Chizzang wrote:It seems like we have the two prevailing global ideologies behaving as expected...
But strangely America is trying to behave a little bit like both
We exhibit classic imperialism conservative nationalism: We express this through wars... wars on terror wars on drugs wars on dictators - we're a nation in a perpetual state of WAR
All the while:
Also acting like pseudo-european liberals in our neurotic love/hate relationship with capitalism and our massive consumption of oil and consumer products all the while simultaneously pretending to be ecologically minded and environmentally concerned
We are truly neurotic as a nation... the article T-man related to this thread is an example of something we'll outwardly reject (for now) but have a closet interest as it involves "new taxes" which is our favorite drug
PLease don't reply to this thread explaining how conservatives are about smaller government - as there is not one single American example of a conservative president leaving office with a smaller government and less federal involvement than he was inaugurated with... so just let that myth die please
...yet the most important facet of this debate, aristocratic controlled eugenics, is not mentioned.
Sir Francis Galton's, and later Julian Huxley, theories of class purification through human eugenics, became the backbone of 20th century British aristorcrats, and later, the American wealth horders.
Wrapped in pseudo-science, in the 30's and 40's Huxley attempted to migrate man-induced eugenic principles to "filter" out undesireable genetic traits in humans. Then, in the 40's, Britain's aristocratic families, seeing the value in Huxley's eugenic's theories as a means of preserving their authority, utilized those theories to develop global "humanitarian" policies and programs, marketed under "noble" (!) programs to feed the hungry and protect the environment, as the means to suppressing and DIMINISHING the political influence (...and existence) of the working classes. Britian's Orwellian governmental authority was just the precursor of what was intended to be a global paradigm (And which has in fact become the American standard...one which Americans have accepted that government is SUPPOSED to approve our thoughts and actions, and monitor our behavior with electronic surveillance - inet/email interception, cameras on street corners.).
Orwellian, indeed.
I've written about the formation of World Wildlife Fund too many times to recap it here, but to suffice, WWF was the grandfather of a scheme to utilize "environmental protection" as the primary tool to control working class prosperity.
Akin to the Snake Oil salesman's pitch, "It cures everything, makes you healthier, and improves your amorous life", the "Environmental destruction" sales pitch is an anathemic lure to the undeducated and gullible who've lazily abandoned critical thought. (...ahem...D1B).
While you may find my incessant rantings as droll...at heart, I am a Don Quixote. I will never give up a fight I see as morally righteous. And in this case, my utter hopes are that the fools who otherwise would be challenging the Snake Oil Saleman's pitch (...from the likes of uber intellectuals like Al Gore...???...
), will eventually awaken from their lazy slumber and remember that the power is in the working class and businesses which support humanity. (...apologies to John Galt).
In a final remark (you heard it hear first, though I've implied it to Cleets before)...
The myth of man's destruction of the environment is simply laughable to any natural scientist who pays attention. Our planet has millions of organic life forms, all co-existing in a virtually infinitely complex symbiotic system. As was demonstrated by the global natural feedback mechanisms after the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo, while cataclysmic environmental destabilizing variables DO have short term impact on global climate, the natural feedback mechanisms rapidly mitigate those variables and re-establish the equilibrium (
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/V ... ocknew.pdf ).
If the premise of "man's destruction of the environment" was indeed correct, the natural system would respond with a feedback mechanism to resolve the problem...and if needed, one to mitigate (consume) the problem's source.
(...now, before you grab for your pipe/blunt to "meditate" about that last sentence, I'd like to suggest you remain sober and focus on regaining your critical thinking skills. Then, take some time to study and read SCIENCE and SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE, rather than wasting it listening to entertainers and politicians who benefit from your willful ignorance.)
