Collapse or Indefinite Serfdom?

[reggie]

Re: Collapse or Indefinite Serfdom?

Both. First collapse, followed by serfdom of a grateful population glad just to have that.

Exactly, BOTH!

The ingredients found in our food supply, not to mention those found in substances that interface with our skin, are enough to make anyone shutter at the breath & gravity of the attack. For example, did you realize your city water supply probably now has chloramines (chlorine & ammonia) in it. Might be fine to drink, because your digestive system will address, but your skin can't filter, allowing the chemical to absorb directly into the blood stream, especially during a hot bath or shower. Substance doesn't kill the bad stuff in water as well as safer options, but it's a great neurotoxin that also attacks the thyroid.

I've never quite figured it all out, are there thousand's of Will Huntings (from the recruitment movie, Good Will Hunting) recruited into thinktanks who spend their lives dreaming-up socialized weapon systems to deploy on the public?

[llanlad2]

Re: Collapse or Indefinite Serfdom?

A distinction without a difference.


But if it makes a difference to you, then: I object to the POLICY that allows immigrants from low-IQ, incompatible populations to emigrate here.

There, is that better?

Heck, I don't think we need any immigrants at all. If they want a "better life" then they are exactly the people who should stay in their own homelands and change them for the better.

I think you missed my point so I'll rephrase it. Were your ancestors some of those low iq, incompatible people who left their homeland for a better life? Sure seems like it to me.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Collapse or Indefinite Serfdom?

I think you missed my point so I'll rephrase it. Were your ancestors some of those low iq, incompatible people who left their homeland for a better life? Sure seems like it to me.

Anglo scientists, using the latest in phrenology and eugenics, proved without a doubt that I'm a grandson of immigrant dummies.

So with this bit of "science" in hand, maybe we can make this interesting.

Mn_Mark, I'm willing to make a wager that says dumb ol' me, grandson of drunken, violent, monkey-Irish immigrants, can beat you at your own IQ test.

I'm sure we could find a way to set this up with independent verification.

PM me if you're interested.

[Lasher]

Re: Collapse or Indefinite Serfdom?

The ingredients found in our food supply, not to mention those found in substances that interface with our skin, are enough to make anyone shutter at the breath & gravity of the attack. For example, did you realize your city water supply probably now has chloramines (chlorine & ammonia) in it. Might be fine to drink, because your digestive system will address, but your skin can't filter, allowing the chemical to absorb directly into the blood stream, especially during a hot bath or shower. Substance doesn't kill the bad stuff in water as well as safer options, but it's a great neurotoxin that also attacks the thyroid.

I've never quite figured it all out, are there thousand's of Will Huntings (from the recruitment movie, Good Will Hunting) recruited into thinktanks who spend their lives dreaming-up socialized weapon systems to deploy on the public?

My understanding of the reason for switching from chlorination to chloramines was: (1) Aesthetically, chloramines have less taste and odor impact in homes and (2) Health, because chlorination has unfortunate side reactions that form likely carcinogenic chloro-chemicals.

I've not looked into the toxicity of chloramines, but assuming you're right about skin absorption and neurotoxicity - why do you think this would be an act of malice? I'd be more inclined to chalk it up to rushed implementation and ignorance (although I would buy it being a very willful ignorance).

[c1ue]

Re: Collapse or Indefinite Serfdom?

Might be fine to drink, because your digestive system will address, but your skin can't filter, allowing the chemical to absorb directly into the blood stream, especially during a hot bath or shower. Substance doesn't kill the bad stuff in water as well as safer options, but it's a great neurotoxin that also attacks the thyroid.

This is a pretty easy hypothesis to test.

Are swimmers more stupid than the rest of the population? Do janitors get more stupid after they start their professions?

The dumbest of all should be swimmers who are also janitors. /sarc

[reggie]

Re: Collapse or Indefinite Serfdom?

My understanding of the reason for switching from chlorination to chloramines was: (1) Aesthetically, chloramines have less taste and odor impact in homes and (2) Health, because chlorination has unfortunate side reactions that form likely carcinogenic chloro-chemicals. I've not looked into the toxicity of chloramines, but assuming you're right about skin absorption and neurotoxicity - why do you think this would be an act of malice? I'd be more inclined to chalk it up to rushed implementation and ignorance (although I would buy it being a very willful ignorance).

