Please log in to view images

« prev   random   next »

7
1

George Soros will be treated as the vile Cockroach that he really is, he is a vermin that infects every country in the world

By Tenpoundbass follow Tenpoundbass   2019 Nov 26, 8:36am 836 views   38 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share    


Glen Beck's most important expose to date. For those of you wondering why George Soros gets a bad wrap and just how his organization is responsible for 95% of all upheaval and unrest in the World since Obama's second election 2013. Please watch this Video, so you will understand and not think calls for George Soros' neck to be extended by 2 inches is just hyperbole.

Let's all pray 2020 will be the year, he is locked up for good, tried in an international tribunal and his hung for his crimes against humanity. And the UN is disbanded and chased out of all freedom loving Democratic countries. That they and George Soros serve to undermine and destroy.


1   marcus   ignore (12)   2019 Nov 26, 10:13am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

:
Glenn Beck ? Just say no drugs tpb.


2   marcus   ignore (12)   2019 Nov 26, 11:21am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

:

The ironic thing is that Glenn Beck wishes he could do (and is trying) exactly what he is accusing Soros of doing.

Soon after WW2 we were the most powerful and wealthiest country (or close to it). Of course we had our hands in all kinds of places, many that were probably a mistake. The worst but also the most understandable was when it was for corporate profits ( e.g United Fruit/Dole in Latin America).. How many were about our expanding our corporate level reach ?

My assumption is that all of the international strategies are above my pay grade (or voter grade). We are a republic, and we vote for Congress people and a President that oversees a lot of strategic decisions pertaining to the sort of giant game of RISK that's being played out.

Another assumption is that these strategic moves are necessary as the world moves ever closer to the day that there is some sort of overseeing world entity, that actually includes a fair dealing "global policeman," something like a UN that works. That is it's necessary but certainly could be improved on. I certainly would like the so called "doomsday clock" pushed back.

Meanwhile yes, we do sometimes or perhaps too often find ourselves in that role, while we protect our interests. That's not going to change.

Isolation can not possibly be the answer. That much is obvious.. Trump knows it too. He would change the power structure - increase his influence in those games. Can you imagine the amount of corporate and banking interest in how those games are played out ?

I don't know the answer, but neither does Glenn Beck. He's just a tool. This right now ? Time for Isolation ? Give me a break. I would love to hear an honest discussion of all this, but then it's so complicated, with so many moving parts with implications strategically that make public involvement at the detail level impossible.

Nice narrative though, if you can sell it.
3   NoCoupForYou   ignore (3)   2019 Nov 26, 11:21am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
The ironic thing is that Glenn Beck wishes he could do (and is trying) exactly what he is accusing Soros of doing.


Beck's funding anti-American, Open Borders, and Racial/Gender/Sexuality Identity Groups to the tune of a billion a year?
4   marcus   ignore (12)   2019 Nov 26, 11:25am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

:
No, trying to foment revolution or at least a change in government using social media among other things. Although in Soros' case, I don't know that it was based on lies. THe lie in Beck's case being that isolation is the answer.
5   marcus   ignore (12)   2019 Nov 26, 11:36am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

:
If it is the time for pulling back some, and relative isolation, then let Trump publicly make the case and make that a campaign issue. Maybe it is. At least to somehow turn back the doomsday clock a little. I sure as hell don't claim to know what our objectives in Ukraine are. Maybe it was mostly about preventing Russia from stealing all of their natural gas and other energy interests. Or otherwise protecting Ukraine from Russia.

It's hard to see that Trump or today's republican party should be the ones shaping how exactly that should be done.

We should be working together somehow building and repairing alliances with the EU, Russia, China and the UN, not playing the special needs kid in the playground that nobody knows how to play with.
6   Tenpoundbass   ignore (14)   2019 Nov 26, 11:48am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
No, trying to foment revolution or at least a change in government using social media among other things.


The Facts don't lie.
Since 2013 how many seemingly "Organic" overthrows and regime changes has there been. And in those states, which are for the better today, or didn't descend into total complete chaos? All of which were financed by Soros, through NGO's.
He even financed the Caravans from South America to destroy our immigration system and to foment civil upheaval in the US to stop it.
They had Trump covered, Obama's partisan satanic communist Judges were all in place to thwart anything Trump did on the border. Soros and the Demcoms wanted, needed and fully expected the Trump supporters to storm the border with Shotguns and pistols so the UN could swoop in. But we're smarter than that. We dont' have the green hair and run around wearing pink pussy hats spouting of gibberish, remember?
7   marcus   ignore (12)   2019 Nov 26, 11:55am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tenpoundbass says
The Facts don't lie


True. I wish the ratio of facts to bullshit you were addicted to receiving from your right wing media sources was a little higher. But unfortunately, they've got your number.

