Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Noam Chomsky Thread (merged)

For discussions of events and conditions not necessarily related to Peak Oil.

Re: Noam Chomsky interview

Unread postby Shaved Monkey » Mon 20 Apr 2015, 22:22:13

According to the "theory" the US cant be considered rogue.
In theory, at least, to be classified as a rogue, a state had to commit four transgressions: pursue weapons of mass destruction, support terrorism, severely abuse its own citizens, and stridently criticize the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_state
Ready to turn Zombies into WWOOFers
User avatar
Shaved Monkey
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: Wed 30 Mar 2011, 01:43:28

Re: Noam Chomsky interview

Unread postby ralfy » Tue 21 Apr 2015, 02:25:42

The last two paragraphs in the section "Later terms" are notable.
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5558
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: Noam Chomsky interview

Unread postby Sixstrings » Tue 21 Apr 2015, 09:47:09

Shaved Monkey wrote:According to the "theory" the US cant be considered rogue.
In theory, at least, to be classified as a rogue, a state had to commit four transgressions: pursue weapons of mass destruction, support terrorism, severely abuse its own citizens, and stridently criticize the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_state


Well, that's correct. If a nation is "rogue," then that's a matter of vantage point -- you and me speak English, you and me live in the West, Shaved Monkey, we are English speaking Westerners that come from a British heritage.

That's our vantage point, or should be.

So -- those OUTSIDE the West, that are in opposition to the West, are the "rogue" nations. They are "rogue" against the western allies. Whereas from their vantage point, we are rogue against the Dear Leader Putin, or we are rogue against their caliph, or rogue against the Chinese communist party.

It's a matter of vantage point.

So I'd have to ask what is Chomsky's vantage point, if he's saying America and the West are all rogues -- then why doesn't he go move to where others would share his view. If Chomsky does not believe in constitutional civil rights and democracy, then why does he live here.

What's he expect us to do, love China and love Iran and love all the oppression and crazy sh*t they have over there and just hate our own country where we actually live, it makes no sense to me.

We're Americans, and Westerners. We believe in our way of life and believe it's the best way for all people, if they can have it. We're not Chinese. We're not Iranians, or North Koreans, or Russians. We're not Belorussians either -- I remember reading about some old ladies in Belarus that just lit a candle for peace in Ukraine, and sure enough here comes the police and they arrested them.

From the wiki on "outposts of tyranny:"

The world should apply what Natan Sharansky calls the "town square test": if a person cannot walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm, then that person is living in a fear society, not a free society. We cannot rest until every person living in a "fear society" has finally won their freedom."[1]


There's two sides in this world, there's a side where people can walk in the town square and mostly say whatever they want to, and there's the other side where government has an iron boot on top of speech and thought.

So yeah, we're the good guys and yeah, dictatorships are the rogues.

Plenty of our allies are "fear society" dictatorships that don't pass the "town square test," but you only get labeled a rogue if you're not only a dictatorship but you're also actively opposed and screwing with the West.

It's natural that tyrannical societies are opposed to free ones -- generally, the two usually can't get along or be friends, because the oppressive society fears the FREEDOM of the other. They can't get too close to us, or their people would want what our people have. Those are the rogues, that's a what a rogue state is. It's a North Korea that brutalizes its own people, and attacked an American company because it made a movie they're afraid for their people to see.

On the other hand -- American police are pulling their guns and using them too much lately, and that ought to stop. That all comes from post 9/11 and the police got militarized and got a bunch of funding and they're too gung ho like they're patrolling Falujah or something. So see we are drifting off course a bit in some areas, but that doesn't mean the American Way isn't the right way, it means we're drifting from our own values when we do things like that.

And it's not just the American Way, it's the Australian Way, and the Dutch Way, etc. It's Western, it's just sh*t making sense and not crazy insane things going on and brutal oppression like so much of the world has, and we in the West do not.

(the real definition of rogue nation is not just a place that fails the free speech "town square" test, but rather it's a place that's just a bottom line bad guy. They defy all international law and are completely impossible to work with. The rogue nations fund terrorism, and they do international crime -- like how North Korea counterfeits US dollars. And NK just frickin' kidnaps Japanese, when they want to.

Rogues are like -- barbarians. They are Hun, the vikings, enemies of civilization.

And Noam Chomsky is apparently opposed to civilization. Of course he is, he's an anarchist right? So what does he want, the ISIS caliphate to get bigger. Does Chomsky want to see Iran take over half the middle east, and they're working on nukes to give them cover to be ROGUES and do whatever bad guy stuff they want to do -- complete with missiles they buy from Russia.