That's quite a question to try to answer in a single reply, let alone an entire forum. The brief response is to say that the technique follows a pattern of behavior clearly evident in our scientific technocracy, and is in alignment with current elite goals.

[cjppjc]

Re: Collapse or Indefinite Serfdom?

Close but no cigar.

[reggie]

Re: Collapse or Indefinite Serfdom?

Well, here's one narrative from an elite mouthpiece, Jacques Attali, on the subject.

As far as Attali trying to sell the reader on some clear thrust of history, I tend to agree with Eric Voegelin who basically says there is none.

Monday, Apr. 13, 2009
What the World Will Look Like by 2050
By Alyssa Fetini
Time Magazine
http://www.time.com/time/arts/articl...890927,00.html


A Brief History of the Future: A Brave and Controversial Look at the Twenty-First Century
By Jacques Attali
Arcade Publishing; 312 pages




The Gist:
Imagine a world where pirates run amok, blowing themselves up in European city centers; where wars are ignited over lack of drinking water; where a global face-off between Islam and Christianity makes World War II look like a water-balloon fight. According to economist and political scientist Jacques Attali, that is what the future has in store for us by 2025. In the belief that past experiences are indicative future events, Attali combs through the history of human kind, all the way back to Homo Habilis, separating the past into nine distinct periods to isolate "what is possible, what changes and what is unvarying" and applies those trends to the coming century. Attali's predictions range from the future of journalism (completely paperless) to the end of the economic crisis (around 2011), offering a glimpse into the future that is both provocative and petrifying. (See 10 ideas that are changing the world right now.)

Highlight Reel:
On the future of the American empire: "After a very long struggle and in the midst of a serious ecological crisis, the still dominant empire- the United States- will finally be defeated around 2035 by the same globalization of the markets (particularly the financial ones), and by the power of corporations. Financially and politically exhausted, like all other empires before it, the United States will cease to run the world. But it will remain the planet's major power; no new empire or dominant nation will replace it. The world will temporarily become polycentric with a dozen or so regional powers managing its affairs."

On the future of the climate: "With the marked increase in temperature changes, very important alterations will take place in nature. Trees will grow faster and will become more fragile... Much more serious: many more coastlines could become uninhabitable. Seven of the worlds biggest cities are ports, and a third of the world's population lives on a coastline... Eco-exiles will become ten times more numerous by 2050."

On the future of weapons of mass destruction: "Now pointed at Japan, North Korea's missiles will one day target the United States and China. The missiles of Pakistan fallen into the hands of fundamentalists will threaten first India, then Europe. Those of Hezbollah — in other words, Iran — that now target Israel will one day be pointed at Cairo, Riyadh, Algiers, Tunis, Casablanca, Istanbul, then at Rome, Madrid, London and Paris. Should the battle lines harden and the country be threatened with annihilation, China's missiles could one day target Japan and the United States."

On the future of cloning: "After repairing diseased organs, they will want to produce them, then create replacement bodies. First they will produce lineages of stem cells without destroying the embryo, which will make genetic therapy ethically acceptable, and then reproductive cloning. Finally they will manufacture the human being like a made-to-measure artifact, in an artificial uterus, which will allow the brain to further develop with characteristics chosen in advance. The human being will thus have become a commercial object."

The Lowdown:
As the cofounder and first president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Attali won fame for calling the U.S. financial collapse as early as 2006 — giving him more credibility than the average soothsayer. However, many of his predictions range from the absurd to the, well... predictable. His belief that Israel must keep its status as a regional power in order to survive is not exactly rocket science, while his belief that a utopia of altruistic "transhumans" will emerge from the ashes of mid-21st century planetary warfare is a bit hard to swallow.

His more outrageous predictions notwithstanding, Attali correctly notes that our future is not inevitable. Mankind must learn how to appropriately respond to the crises and opportunities that await us, and grow cognizant of the fact that large-scale violence can be so dangerous to humanity so that we become "aware of the need for a radical change in attitude." [IP Note: this is the Club of Rome agenda, and it is quite similar to the post WWII atomic agenda reflected in the "One World or None" report issues by the Federation of Scientists. In essense, we are being told to comply or face untold violence and societal disruption. This is Doublespeak being practice by a master servant of the Elite.]. Whether his predictions are worth taking seriously or not, they all inevitably turn on the endless capacity of human resilience — a notion that appears to be the only true constant for the future, and the most reassuring.

