of people
to be FREE on the one hand, while needing also to be SECURE on the
other. Classical depictions use iconic Roman/Greek gods of Appollo
and Bachus [or Dionysus] to represent this 'bouncing' nature of
humans. Apollo, the god of law and order, represented the HEIGHTs of
human 'structure' and organization. But as time passes, such
structure can become overburdening and confine people into 'boxes' so
to speak. So, the time for new GROWTH comes and to 'break out of old
orders, however perfect they may have once been' to enter into chaos
and disarray...but new found FREEDOM. And so, civillizations have
come and gone through this dynamic of people needing to be free and
secure.
The point...TOO FREE..and people feel 'lost', without anchor...and
seek new order. TOO SECURE, and people feel imprisoned, under foot of
tyrannical oversight, and rebell to tear down structures for reform.
Anyway, that's the classical explanation of Right versus Left in it's
broadest terms. How that relates to communism or nazism might be a
little tricky to connect the dots, but I'm sure the dots are there.
Communism comes in upon the heels of PROGRESS [supposedly], at least
progress as 'intellectually' seen.
The problem with 'progress' is the 'short sighted' nature of human
intellect. There are simply too many 'subtleties', nuances, and deep
deep core stuff that cannot be deciphered well, if at all. And too,
there is too much 'political' bias in such 'perceptions' of what
progress means. Also, consider that in 100 years, people then will
look back upon us today to be about as ignorant and backward as we
today, see people who existed 100 years ago. What this says is that
we are always just as ignorant as we are enlightened. And it also
begs the question of how much change, and at what pace. If there is
no 'end point' to change, then the very notion of 'PROGRESS' might
simply be a misconception altogether that robs us of TRANQUILITY.
PROGRESS, more times than not, is simply a "ploy" of the
disestablished to bring down the established. It becomes just a
political TOOL.
Take socialism. It sounds great. From each according to their
ability, to each, according to their need. Everyone is fed, clothed,
housed, given medical care. Who wouldn't want such a thing?
Sounds like PROGRESS doesn't it.
Until one gets into the details and the subtleties of life on this
planet. First, all species overproduces. It is mandatory for
survival that a fair amount of us are 'culled' away in a selective
process. Socialism treats us all the same. If there IS any culling,
it is done by the COMMAND of overseers, and not by nature [that's the
totalitarian nature command ecnomies become]. Talk about your
'nazism', ha...can't get much more nazi than that [but mysteriously,
from the opposite side of the political spectrum]. Someone posted
recently that Communism and nazism meets at totalitarianism.
Free markets use PRICE to cull the herds. NO HUMAN CONTROLS PRICE [or
should not anyway; the very definition of free markets].
So...what is PROGRESS? We don't really know. Saving every last human
being is a formula for busting the bank; bringing it all down. We do
not have that kind of energy or resource to expend upon every single
human being 'equally' [without killing the golden goose of incentive
and productivity in those who are healthy and create the enterprise
the rest of us depend upon].
So...again; what is PROGRESS? We can't just condone the sacrifice
'anyone'. That would SOUND backwards; 'anti-progress'. But free
moving PRICE essentially does just that.
I'm late; have to go to work; write too much. But it is interesting
to me, this 'spectrum' and the extremes at the ends [nazism and
communism]. What IS nazism anyway [it's essence; it's internal
nature]? What is 'communism' [that one seems easier, since it is
about 'intellectuals' taking over the world].
The masses retain the POWER. And how those masses 'sense' things
might be clue to what they are open to. Do the herds feel 'too
secure' these days; under 'prisons' or police states? Or do the herds
feel 'unanchored, chaotic, drifting lost in space, needing anchor'?
Is America really the 'bad' place our education system has been
teaching these last several decades?
Realize, how the pendulum swings...and how it swings in radical motion
beteen extremes, threatening to push us off our fulcrum of tranquility
[into social upheaval]. Who's responsible for that anyway? It ain't
the Tea Party, that's for sure. Remember, nazism was a REACTIONary
movement [essentially to decadence and debauchery in the land, but
recognized as LIBERALISM gone wild; too FREE, too chaotic]. It is
always those who PUSH for progess that seem to want to cause that
teetering to be too far.
sarge
Well, then conservatism is bad too, since it leads to fascism.