Tenpoundbass says
He even financed the Caravans from South America to destroy our immigration system and to foment civil upheaval in the US to stop it.


So he's a Trump supporter now ?

Tenpoundbass says
Obama's partisan satanic communist Judges were all in place to thwart anything Trump did on the border. Soros and the Demcoms wanted, needed and fully expected the Trump supporters to storm the border with Shotguns and pistols so the UN could swoop in.


Oh, okay. I see. Of course, that makes sense. How could I have missed that ?
8   Tenpoundbass   ignore (14)   2019 Nov 26, 11:58am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Marcus you do this to me all the time, and every fucking time, the facts prove that I was correct. and the Liberals are desperate, full of crap and doing everything to prevent the truth from coming out.


The Truth will set you free, it will all come out. It's complicated business, sorry it's taking so long.
9   marcus   ignore (12)   2019 Nov 26, 12:03pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tenpoundbass says
The Truth will set you free, it will all come out. It's complicated business


So tell me. How does it make you feel knowing so much about the world that I don't know ? I would imagine it feels pretty good.
10   marcus   ignore (12)   2019 Nov 26, 12:05pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tenpoundbass says
every fucking time


So you don't think that a single one of the stories you've been told about Soros is false ?

You see in my world, Fox could make up another one about Soros tomorrow, and push it to Drudge and the others, and you would buy it hook line and sinker without any questions. You might even embellish it a little yourself, as far as I can tell.
11   marcus   ignore (12)   2019 Nov 26, 12:12pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

:
George Soros (or perhaps some other Jewish friend of his) probably owns factcheck.org , so you better take this with a grain of salt.

https://www.factcheck.org/person/george-soros/
12   WineHorror1   ignore (1)   2019 Nov 26, 6:00pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
I would love to hear an honest discussion of all this, but then it's so complicated, with so many moving parts with implications strategically that make public involvement at the detail level impossible.

But somehow, an elite group of people will be trustworthy. Bwahahababa
13   WineHorror1   ignore (1)   2019 Nov 26, 6:02pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
:
No, trying to foment revolution or at least a change in government using social media among other things. Although in Soros' case, I don't know that it was based on lies. THe lie in Beck's case being that isolation is the answer.

Hmm, didn't the world get by just fine for thousands of years before ocean/air travel? Wasn't that isolationism? Why are borders a thing? Please answer that
14   WineHorror1   ignore (1)   2019 Nov 26, 6:03pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
It's hard to see that Trump or today's republican party should be the ones shaping how exactly that should be done.

Of course you don't, they aren't YOUR group.
15   mell   ignore (4)   2019 Nov 26, 6:28pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

That's not a conspiracy theory. These are facts. TPB got this right.
16   Fortwaynemobile   ignore (2)   2019 Nov 26, 7:51pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Source of all that globohomo stuff
17   marcus   ignore (12)   2019 Nov 26, 8:49pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

WineHorror1 says
Hmm, didn't the world get by just fine for thousands of years before ocean/air travel? Wasn't that isolationism?


Yes. But then again there were empires constantly conquering other lands and growing. Humanity is at a different stage now. Fairly close to either destroying the world or possibly reaching some sort of equilibrium state that could be great for maybe thousands of years. That progression towards either doom or a sustainable world will happen whether we are isolated or not. The world isn't just us. OF course it makes sense for us to participate (and negotiate) exactly how that all plays out. SOme would argue that we are natural leaders for that process, for many reasons, including the fact that we are already culturally diverse, and becasue our form of government might naturally be implemented on a global scale with a very real United Nations, much like the United States.

Apparently a lot of people see this as a natural end result that may even ultimately be necessary.

But I don't see it happening yet, and it's related to your question about borders. Sure, for the time being borders are necessary.
18   marcus   ignore (12)   2019 Nov 26, 8:51pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

WineHorror1 says
But somehow, an elite group of people will be trustworthy


NOt an elite group. Elected officials and also those public service people that are overseen by elected officials. That's how a republic is meant to work.
19   mell   ignore (4)   2019 Nov 26, 9:35pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
WineHorror1 says
But somehow, an elite group of people will be trustworthy


NOt an elite group. Elected officials and also those public service people that are overseen by elected officials. That's how a republic is meant to work.