A Brief History of the Future
New Perspectives Quarterly
Summer 2007
http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/20...22_attali.html

Paris —Though it has become unfashionable, the French social thinker Jacques Attali continues to insist that there are laws of history—an inexorable logic and a core dynamic decipherable from the evolution of past events. Attali, the most well-known futurist in France, and a top aide to François Mitterrand when he was president, is a best-selling author of novels and non-fiction works. He also was founding president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development after the Cold War, and now heads PlanetFinance, a mico-credit agency for the developing world.

There are three key elements to Attali's worldview. First, that the clear thrust of history, starting from what Attali calls the Judeo-Greek sensibility onward to the demise of the Soviet Union, is away from the collective and the community, from the ritualistic and imperial, toward the mercantile order of "market democracy" based on individual freedom and free markets. Second, a nucleus of the mercantile order forms wherever a creative class masters a key innovation from navigation to accounting or, in our time, where services are most efficiently mass produced, thus generating enormous wealth. Third, the world order organized around the wealth and armies of the nucleus ultimately falls into crisis due to overextension in debt or war, or both, leaving open a vacuum filled by the formation of a new nucleus and its own order.

In his new book, A Brief History of the Future (Fayard, 2006), Attali traces historically successive nuclei from Bruges to Venice, Antwerp, Genoa and Amsterdam. In our age, he argues, the nucleus has moved from London (the steam engine) to Boston (the automobile and oil) to New York (electricity) and on now to the seat of the information revolution on the US West coast from Los Angeles to Seattle. Here, the cultural demand for individual freedom and mobility has been satisfied by mass production of services that enhance the power and pleasure of that free individual in the form of "nomadic objects"—everything from personal computers to cell phones to iPods to YouTube and MySpace.

But even as America has become the sole reigning superpower it has at the same time fallen into massive debt and trade deficits and a weak currency; it is addicted to Middle Eastern oil and is locked in combat with radical Islamists, dragging it into war and distraction. In Attali's stark vision, over the next 50 years we will witness the total domination of American-style free market globalization with its vast wealth and inequality, a violent backlash which will spell the demise of American power and ultimately the establishment of global democracy which harnesses the wealth-creating turbo-engine of global capitalism for social and environmental goals.

For Attali, the laws of history are not laws of predestination, but of inevitable cyclical patterns in which the order of established powers tends to break down, supplanted by rising powers who reorganize a new order with a new core out of the chaos. To understand this historical logic, in Attali's vision, is to be able to bend it to democratic ends. Excerpts of Attali's book appear below.

—Nathan Gardels

The Mercantile Order: A Historical Perspective

Paris —In order to understand the unusual surprises that the future may hold for us, it is advisable to understand what lay behind surprises encountered in the past. They enable us to figure out what is possible, what is changing and what remains unchanged. They help above all to recognize the tremendous potentialities of history.

Twelve centuries before the beginning of the Christian era, the first markets and the first democracies appeared on the Mediterranean coast, in the narrow spaces between empires. Two thousand years later, they would constitute the Mercantile Order. This order still exists and we shall probably remain under it for a long time to come. What follow are its history and the laws that govern it, which will remain valid in the future.

Although history books, even today, are more interested in the fate of kings than that of merchants, and prefer to talk about the rise and fall of empires which will continue to rule the world between them during future millennia, the essence of the movement of history now lies elsewhere: in the birth of an individualistic order that upholds human rights as the absolute ideal. It is an order capable of producing wealth more efficiently than any other system before it despite the reality that it ceaselessly violates its own ideal through generating inequality and poverty.

This order began as a minute parasite in theocratic and imperial societies. Later, it started competing with them and gradually replaced kings with merchants and all services with mass-produced goods. Over a wider area, with more efficient technologies, amidst violence, injustice and even splendor, it established the market as well as democracy, in other words market democracy. Despite numerous setbacks (which blocked the prospects of many), it gave rise to the Mercantile Order. It led to the triumph of the ideal of individual freedom, at least for those who were prepared to struggle for it. Century after century, it has been refining its institutions and will continue to do so until it reaches perfection.

The Three Waves of the Future: Triumph of the Empire of Money, War, Then Global Democracy by 2060

What our world will be like in 2060 is being decided today. To leave behind a world that is habitable, we must take the trouble to understand the genesis of the future in our present actions. It can be done: history obeys laws that enable us to foresee it and point it in the right direction.