Does Noam Chomksy not care, if oppression in North Korea and Cuba never end?

Is Noam Chomksy against the whole West and for all the enemies of our civilization?

I don't know what side he is on, but I know I'm not on it. I never could understand anarchists, it really should be common sense, anarchists want to bring on ANARCHY -- they are the ones that just want to tear it all down, replaced with nothing but madness and anarchy. I swear I can't figure anarchists out, nor want to.

And one last thing about Chomsky -- his real philosophy is that he is an anarchist -- and he is anti-American and anti-Western -- so environmentalism is just incidental to the anti-americanism, it supports his arguments for why the West is so rogue and are the bad guys. That's why you'll never hear him talking about pollution in China or anywhere else, because his point is the anti-americanism not the environment anyway.)
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Noam Chomsky interview

Unread postby Shaved Monkey » Tue 21 Apr 2015, 18:08:59

Sixstrings wrote:(the real definition of rogue nation is not just a place that fails the free speech "town square" test, but rather it's a place that's just a bottom line bad guy. They defy all international law and are completely impossible to work with. The rogue nations fund terrorism, and they do international crime -- like how North Korea counterfeits US dollars. And NK just frickin' kidnaps Japanese, when they want to.
Rogues are like -- barbarians. They are Hun, the vikings, enemies of civilization.


CIA

Doubt concerning the nature of these supernotes arose on January 10, 2008, in the McClatchy Washington Bureau.
The article makes mention of the increasing doubt of testimonies and sources, and of the CIA's involvement. Klaus Bender, an author of works on counterfeiting, claimed that the notes are of such high quality that they could only be produced by a government agency such as the CIA.
This 2008 article also states that the United States no longer explicitly accuses the North Korean government of producing supernotes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superdollar
Ready to turn Zombies into WWOOFers
User avatar
Shaved Monkey
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2486
Joined: Wed 30 Mar 2011, 01:43:28

Re: Noam Chomsky interview

Unread postby Quinny » Wed 22 Apr 2015, 02:21:18

Suppose the point that nowhere is safe from the reach of the US military backs up Chomsky's points. As totalitarian as North Korea might be, they don't tend to be starting wars all over the planet!
Live, Love, Learn, Leave Legacy.....oh and have a Laugh while you're doing it!
User avatar
Quinny
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Noam Chomsky interview

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Wed 22 Apr 2015, 02:27:53

Sixstrings wrote: I swear I can't figure anarchists out, nor want to.
Let me guess, you are so determined in your know-nothing ignorance that you haven't even read the Wikipedia article:
Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies often defined as self-governed voluntary institutions,[1][2][3][4] but that several authors have defined as more specific institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations.[5][6][7][8] Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful.[9][10] While anti-statism is central,[11] anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system.[6][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]
Facebook knows you're a dog.
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7344
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: Noam Chomsky interview

Unread postby Cog » Wed 22 Apr 2015, 02:45:55

I figured that old commie would be dead by now. Nonetheless, he is an irrelevant old man who holds no power and makes no policy. He should immigrate to North Korea and report back to us on how great it is.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13416
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Noam Chomsky interview

Unread postby Sixstrings » Wed 22 Apr 2015, 02:55:08

Keith_McClary wrote:
Sixstrings wrote: I swear I can't figure anarchists out, nor want to.
Let me guess, you are so determined in your know-nothing ignorance that you haven't even read the Wikipedia article:


Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies often defined as self-governed voluntary institutions,[1][2][3][4] but that several authors have defined as more specific institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations.[5][6][7][8] Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful.[9][10] While anti-statism is central,[11] anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system.[6][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]


Am I alone in this, does not the very word "anarchist" have negative connotations?

I'm not an expert on it, but I have general knowledge. I've seen documentaries about it -- if I'm not mistaken, there were anarchists back in the very early 1900s too. If I recall my history, I think it was a foreign immigrant "anarchist" that shot president McKinley.

Czolgosz had lost his job during the economic Panic of 1893 and turned to anarchism, a political philosophy whose adherents had recently killed foreign leaders. Regarding McKinley as a symbol of oppression, Czolgosz felt it was his duty as an anarchist to kill him. Unable to get near McKinley during the earlier part of the presidential visit, Czolgosz shot McKinley twice as the President reached to shake his hand in the reception line at the temple. One bullet grazed McKinley; the other entered his abdomen and was never found.