Globohomo?
20   FortWayneIndiana   ignore (2)   2019 Nov 27, 8:56am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
WineHorror1 says
But somehow, an elite group of people will be trustworthy


NOt an elite group. Elected officials and also those public service people that are overseen by elected officials. That's how a republic is meant to work.


Whos watching the watchers? Did anyone go to jail for Obama/Lois Lerner browbeating of conservative groups? That was illegal? Did Clintons go to jail for "lying to congress", the same thing Roger Stone was indicted for?

Watchers are a deep state one sided party thing.
21   HEYYOU   ignore (47)   2019 Nov 27, 9:19am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Tpb
Are you worth as much as Soros?
Jealously is not a virtue.
23   Booger   ignore (5)   2019 Dec 23, 6:32am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        



Billionaire globalist George Soros is planning to eliminate the majority of Trump supporters from social media before the 2020 election, according to a leaked document.

http://theduran.com/leaked-49-page-memo-documents-how-george-soros-is-behind-social-media-censorship/
26   marcus   ignore (12)   2019 Dec 24, 3:19pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

:
I guess since Glenn Beck apologized profusely about the way that he used to cry on TV over a bunch of made up lies and nonsensical BS, that now somehow he has more credibility to you ?

If I watch that video, does it have some flow sharts ?

Is he gonna cry ? Tha'ts always a good substitute for logic and facts. Nahh, he doesn't need that. His audience wants to buy exactly what he's selling, a way to believe that Trump's not guilty of anything. trump was just trying to take on the deep state and Gearge Soros. All you have to do is say that and 30 percent of the country will buy it as fact.

It would be funny. Hopefully it will be one day.
27   HEYYOU   ignore (47)   2019 Dec 24, 3:27pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TPB,
Why haven't you acquired close to Soros' wealth,legally?
...
Jealously of a superior mans wealth is not a virtue.
What's a virtue is women who are wealthier than many Republic men.

"America’s Richest Self-Made Women"
They probably never think of millions & millions of loser Republic men,the winner women are too busy being successes. I'm sure Republic men have a long list of reasons they are failures.
https://www.forbes.com/self-made-women/#3213b6e56d96
28   Tenpoundbass   ignore (14)   2019 Dec 24, 4:18pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/24/soros-backed-org-fuels-deceptive-timeline-for-impeachment-case/

For at least the second significant time, an organization financed by billionaire activist George Soros released material playing a central role in directly fueling the impeachment narrative targeting President Trump.

The news media and Democrats are seizing on emails released to the Soros-funded Center for Public Integrity on Friday showing the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requested the Pentagon withhold military aid to Ukraine the same day as Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

The OMB immediately pushed back explaining the aid hold was actually announced seven days prior to Trump’s July 25 phone call and that the Center for Public Integrity was harping on one line within 146 pages of documents that the organization obtained to paint an inaccurate and misleading picture of the timing of the aid hold.

The OMB strongly denied that the email, one of many, had anything to do with Trump’s phone call, explaining the communication was part of an ongoing process put into place one week early.

29   CBOEtrader   ignore (6)   2019 Dec 25, 5:12am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        




At minute 3:10 Bill Barr discusses "social justice judges" strategically financed by George Soros in the courts most ripe for money influence.

George Soros is becoming popular w the main stream crowd these days it seems
31   Reality   ignore (6)   2019 Dec 27, 10:14pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
Another assumption is that these strategic moves are necessary as the world moves ever closer to the day that there is some sort of overseeing world entity, that actually includes a fair dealing "global policeman," something like a UN that works. That is it's necessary but certainly could be improved on. I certainly would like the so called "doomsday clock" pushed back.


Aren't you forgetting that nuclear weapons were not used during the Cold War largely because two opposing empires each had the weapons? When there was only one power in the world possessing nuclear weapons, it had no qualms about using them on an enemy (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) even when the military necessity was debatable.

In case you think the case of nuclear weapons was unique, consider the following: Nazi Germany didn't use its large stockpile of chemical weapons on Allied troops or cities because it was keenly aware that the Allies had comparable large stockpile of chemical weapons that would be used in retaliation . . . whereas the Soviet Union in the 1920's had no qualms about using huge quantities of chemical weapons (poison gases) to exterminate farmers who tried to hide in the forests trying to escape collectivization.

If ever there were a day when the UN had sole legal control of all nuclear weapons and chemical weapons, those weapons of mass destruction would be guaranteed to be unleashed against world population on a massive scale! Both in suppressing "rebels" and in fights among "comrades" over the ultimate power; heck, some "intellectuals" may even bring forth a Greta to convince the UN to use the weapons of mass destruction to depopulate for the sake of depopulating!