> Sheese...if they get that mad for just 'bandaids', what are they going
> to do when we have to cut off arms and legs? Uh..well...I mean, what
> are the union bosses gonna do?
>
> That's the plan anyway; to make it 'fail' by the 'pushers' as it were
> [radicals wanting to 'transform' capitalism to socialism].
>
> 'Liberal' is just 'socialist lite' [as it's become in today's world;
> thanks to Obama's crew anyway].
And so *conservative* is just fascist lite.
In a a way I agree. Both are sick.
tooly
>
> - Show quoted text -
Both are 'radical'. When 'change' is too fast, look for 'reactionary'
resistance to it. If change becomes 'radical', that reactionary
resistance can be even more radical. Question might be asked, what
'causes' what? We villify Hitler today for the terrible things that
followed "after his arrival", but fail to realize his rise to power
was predicated on 'other things' before his arrival. Germany had
slipped into social decrepidness; an 'anything goes' atmosphere.
Pride in a noble heritage had been torn down by a punishing europe
after WWI [not to mention the punitive Versailles treaty]. LIBERALISM
had gone mad under an ineffective republic. An entire people had been
set adrift 'spiritually', 'lost in space' so to speak. They were
ready to regain their pride, a regained noble direction [however
misguided], and to clean house of the decrepidness that had overcome
them. Hitler promised all those things. Especially to rid the land
of marxists [which he did].
So, what caused what? What is 'really' to blame to allow people to
find new hope in such a thing as fascism? For at the time of it's
inception, Fascism will always look like new order in the midst or
rising chaos. So...look to whomever is causing the 'chaos'...who is
pushing for change beyond the scope of human's to adapt; that lead
them into periods without anchor, lost. Any human that does not serve
the nuclear family is the real villian.
sarge
Actually that is not true. You had an incredibly rigid, hierarchical
society. Families were very controlled, the man was the boss, the
kids were controlled in ways we would find odd and even americans at
that time would have considered odd. Workplaces were very rigidly
controlled. Expression in general was very controlled. One of the
reasons Hitler was effective was he allowed catharsis, though he aimed
it in heinous directions. That society was not free for all at all.
> Pride in a noble heritage had been torn down by a punishing europe
> after WWI [not to mention the punitive Versailles treaty].
Which was actually milder than what some nations wanted to do to
Germany. But nations have lost wars before.
LIBERALISM
> had gone mad under an ineffective republic. An entire people had been
> set adrift 'spiritually', 'lost in space' so to speak. They were
> ready to regain their pride, a regained noble direction [however
> misguided], and to clean house of the decrepidness that had overcome
> them. Hitler promised all those things. Especially to rid the land
> of marxists [which he did].
Though to hear him talk about corporations pretty much any republican
would call him a communist. The name national socialist is not a
misnomer. He was more right than left, but his mistrust of
corporations would make the radical left, even anarchists proud.
> So, what caused what? What is 'really' to blame to allow people to
> find new hope in such a thing as fascism? For at the time of it's
> inception, Fascism will always look like new order in the midst or
> rising chaos. So...look to whomever is causing the 'chaos'...who is
> pushing for change beyond the scope of human's to adapt; that lead
> them into periods without anchor, lost. Any human that does not serve
> the nuclear family is the real villian.
The position you are taking here is that fascism is the fault of
liberals. Which to me sounds like you think liberals have more power
and all conservatives can do is react. They do not have their own
dynamic force, they cannot stop themselves. If this is true, it need
to be admitted. We cannot control ourselves, so if you liberals
don't slow down we will end up being evil, we can't help it.
It also then leaves open the issue of
perhaps communism then is the fault of conservatives.
tooly
>
> - Show quoted text -
think 'established' versus 'disestablished'. I hate to use marxist
terms, but the establishment is not just some random construct, but a
long chain of events through time in a constant evolution toward
betterment. Marxists want to raize it to the ground. Conservatism is
the attempt at 'protecting' hard won 'good things' against such
onslaught. Moral decrepidness can be seen like 'roaches' invading a
house, and if it becomes an 'infestation', it may call for drastic
action. Thusly how a population might become open to hard line
reaction that may become fascist in nature. But conservatives are not
the aggressor; not the 'activists' for change...but only the
PROTECTORATE of the established. Change I think always comes from the
left; from the disestablished; from those who want to tear down the
established. Otherwise, conservatives are just hunkey dory with the
system and the establishement [usually making up the middle classes of
that establishment etc].