Okay I looked it up, I recalled correctly. See anarchy, actual "anarchists" and that particular philosophy is quite old now.

Anarchists were a bunch of wingnut no good trouble way back then, this was revolutionary days and around the time of Karl Marx and those new ideas too.

Anarchists are just bad news.

And then in modern times, the only time you ever hear about anarchists is some British college student or a grunge rock band and they've got that A with the circle around it. Looks like a satanic pentagram or something.

So yeah, young people think it's cool, and they wear their masks and have their anarchist A and they riot and burn things down and "tear it all down, man."

But that's no kind of mature philosophy for society, that's for sure. This is just my opinion Keith, anarchists in practice seem like bad news types to me.

As a philosophy, it seems like rubbish to me -- like nihlism. You cannot have society without some kind of organization, anarchists just bring on -- ANARCHY. We all know what that word means, anarchy. One can't have anything, or do anything, or build anything in the presence of chaos and anarchy. People are either on drugs or nuts, if they actually LIKE "anarchy." Otherwise, people do NOT like "anarchy," not at all, it makes folks a nervous wreck if there's nothing but chaos and anarchy and instability.

Anarchists want to tear systems down, *without even replacing it with anything*. An anarchist is against everything, but for nothing.

Anarchy is simply not human nature. We are social primates. We evolved this, it's in our genes. We have tribes and societies and we have social systems. We can all argue about the various social systems, which we prefer, but anarchists are quite strange -- they say no system at all.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Noam Chomsky interview

Unread postby Sixstrings » Wed 22 Apr 2015, 03:06:02

Anarchists seem like just a bunch of hoodlums to me..

Image
Image
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Noam Chomsky interview

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Wed 22 Apr 2015, 11:54:18

Sixstrings wrote:
Keith_McClary wrote:
Sixstrings wrote: I swear I can't figure anarchists out, nor want to.
Let me guess, you are so determined in your know-nothing ignorance that you haven't even read the Wikipedia article:


Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates stateless societies often defined as self-governed voluntary institutions,[1][2][3][4] but that several authors have defined as more specific institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations.[5][6][7][8] Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, or harmful.[9][10] While anti-statism is central,[11] anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system.[6][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]


Am I alone in this, does not the very word "anarchist" have negative connotations?
How about:
Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgement.[1][2]
Libertarians generally share a skepticism of authority; however, they diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing political and economic systems. Various schools of libertarian thought offer a range of views regarding the legitimate functions of state and private power, often calling to restrict or even to wholly dissolve pervasive social institutions. Rather than embodying a singular, rigid systematic theory or ideology, libertarianism has been applied as an umbrella term to a wide range of sometimes discordant political ideas through modern history.
Facebook knows you're a dog.
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7344
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: Noam Chomsky interview

Unread postby Sixstrings » Thu 23 Apr 2015, 03:45:41

Libertarians and anarchists are apples and oranges, two different things.

Anarchists are just against EVERYTHING, they are like nihilists, it's "anarchy:"

noun
1.
a state of society without government or law.
2.
political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control:
The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.
Synonyms: lawlessness, disruption, turmoil.
3.
anarchism (def 1).
4.
lack of obedience to an authority; insubordination:
the anarchy of his rebellious teenage years.
5.
confusion and disorder


Libertarians are NOT for "anarchy."

Libertarians believe in emergent natural law systems -- a free market, individual choice, etc.

Libertarians aren't against all government, they're against too much government.

When an anarchist shot president McKinley, we basically had Libertarian government, at that time. Anarchists just want to tear everything down. I actually suspect anarchy is an offshoot from socialism -- anarchists develop, in the presence of too much state control, and people get disaffected. It's understandable, but still, it's inherently anti-social.

Libertarians are FOR something -- the individual, and market forces -- but anarchists are just AGAINST everything, they've got no ideas FOR anything other than just making trouble and tearing everything down. ("everything," meaning, other peoples' property and then the anarchist doesn't give a sh*t about that, because an anarchist is inherently anti-social and amoral. Anarchists are not good folks pillars of society types. They just aren't, I'm sorry, they're just wingnuts. They were nuts back when they shot old president McKinley, and they still are today a hundred years later.)

When I think of "anarchists" and that red A with the circle -- I think of British yobs on the dole and they put their masks on they go riot and steal things and smash things up, then they go back home again and keep cashing the government check.