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. A universal empire can only be all the more corrupt.

Let's not forget, according to the Declaration of Independence, it is the right and the responsibility of the people to overthrow a tyrannical government. A universal government would only make such right harder to exercise and such responsibility harder to fulfill.

World history has already witnessed numerous regional "universal states" (limited by the means of transportation of the time): e.g. Ancient Egyptians, Persians, Romans and Chinese. In every single case, the emergence of universal state brought on the collapse or stagnation of the civilization. Europe brought about modernity because of the lively competition among the rulers/states of that fragmented landscape, just like Italian City States previously brought about Renaissance after the Dark Ages caused by the corruption and collapse of the previous Roman universal state, and ancient Greek City States sowed the seeds of western civilization as we know it before the Macedonian and Roman universal state brought stagnation. Incidentally, Rome itself transformed from a Republic to an authoritarian Empire (with numerous massive civil wars and coups) as it expanded.
32   SunnyvaleCA   ignore (1)   2019 Dec 27, 10:34pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Trump should follow Obama's lead and order a military drone strike.
33   HeadSet   ignore (3)   2019 Dec 28, 12:49pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

it had no qualms about using them on an enemy (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) even when the military necessity was debatable.

Debatable? Only among modern day revisionists who do not comprehend the ongoing great carnage of a war that was at the time, expected to last until 1949 at least. Not only was the Hiroshima attack necessary, but a follow on attack on Nagasaki occurred because the Japanese refused to surrender even after that first atomic attack.
34   Reality   ignore (6)   2019 Dec 28, 2:37pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I'm actually of the opinion that demonstrating the power of the nuclear bombs was an effective political move in halting the soviets and justifying the high cost of Manhattan Project . . . as far as military value and military necessity, however, almost all the top ranking US military officers in the Army, Navy and (Army) Air Force seemed to have judged the dropping of nukes unnecessary and/or of little value to the conclusion of the war:



Secretary of War Henry Stimson informed Dwight D. Eisenhower, general of the armies, that the bomb would be dropped on Japan. In “Mandate for Change,” Eisenhower’s autobiography, Ike related this exchange: “I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face.’”

There are many more such testimonials, if someone takes the time to look:

--“When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the Emperor.” That’s from “The Pathology of Power,” by Norman Cousins.

-- “We didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs.” That’s Brig. Gen. Carter Clarke, quoted in “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb,” by Gar Alperovitz.

--“The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell because the Japanese had lost control of their own air.”-- Henry H. Arnold, commanding general of the U.S. Army Air Forces, Pacific Fleet.

--“The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part from a purely military point of view in the defeat of Japan. The use of atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.” - - Fleet Adm. Chester W. Nimitz, commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

--“Certainly, prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability, prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if atomic bombs had not been dropped.” -- Adm. William D. Leahy, chief of staff to President Truman, in the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey.

--“The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.” --Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay.



In any case, my point in citing that case was not in debating whether the dropping of nukes was necessary but demonstrating that one-sided power would invite abuse. Mendacious politicians and bureaucrats are not beyond dropping poison gas on peasants like the soviets did, or like the American politicians in deciding to drop nukes on a prostrate Japan, or unleashing the army on the native tribes both in late 19th century and in early 19th century (with Sherman's March burning a wide swath of whites and blacks alike from Atlanta to the sea, sandwiched in between the two indian wars) simply because the targets couldn't defend themselves; it would be silly to assume the same mendacious politicians and bureaucrats of the US or the UN wouldn't unleash weapons of war on a disarmed civilian population unable to defend itself. Whereas check-and-balance saved humanity from the worst abuses: as not even the Nazis dared to use their chemical weapons stockpile, nor did the Soviets dared to use their nukes . . . all because the world was divided and politicians faced real forceful check-and-balances.
35   marcus   ignore (12)   2019 Dec 29, 3:08am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Reality says
Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely. A universal empire can only be all the more corrupt.


So I will assume this means that you believe that the united states can never work ? It's just too big. Too centralized ?

Maybe you will say it works becasue it's not too centralized, or as long as it's not too centralized. Then do the same for the united nations ( a real united nations).

I'm not saying we are ready for it now. But from my perspective it's clearly inevitable, if we are to survive as a species. I'm not stepping out on a limb here. Seems so incredibly obvious to me. But that doesn't mean that I think getting there is easy or guaranteed, or that it couldn't happen in a way that worked out wrong.
36   Reality   ignore (6)   2019 Dec 29, 6:39am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
So I will assume this means that you believe that the united states can never work ? It's just too big. Too centralized ?