The situation at the moment is quite simple: Market forces control the world today. The triumphal reign of money is an expression of the victory of individualism and explains the reasons behind the most recent upheavals in history from the collapseof the Soviet Union to the rise of China.

Yet, if this evolution reaches its end without any moderation, money will trample everything in its path, including even the United States, which it will destroy gradually. Having become the sole law controlling the world, the market will establish what I shall call a hyperempire, creating both unfathomable wealth and suffering on a global scale, fortunes as well as extreme poverty; nature will be exploited and despoiled in a systematic matter; everything will be privatized, including the army, the police and the judicial system. In our health-and-longevity obsessed era, human beings will be equipped with artificial body parts, sold in bulk to consumers who will themselves become cocktails of artifacts. The market for the trade in human organs will become widely established.

If the raw globalization driving this future is disrupted by resorting to violence, however, we will surely witness a series of atrocities and devastating battles using weapons from nanotechnology to germs that cannot even be imagined today. State will be pitted against state and so will religious groupings. Terrorist factions and pirates will roam the globe.I shall call such a war a hyperconflict.

On the other hand, if globalization can be controlled without being totally rejected, if the market can be restrained without being abolished, if democracy can be extended to all the four corners of the world in a concrete form, if the domination of a single empire over the world can be brought to an end, we can look forward to a different future with respect, freedom, responsibility, dignity and material satisfaction for most. I shall call this a hyperdemocracy. It would lead to the creation of a world democratic government complemented by a set of local and regional institutions. It would enable each and every person, through a totally new way of using the incredible possibilities offered by future technologies, to enjoy the benefits of commercial creativity on a fair and equitable basis, protect freedom from its own excesses as well as from its enemies and leave behind for future generations a sustainable environment.

What is most likely to happen by 2035? The dominance of the American empire, like its predecessors, will come to an end and the three waves of the future—the hyperempire, the hyperconflict and hyperdemocracy—will take over the world one after the other. To all appearances, the first two seem lethal and the third impossible. There is no doubt that these three future scenarios may coincide; in fact, they already overlap. However, I believe that hyperdemocracy, a superior method of organizing mankind, will triumph around 2060, and, as the ultimate expression of freedom, it will become the driving force for history.

It would also be absurd to attempt to foretell the future, because what we imagine are usually extrapolations from the present: thus even in early human societies, discourses on the future amounted to no more than predicting the eternal cycle of the stars and crops. According to priests and soothsayers, the world could survive only by ensuring the return of the rain and the sun; a better world could exist only in an ideal cosmic heaven, both stable and cyclical, and access to it depended more on the enigmatic will of the gods than on the actions of men. When it became clear that innovation could improve mankind's material, intellectual and aesthetic existence, there appeared, first in the area around the Mediterranean, a few peoples determined to think of material advancement and put it into action.

Those who then pondered the future of the earth (philosophers, artists, jurists, and later, scholars, economists, sociologists, novelists and futurologists) still tended to describe it as a naive extension of their present. For example, at the end of the sixteenth century, it was widely believed that the introduction of the mobile type in Europe would serve only to strengthen further the two powers that were then dominant, the Church and the Empire; similarly, at the end of the eighteenth century, the majority of analysts saw the steam engine only as an attraction at fairs and did not expect it to change the existing agricultural economy; again, at the end of the nineteenth century, most observers believed that electricity could be used for only one purpose: street-lighting. And if, at the beginning of the twentieth century, some people foresaw the advent of the submarine, the airplane, the cinema, the radio and television, nobody—not even Jules Verne—could have imagined that these inventions would change the geopolitical order then dominated by the British Empire; similarly, nobody foresaw the imminent decline of Europe, the rise of communism, fascism and Nazism; even less did anyone imagine the coming of abstract art, jazz, the atom bomb and contraception. Similarly, at the end of the last century, many regarded the personal computer and the Internet as inconsequential curiosities, and very few could imagine same-sex marriages. Finally, even very recently, very few analysts foresaw the return of Islam to the center of history.

Even today, most of the stories about the future are no more than extrapolations based on already visible trends. There are very few that venture too far from reality to forecast out-of-the-way occurrences, total reversals, paradigmatic changes, particularly regarding moral standards, culture or ideology. Even fewer anticipate ideological conflicts that could slow down or even thwart these profound cleavages.

Nevertheless, during the next fifty years, there will be manifold changes that can be easily described.

There will be a demographic upheaval. In 2050, unless there is a major catastrophe, 9.5 billion human beings will inhabit the earth, or 3 billion more than at present. Life expectancy in the richest countries will be almost a hundred years; the birth rate will undoubtedly stagnate close to the replacement level. This will result in an aging of the population. In China the population is expected to go up by 360 million, in India by 600 million, in Nigeria and Bangladesh by 100 million, in the United States by 80 million, in France by 9 million while in Germany it will go down by 10 million and in Russia perhaps by 30 million. Two-thirds of humanity will live in cities whose population will double as also the consumption of energy and agricultural produce. The number of people old enough to work will also double; more than two thirds of the children born during this year will live in the twenty poorest countries.

There will be many other upheavals that can be foreseen with a certain amount of precision: when observed over a very long period, History seems to unwaveringly follow a set direction that no jolt, however protracted, has so far succeeded in deflecting it for a fairly long time: century after century, mankind has cherished individual freedom more than all other values. It has done so by continuously refusing to submit itself to any kind of servitude, through technical progress that has reduced physical effort, by liberalizing its moral code, its political systems, its art and ideologies. In other words, human history is the story of the emergence of man as an individual having certain rights: the right to think and to control his destiny, freedom from all constraints, except the need to respect the rights of others to the same freedom.

This evolution is still the preserve of the richest people who constantly challenge the powers that be and give rise to new powers. To emphasize the primacy of the individual over society, people progressively devised various systems for sharing resources that are in short supply. For a very long time, they put them under the charge of warrior chiefs, priests and princes at the head of kingdoms and empires; then a new ruling class that was larger and more mobile, namely the merchants, thought of two new revolutionary mechanisms for sharing wealth: the market and democracy. Having made an appearance almost thirty centuries ago, they gradually established themselves; today they shape the major portion of the world and determine its future.

Gradually, despite increasingly violent reactions, the market has changed the principal services in increasingly larger areas (food, clothing, leisure, housing, transport, communication); initially they were provided free of cost—either willingly or under duress, then as commercial services; later, it transformed them into mass-produced industrial goods, the real tools of individual freedom.

Also gradually, the freedom to trade contributed to the emergence of political freedom, initially for a small minority and later for most people—at least formally—in increasingly larger areas, replacing religious and military power almost everywhere. All said and done, dictatorship gave birth to the market, which in its turn sired democracy. Thus after the twelfth century the world's first market democracies came into being.

Once again gradually, their geographical area expanded; the nucleus of power controlling all these market democracies gradually moved towards the west: it moved in the twelfth century from the Middle East to the Mediterranean, then to the North Sea, across the Atlantic Ocean, and finally, today, to the Pacific Coast. Nine "nuclei" followed each other: Bruges, Venice, Antwerp, Genoa, Amsterdam, London, Boston, New York, and now Los Angeles. The entire world, except for China and the Middle East, is now is now directly under the Mercantile Order.

Still gradually, competition led to the concentration of power over markets and democracy – supposed to be equally accessible to all—in the hands of the new elite that controlled capital and knowledge and created new inequalities.

Although this history covering thousands of years will continue in the same manner for another half a century, the market and democracy will extend to areas where they are now absent; development will speed up, the standard of living will rise; dictatorship will disappear from countries where it still exists. But insecurity and disloyalty will be rife; water and energy will be in short supply, there will be alarming climatic changes; inequalities and frustrations will increase; conflicts will multiply; and there will be mass population movements.

Around 2035, at the end of a very long battle, and in the throes of a severe environmental crisis, the US—still the dominant empire—will be subdued by the globalization of markets, particularly financial markets, and by the power of corporations, especially insurance companies. Financially and politically exhausted, like other empires before it, the US will cease to rule the world. It will continue nonetheless to be an important power; it will not be replaced by another empire or another dominant nation.

The world will become polycentric for some time, under the sway of a handful of regional powers.