Anarchism, as a philosophy, is an UNHEALTHY revolt against suffocating social control. It's unhealthy, not constructive -- Libertarianism can be constructive, they just have a different way of going about it versus socialism.

But an anarchist is just lashing out, "tearing it all down," and not for anything to replace the old order with.

ISIS seems "anarchist," to me, more than anything religious. Look at their caliphate and what they do -- it's senseless anarchy, right?

Anarchy is the natural enemy of civilization. An anarchist is just angry, and lashing out against society. What is an "anarchist?" It's like the guy that listens to punk or death metal, and just thrashes about in the mosh pit. It's the "soccer hooligan," just smashing things up.

I'm sorry, anarchy as a philosophy, and anarchists, are just bad news.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Noam Chomsky interview

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Thu 23 Apr 2015, 17:53:39

Sixstrings wrote:But an anarchist is just lashing out, "tearing it all down," and not for anything to replace the old order with.

Here's how he describes it:
The thing you need an argument for, and should give an argument for, is, How can we best proceed in that direction? And there are lots of ways within the current society. One way, incidentally, is through use of the state, to the extent that it is democratically controlled. I mean in the long run, anarchists would like to see the state eliminated. But it exists, alongside of private power, and the state is, at least to a certain extent, under public influence and control — could be much more so. And it provides devices to constrain the much more dangerous forces of private power. Rules for safety and health in the workplace for example. Or insuring that people have decent health care, let’s say. Many other things like that. They’re not going to come about through private power. Quite the contrary.

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties ... bertarians
Facebook knows you're a dog.
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7344
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: Noam Chomsky interview

Unread postby Pops » Thu 23 Apr 2015, 18:52:07

On one of the political quizzes I always come out right around Chomsky and Nader, pretty antiauthoritarian socially and mid-socialist economically, kind of the opposite of the average American. I think that is probably, mostly, the antiauthoritarian influence. I'm not a big redistributionist but I do see class warfare, class oppression, and especially increasing militarism and civil rights intrusions as a real and present danger.

Obviously I am concerned about the ruling class doing the oppressing in my country under cover of law. Democracy for the most part is the attempt to escape from and prevent oppression, either by military force or economic fiat. It seems we are in a dangerous time as white middle class folks, especially males, see themselves losing power and endorsing more and more draconian policy.

Yeah, Bush-O-bam-arama killing anyone anywhere anytime they choose is not the American way. A few trillion more spent on the .mil is only going to make matters worse.

So as to anarchy, that is the stateless society, I think it is silly. There are no organizations without hierarchies, no hierarchies without oligarchs, it's a law! LOL I think it is like secession, I can't remember how many folks today would like their state to secede, their town and their neighborhood too — right down to the dozen or so people in the world who think exactly like them and want to do exactly the same things, in the same order, at the same cost and in the same color as they want. Pretty funny.

My cynical comment for the days is people are not going to do the right thing without the threat of violence or at least an attitude adjustment to the top of the head. It is the social contract, take some give some. I know, such things are out of fashion in the areas where people think before they showed up the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and then they they built that. Just goes to show that people are so incredibly self-centered that to expect them to just voluntarily assume a place at the table, without taking over the table is asinine.

Now, that was a little more than I had planned. I meant to say that anarchy that says the state is immoral is just pie in the sky. We aren't wandering around in loincloths any more. The function of the state is to protect me from enemies foreign and domestic. At the moment (well, the last century and a half more like) we are concerned more about the foreign enemy while the domestic enemy, that is to say the entity nominally known as domestic has become the real problem - it is neither foreign nor domestic; it is multi-national.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Noam Chomsky interview

Unread postby onlooker » Sat 25 Apr 2015, 06:22:33

"anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system".
This is key in that is opposes any system that is overly dominant in a hierarchical manner. Certainly muli-national corporations have a hierarchy they are beholden to the stake-stock holders and/or owners. Our whole world is organized within hierarchical structures. Is their other forms of organization which humans can or could have employed? I do not know the answer to that question but it most assuredly demands some study as hierarchy tends to concentrate too much the power and power in turn tends to corrupt too much. If we could organize in ways that diffuse power horizontally so that decision making and authority are shared, input is welcomed and received from many sources and final decisions are agreed to in a democratic way with as little arbitrary mandates from any potent small group or individual as possible. That would be the theoretical ideal.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

"GOP = Most Dangerous Org. in History"--Chomsky

Unread postby dohboi » Wed 18 May 2016, 13:54:59

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/5/16/c ... _candidate

Today's GOP is a Candidate for Most Dangerous Organization in Human History

(This is part two of the series. Part one can be found here: http://www.democracynow.org/2016/5/16/n ... liferation )

The threat of global warming is very serious. Every time one reads a science journal, there’s an even more alarming discovery. Virtually all the ice masses are melting. The Arctic ice mass, which was assumed to be pretty stable, is actually melting very fast, much more than was thought. The glaciers are melting. There’s severe droughts. Right now already, about 300 million people in India are on the edge of starvation from drought, which has been going on for years...