But if the establishment becomes oppressive [too ordered, constraining
new growth and freedom of expression etc], where too many become
feeling as if 'disenfranchised' from the whole...then there might be
justifcation for that activism. But..is this really the case in
America...in Western Civilization in general? These societies are
places where the rest of the world 'wants' to move and live...not the
other way around. But give an inch, they take a mile it seems.
But marxism has it's own agenda. They could care less about the
enfranchisement of anyone. They just want to destroy capitalism to
bring about the communist state of intellectual oversight of the
masses. They use the 'good intentions' of humanity as found in
liberalism to do their dirty deeds [to undermine that estatlishment
and disembowel as much as is possible that PROTECTORATE conservative
force].
This makes it hard to discern what is geninue need for the wants of
people...and what is orchestrated for ulterior design for bringing
down the west. With Obama's election, we find a highly complicit
array of forces coming together that has been organized over decades
with a marked 'marxist' core to it's identity. For this reason,
Liberalism today has become simply a battering ram for this deeper
core of activism that only wants to destroy us [so it can reform under
socialism]. It does so through social democracy [bit by bit programs
that appeal to the masses but are unsustainable from the getgo].
I think Hitler may have seen something of this same reality in
Germany.
sarge
Conservatives often talk about how great the 50s were. In the 50s
taxes on corporations were very high, union membership was very high.
Yet they wanted to tear these things down?
>Moral decrepidness can be seen like 'roaches' invading a
> house, and if it becomes an 'infestation', it may call for drastic
> action. Thusly how a population might become open to hard line
> reaction that may become fascist in nature. But conservatives are not
> the aggressor; not the 'activists' for change...but only the
> PROTECTORATE of the established.
If that is the case then they need to stop acting AS IF they are the
representatives of the founding fathers, for example. Since
conservatives would have been against separation from England, against
democracy and so on.
Conservatives worship dead radicals who they would not have gotten
along with or 'voted' for back then.
<Change I think always comes from the
> left; from the disestablished; from those who want to tear down the
> established. Otherwise, conservatives are just hunkey dory with the
> system and the establishement [usually making up the middle classes of
> that establishment etc].
I don't think most conservatives are going to grant this. It leads to
things like what I said above. Hell, even getting rid of slavery was
change. So was giving women the vote.
> But if the establishment becomes oppressive [too ordered, constraining
> new growth and freedom of expression etc], where too many become
> feeling as if 'disenfranchised' from the whole...then there might be
> justifcation for that activism. But..is this really the case in
> America...in Western Civilization in general? These societies are
> places where the rest of the world 'wants' to move and live...not the
> other way around. But give an inch, they take a mile it seems.
Well, according to your schema the reason many people would want to
move to the US would because of changes made by liberals, changes
liberals in these other places have not been able to make yet because
of conservatives there.
> But marxism has it's own agenda. They could care less about the
> enfranchisement of anyone. They just want to destroy capitalism to
> bring about the communist state of intellectual oversight of the
> masses.
Communisms are often quite anti-intellectual - the Khmer Rouge are the
clearest example, but similar trends happened in every communism. It
is something the communists share with conservatives - a fear of
intellectuals.
<They use the 'good intentions' of humanity as found in
> liberalism to do their dirty deeds [to undermine that estatlishment
> and disembowel as much as is possible that PROTECTORATE conservative
> force].
They have tremendous distaste for liberals - the bourgeois.
> This makes it hard to discern what is geninue need for the wants of
> people...and what is orchestrated for ulterior design for bringing
> down the west. With Obama's election, we find a highly complicit
> array of forces coming together that has been organized over decades
> with a marked 'marxist' core to it's identity. For this reason,
> Liberalism today has become simply a battering ram for this deeper
> core of activism that only wants to destroy us [so it can reform under
> socialism]. It does so through social democracy [bit by bit programs
> that appeal to the masses but are unsustainable from the getgo].
By the time Obama is finished the rich will be richer and the poor
will be poorer. Government oversight will be weaker. Corporations
will have at least as much influence over politics and even foreign
policy.
> I think Hitler may have seen something of this same reality in
> Germany.
and, again, he hated corporations. Ask Topaz, he can give you the
quotes.
Shrikeback
seems to have a man-crush on Chavez.
>
> kinda weird.