Then, around 2050, the market, which by its very nature has no boundaries, will gain the upper hand over democracy, which will be institutionally limited to a small area. States will become weaker; new nanometrical technologies will bring down energy consumption and transform the remaining collective services: health, education, security and sovereignty; new consumer goods will make an appearance—I shall call them supervisors, as they will be used to measure things and make sure that they conform to set norms: Each person will become his own doctor, teacher, regulator. The economy will use energy and water more sparingly. Self-supervision will be the ultimate form of freedom and the fear of not satisfying norms will be its limit. Transparency will be a moral responsibility; anybody wanting to conceal his relationships, morals, the state of his health or his educational qualifications will be necessarily suspect. Increased life expectancy will give more power to the elderly who will choose to run up debts. Governments will have to step aside to make way for corporations and cities.

Hypernomads will govern a virtual empire, open and without a center: a hyperempire. Each person living in this empire will be answerable only to himself; companies will no longer have a nationality; the poor will be a market among many others; laws will be replaced by contracts, justice by arbitration, the police by mercenaries. New forms of entertainment will appear; there will be shows and games to entertain the settled population, while huge masses of nomads driven by poverty, infranomads, will disregard borders as they look for means of livelihood. Insurance companies, having become world regulators, will decide the norms that governments, companies and individuals must conform to. Private ruling bodies will be appointed by insurance companies to oversee the observance of these norms. Resources will become scarcer, the number of robots will increase. Time, even the most private moments, will be spent almost entirely in using commercial goods. The day will come when each one will have to repair himself, produce spare parts for himself and, finally, get himself cloned. Man will then become an artifact consuming other artifacts, a cannibal eating other cannibalistic objects, a victim of nomadic ills.

Naturally, all this will not proceed smoothly: Much before the collapse of the American empire, and well before the climate becomes almost unbearable, people will begin to fight over land, there will be innumerable wars; nations, pirates, mercenaries, mafias, religious movements will acquire new weapons, surveillance systems, deterrents and striking forces using electronics, genetics and nanotechnology. Further, the advent of the hyperempire will make each one compete with everyone else. There will be fights over oil and water, to keep land and to leave it, to impose a faith or to combat another, to destroy the West, to make one's own values supreme. Military dictatorships, together with armies and police forces, will seize power. A war more deadly than all others, a hyperconflict crystallizing all others may break out and exterminate mankind.

Around 2060, at the latest—unless mankind has already disappeared under a shower of bombs—it will no longer be necessary to put up either with the American empire, or the hyperempire, or the hyperconflict. New forces, altruistic and universalizing—at work even today—will take over the world, driven by ecological, ethical, economic, cultural and political compulsions. They will revolt against the demands of supervision, narcissism and set norms. They will lead progressively to a new equilibrium, this time on a worldwide scale, between the market and democracy: hyperdemocracy. Global and continental institutions suitable for collective life will be set up with new technologies; they will decide the limits of commercial artifacts, changes in the pattern of living and methods of using nature to serve mankind; they will support disinterestedness, responsibility, access to knowledge. They will promote the emergence of a universal intelligence by pooling together the creative abilities of all humans so that they excel themselves. A new economy, called a relational economy, producing non-profit services, will compete with the market before eliminating it, just as the market put an end to feudalism a few centuries ago.

During this period, the market and democracy, which are not as distant as they are believed to be in the sense they are understood today, will become outdated concepts, vague memories, as difficult to understand as cannibalism and human sacrifice today.

Like any summary, what has been written in the preceding pages will surely appear arbitrary if not ridiculous. But the point is to show that this is what is most likely to occur in the future. It is not a future that I would wish for. Attentive readers will find in this book a deeper analysis of the theories developed in my earlier essays and novels where I had pointed toward the geopolitical shift toward the Pacific, the financial instability inherent in capitalism, the importance of climate change, the emergence of financial bubbles, the fragility of communism, the threat of terrorism, the rise of nomadism, the advent of the mobile telephone, the personal computer, the Internet and other nomadic objects, the emergence of free and customized services and the significant role of art, particularly music, in the world's diversity. The most attentive among these readers will also notice changes in my thinking: Fortunately, it did not descend from the heavens in a fully developed form.

[flintlock]

Re: Collapse or Indefinite Serfdom?

Exactly, BOTH!

The ingredients found in our food supply, not to mention those found in substances that interface with our skin, are enough to make anyone shutter at the breath & gravity of the attack. For example, did you realize your city water supply probably now has chloramines (chlorine & ammonia) in it. Might be fine to drink, because your digestive system will address, but your skin can't filter, allowing the chemical to absorb directly into the blood stream, especially during a hot bath or shower. Substance doesn't kill the bad stuff in water as well as safer options, but it's a great neurotoxin that also attacks the thyroid.

I've never quite figured it all out, are there thousand's of Will Huntings (from the recruitment movie, Good Will Hunting) recruited into thinktanks who spend their lives dreaming-up socialized weapon systems to deploy on the public?

I installed a filter system on my shower for this very reason.

[flintlock]

Re: Collapse or Indefinite Serfdom?

I find it hilarious when Americans have a go at immigrants. There couldn't be anything more dumbass, ignorant and hypocritical.

Complaints about immigration policy - fair enough.

Against immigrants-you're the idiot.

Agree. Big difference between immigration policy and immigrants themselves. Blame your politicians, not the immigrant. The world has growing pains as a result of the the new "globalism" policy of many nations, which exists today to transfer the benefits to a few powerful individuals, while tranfering the costs to the taxpayer. It cant last and will result in economic collapse and probably a fascist backlash that will make any racism seem tame in comparison. Those who actually care about immigrants would be wise to look down the road a bit and work to fix the situation instead of sticking their heads in the sand, or merely using immigrants as political pawns and a way to get their mulch spread more cheaply.

How many people give any thought to helping countries like Mexico fight corruption and improve their economy? Yeah, thats what I thought. I cant help but think most mexican immigrants had rather stay there with their friends and family, skip the harrowing journey, the Coyotes, and the homesickness. But then who would we have to exploit?

[raja]

Re: Collapse or Indefinite Serfdom?

It's irrelevant how many children I have. The truth of my argument does not depend on how many children I have.

I honestly do not understand what your last sentence meant or how it is supposed to refute the common-sense point I was making that when you allow significant numbers of low-IQ people into your country, who also have more children than you do, that you get a stupider country that is less capable of maintaining the kind of society the Founding generations created.

When you allow Europeans to emigrate here you get a more European society.
When you allow Africans to emigrate here you get a more African society.
When you allow Muslims to emigrate here you get a more Muslim society.
When you allow Mexicans to emigrate here you get a more Mexican society.

This is not difficult to understand. I don't care to live in a more African, Muslim, or Mexican society.

Mn_Mark brings up an interesting point.

Do people of a nation, or community, have the right to choose the way they want to live?
The nature of democracy is that majority rules (theoretically, anyway). So, do I have the right to keep out of my nation or community people who would vote in a different way of life, in order to maintain the way of life I choose?

Personally, I would prefer a pluralistic society. But perhaps that is too idealistic, given the evil tendencies in human nature. Maybe we all just can't get along. If pluralistic society created problems, or threatened my chosen lifestyle, I would take whatever politic action I could to reverse it.

Life is like a garden.
You want a certain result, so you plant the type of vegetables you like, and weed out the rest. We weeded out the Nazis and fanatic Jap Imperialists in WWII, and now we are weeding out the radical Islamists.
But these are the extremes . . . .
What about if Muslims became a majority in a country through immigration and procreation proclivities. Do they not, by the rules of democracy, have the right to pass laws that favor their lifestyle. Suppose they passed a law requiring all women to cover their heads in public? Would you go for that? Or do you think it would have been better to limit immigration of Muslims?

Very complex issues, and I'm just speaking in general terms. Don't pick it apart over the details . . . .

I live near a Mennonite community. They have very strong religious beliefs. If one of their members goes against those beliefs, they shun him until he leaves or repents. Do these Mennonites have the right to create a community that they choose by weeding out those with differing views? I say yes, any group does, as long as it doesn't go against basic human rights.

[photon555]

Re: Collapse or Indefinite Serfdom?

I find liberal intolerance and blindness to the obvious to be very amusing as Mn-Mark pointed out. It is obvious that racial genotypes can affect the averages of height, weight, body type, facial features, eye color, skin color, hair type and placement, hair color, strength, endurance, and other physical descriptors. But it CANNOT, under any circumstances be allowed to affect the average I.Q. This is not permitted in the liberal worldview. If you dare to disagree you will be branded a heretic, or skeptic, and (virtually) drawn and quartered and burned at the stake. Forget about tenure, government or foundation grants, or the continued fellowship of your peers. You are a non-person and have no standing. This from those who profess themselves to be the guardians of Tolerance for everyone.