...If people think there’s a migration crisis now, they haven’t seen anything.

The sea level is rising. Chances are it could rise three to six feet, maybe more, by the end of the century—some estimate even sooner. It will have a devastating effect, not just on coastal cities, but on coastal plains, like, say, Bangladesh, where hundreds of millions of people will be severely threatened.

...we’re already killing other species at the level of the so-called fifth extinction. Sixty-five million years ago, when an asteroid hit the Earth, devastating consequences ended the age of the dinosaurs, opened the way for small mammals to develop, ultimately evolve, finally evolve into Homo sapiens, which now is acting the same way the asteroid did. That’s the fifth extinction. It’s going to get worse.

...the rate of global warming today is far faster, maybe a hundred or more times as fast as any moderately comparable period that can be estimated in the geological record...

...On the Republican side, it’s much worse. Every single candidate either denies global warming altogether or, in one case, Kasich, admits that it’s taking place but says we shouldn’t do anything about it, which is even worse.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: "GOP = Most Dangerous Org. in History"--Chomsky

Unread postby sidzepp » Wed 18 May 2016, 17:20:49

Environmental degradation, global warming, climate change; choose your mantra, the typical American along with the well off in other nations do not seem much interested in the continual ravages to our ecosystem other than playing lip service. While it may be true that the typical GOP supporter is in denial, most Democrats are not far behind. Both sides talk big about jobs and crime which the average American identifies with easily. Throw in a little terrorism and undocumented workers and there is not much room left to discuss environmental issues. A cold snap is used to dismiss global warming and all the statistics available are muted because a few people shiver a little more for a few days.

The simple truth is that we as a species are in extreme denial. BAU is the mantra. The U.S. elections the Philippines, the rise of extremist groups in Europe, all point in the same direction. People are looking for security in these chaotic times and it is only going to grow worse.

As economies fail, as acts of terror increase, people are going to look for nationalist leaders to restore prosperity and greatness to society. We are witnessing events in the world today that share similar parallels to the twenties and thirties. The major power players in the world, the U.S., Russia, China, and the EU are collaborators in this drama being played out and they will continue to play their neo-colonialist game to protect their interests.
sidzepp
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed 01 Jul 2015, 21:38:10

Re: "GOP = Most Dangerous Org. in History"--Chomsky

Unread postby Timo » Wed 18 May 2016, 17:30:44

Unfortunately for everyone, if we're not a part of the game, we lose.

Therefore, we put on the brave face of denial and join the fray, knowing full well that there will be no winner at all, but feeling the self-satisfaction that we prevented anyone else from winning.

Obstruction beats cooperation every single day.
Timo
 

Re: "GOP = Most Dangerous Org. in History"--Chomsky

Unread postby Lore » Wed 18 May 2016, 17:52:33

People find a comfort zone. Doesn't matter if that's on the rich or poor side of the tracks and then form a habit around it. Anything that tends to threaten that personal state of normalcy ends up being the enemy. It's not until we're forcibly pushed out of that level of complacency that we begin to panic.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: "GOP = Most Dangerous Org. in History"--Chomsky

Unread postby dohboi » Wed 18 May 2016, 17:58:50

"... the Philippines...all point in the same direction. People are looking for security in these chaotic times and it is only going to grow worse."

To what do you refer wrt the Philippines, here, sz?

Timo wrote:
Unfortunately for everyone, if we're not a part of the game, we lose.


Unless you are a billionaire, you're not really a very big part of 'the game.'

So, yeah, we almost all pretty much lose.

Obstruction beats cooperation every single day.


Then let's get busy obstructing!! Throwing our bodies into the machinery to stop it from grinding to dust the last of the precious living world.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/0 ... odies-line

At Break Free Protests Around the World, Climate Activists Put Bodies on the Line

'Doing something like this, and possibly being arrested, is a lot less crazy than continuing on like nothing is wrong.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Geopolitics & Global Economics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests