Western leaders need to stop exploiting genocide and Rwanda in order to justify further aggressive and self-serving intervention.
These people couldn’t care less about the lives of others and contribute to countless foreign policies that result in large scale death of human beings all the time. Why would they suddenly care so much if another Rwanda took place or not???
This just gives more credence to my theory:
Republicans pursued food-stamp cuts last year, and blocked a deal to extend unemployment benefits during budget negotiations in December. On Tuesday, a handful of Republicans joined Senate Democrats to advance a bill reinstating the benefits for three months, but the agreement faces an uphill battle in the GOP-controlled House.
It disgusts me that some people actually pat themselves on the back and think they are doing a good job by pulling bullshit like this.
What they are doing is EVIL. Literally EVIL. Yes, the ‘good and evil’-type of EVIL.
A certain level of extreme vapidness and natural confusion concerning blatant and obvious truth seems prerequisite to becoming a news-anchor, does it not?
Who is this person who cares so much about the lives of foreigners that they oppose limited interventionism by Western states? Who is this person who cares so much about the lives of Third World peoples that they want to unleash the violence and brutality of Western military states onto those people to save them?
Find me the person who cares so much about the lives of non-Westerners that they want to use Western Imperialism to liberate such peoples and I’ll show that all you’ve done is ferret out a shameless, villainous LIAR.
Terminology has gotten so confusing. Soviet-style socialism had absolutely nothing to do with Karl Marx’s original manifesto aside from using it to justify illegitimate forms of control. China being more of a free market that is run by an all powerful autocratic élite is now the complete opposite of what Karl Marx had envisioned for communism. American liberalism is pure subservience – pushing for every “liberal,” “humanitarian” cause that doesn’t actually question unnecessary institutions of power.
(Other glaring misnomers are Hitler’s National “Socialist” Party and The “Democratic” People’s Republic of Korea (who have a surprisingly cute website I should add.))
I think I might be adding to this confusion, so I want to make myself quite clear:
I condemn traditional forms of capitalism that try to keep people poor arbitrarily and unnecessarily. The only type of “capitalism” I uphold is High-Efficiency Capitalism.
Beyond High-Efficiency Capitalism is one other type of economic system I think is both feasible and ethical which us pure collectivism because it provides exponential benefit for all involved when people properly contribute to it. And those who argue against it and have such a huge problem with such things are most likely the ones incapable of contributing properly, in my opinion.
One problem is that going from our current system to pure collectivism (which again has absolutely nothing to do with Soviet Russia seeing as how true collectivism has no dictator) is like turning a balloon inside out. High-Efficiency Capitalism would actually be an amazing way to catalyze such a transition which in reality is inevitable because that’s how groups of organisms naturally stabilize in the environment anyway. (The last few thousands years of human civilization mean diddly-squat compared to the millions of years that species spend approaching a stable group dynamic, in my opinion.)
Today’s servant of power is:
As I stated in one of my other blogs, a tactic of more sinister personality-types is to convince everyone else that selfishness is all that exists and that people are supposed to be that way. That’s why countries like the US and Britain worked so hard to make sure highly democratic forms of economic development didn’t take place.
I wish Friedman was still alive today so I’d have the opportunity to tell this lizard-faced lunatic exactly what I think about him in person.
Obviously, I have my own stance on economics which I’ve discussed in previous posts (A Challenge to the Economists), but will be discussing in more detail in future posts as well.
Why is redistribution of wealth in Sweden not causing the bread lines and abject poverty seen in the Soviet Union during “communist” rule?
Additionally, with how broken the economy and human society/civilization is at this point, would trying something new and giving “providing the basic necessities of life” a chance really be the worst thing imaginable?
The picture comes from: 50 Pictures Everyone Should See | Smashing Picture.
I chose it because it reminds me of the work of Ingmar Bergman, the Swedish director.