So now I have a couple of questions for the supporters of illegals. Since it's OK by you for Mexicans, Central Americans, and anybody else who can get themself across the Rio Grande to violate our borders, why don't you sneak into Mexico and get an illegal job and sponge off of their welfare, healthcare system. I promise to send you at least one care package to whatever filthy Mexican jail you wind up in. And why are you discriminating against all the honest people who spend money and years of their lives waiting to get into this country legally. Why not speak out for their "right" to come here whenever they want and work at whatever job they can find and collect welfare, EIC, food stamps, housing assistance, energy assistance, educational assistance, and the simpering, condescending sympathy of liberals. Perhaps because they don't come from a "protected" or "preferenced" racial type. The very thought is heresy.

Illegal immigrants (and some legal ones) are helping to bankrupt this country's educational, healthcare, and wefare systems. The reason it's permitted by pols is so they can buy their illegal votes and support with taxpayer's money. It's a crass and corrupt faustian bargain. Our children and grandchildren will be paying the bill for decades to come.

It is impossible to have "protected classes" without having unprotected groups who will be preyed upon to support and offer preferences to the chosen few (who may be many millions). Big government, like big banks and big corporations destroy freedom, wealth, and eventually life itself.

[reggie]

Re: Collapse or Indefinite Serfdom?

I installed a filter system on my shower for this very reason.

Smart man (women)! Vitamin C is the only substance, to my knowledge, that will neutralize the chloramines, but frequent changes are required. It's another attack on our endocrine system, along the same lines as the Soya industry, which is now almost impossible to escape in the food chain.

[reggie]

Re: Collapse or Indefinite Serfdom?

Mn_Mark brings up an interesting point. Do people of a nation, or community, have the right to choose the way they want to live? The nature of democracy is that majority rules (theoretically, anyway). So, do I have the right to keep out of my nation or community people who would vote in a different way of life, in order to maintain the way of life I choose? Personally, I would prefer a pluralistic society. But perhaps that is too idealistic, given the evil tendencies in human nature. Maybe we all just can't get along. If pluralistic society created problems, or threatened my chosen lifestyle, I would take whatever politic action I could to reverse it. Life is like a garden. You want a certain result, so you plant the type of vegetables you like, and weed out the rest. We weeded out the Nazis and fanatic Jap Imperialists in WWII, and now we are weeding out the radical Islamists. But these are the extremes . . . . What about if Muslims became a majority in a country through immigration and procreation proclivities. Do they not, by the rules of democracy, have the right to pass laws that favor their lifestyle. Suppose they passed a law requiring all women to cover their heads in public? Would you go for that? Or do you think it would have been better to limit immigration of Muslims? Very complex issues, and I'm just speaking in general terms. Don't pick it apart over the details . . . . I live near a Mennonite community. They have very strong religious beliefs. If one of their members goes against those beliefs, they shun him until he leaves or repents. Do these Mennonites have the right to create a community that they choose by weeding out those with differing views? I say yes, any group does, as long as it doesn't go against basic human rights.

The more I've learned about the human brain and the techniques employed to manipulate it, the more I conclude that free will is a concept that rarely applies to any individual any longer. For example, "choice" itself is a concept of control, used to limit and direct human action to preselected options. The real question then become about a struggle between human "instinct" over "choice", as that's where real liberty emanates.

[c1ue]

Re: Collapse or Indefinite Serfdom?

It is obvious that racial genotypes can affect the averages of height, weight, body type, facial features, eye color, skin color, hair type and placement, hair color, strength, endurance, and other physical descriptors. But it CANNOT, under any circumstances be allowed to affect the average I.Q.

This statement would be a lot more credible if you could demonstrate some fundamental genetic structure which controls average I.Q.

I.Q. isn't a hair color, which is a specific gene. I.Q. isn't weight - which is a function of nutrition. I.Q. isn't height - which is also a function of nutrition and genes. All the other features you speak of are controlled by specific genes. There are 7 foot Chinese, 7 foot Africans, 7 foot South Indians, 7 foot Europeans, and so forth.

What is the I.Q. gene or genes?

The reality? I.Q. is much more a social, wealth, and education factor than anything else especially when filtered through a written test.

Thus while I agree that any blanket characterization is generally wrong - in this particular case the so-called liberal notion that I.Q. is not racial, is correct.

I suggest you read some of the hate literature on the inherent stupidity of Irish, of Italians, of (insert minority here) from the years past.