What do you mean by "work"? And what do you mean by "united states"? As a group of 13-50 sovereign states, it/they worked better than being part of British Empire in safe-guarding the local individual's liberty and freedom. As a unitary state, it quickly turned into an empire (after the ACW effectively abolished 10th Amendament, and abolishing the 1st Amendament during the ACW), just like Roman Republic turned into Roman Empire. As for whether that "work" depends on what you see the purpose of government is: if you see the government/state as the slave-owner of all its subjects/slaves, then it worked for the time being (until even functionaries discover that they too are slaves of the state).



Maybe you will say it works becasue it's not too centralized, or as long as it's not too centralized. Then do the same for the united nations ( a real united nations).


"A real united nations" like "a real communist state"? Are you not realizing that United Nations Human Rights Council can only be filled with the worst abusive countries in the world? Just like various federal oversight commissions are always to be controlled by the industries under their oversight? and the majority of elected higher office-holders have to be people with closets full of skeletons? The farther away the decision making is to take place, the more corrupt the political process has to become . . . because evil people have vested interest in transferring the cost of their evil actions to someone else.


I'm not saying we are ready for it now. But from my perspective it's clearly inevitable, if we are to survive as a species. I'm not stepping out on a limb here. Seems so incredibly obvious to me. But that doesn't mean that I think getting there is easy or guaranteed, or that it couldn't happen in a way that worked out wrong.


Your own death is also clearly inevitable, why aren't you looking forward to and speeding up your own demise? Each civilization cycle has its inevitable end, just like every individual person will die. In the first 3/4 of a civilization cycle, industriousness and local responsibility (which bring forth competition among neighboring locales) gradually accumulate wealth and capital so that people become more productive and see their living standards improve. Then the parents mistakenly correlate education with market place success (not realizing that when education opportunities were rarer, only the higher IQ kids and kids with better off families had those opportunities). Over a generation or two, the society is flooded with over-educated fools imbued with map-fantasy (i.e. imperial dreams, implicitly assuming all subjects are slaves) and government-god/government-parent fantasy. What follows is the expansion of government, which is intrinsically uneconomic so have to rely on territorial expansion to loot others to pay for the inefficient bureaucracy. In a few years to a few decades, such expansion too becomes uneconomic. What follows is imperial / dynastic collapse, and a new dark age.

It was not a co-incidence that a "unifier" like Alexander emerged not long after Plato's Academy. Plato was obviously a totalitarian/communist with his "philosopher king" nonsense that is all too common among modern totalitarians/communists. For some odd reason, over-educated fools with little market place experience have a penchant for running other people's lives using the coercive powers of the state; when they fail locally everywhere they try, they want to expand their experiment to include more slaves (i.e. imperial expansion and looting). Once a civilization accepts imperial looting (of its own subjects and neighbors) as a legit line of job / industry, the civilization enters stagnation/decline phase and collapse not long after.

The ancient Greek case was actually relatively benign compared to their contemporaries at the other end of the Eurasian continent. What we know today as "China" (with its state-worshiping theology better fitting your universal state dream) was actually a cluster of city states at the time of the Ancient Greece (from the time of Pythagoras to Leonidas to Plato to Alexander). They too saw economic take-off (thanks to market competition) over a couple hundred years, then the proliferation of "educated men"/schools (let's face it, the "educated men" having no independent economic means rely on attaching themselves to the state robbery mechanism for livelihood) then massive imperial expansion/unification wars resulting in a semi-barbaric inland state Chin (just like Macedon in ancient Greece) briefly "unifying" the burned out mess, ushering in a fascist totalitarian police state (which of course quickly immolated those built it along with the innocent victims).

Progressivism is a death cult based on ignorance. The very idea that unification is preferable is the seed for massive wars and repression.
37   marcus   ignore (12)   2019 Dec 29, 12:11pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

:
Reality says
Progressivism is a death cult based on ignorance.


Interesting theories and take always from history. I like that you take the time to sort of present a logical argument for why you think I'm wrong.

I will grant you that it would be very difficult to achieve a proper level of cooperation (not unification) and international law without it turning into something abusive. But I would also argue that sometimes "this time it's different" applies when history is laid out in the service of something almost resembling a coherent argument. Although I don't think we disagree as much as you might think. You're just more cynical than I am.

The world has progressed a lot and the world is now smaller than ever in terms of travel and even more so with respect to communications and transactions. The risk that "bad actors" pose to the rest of the world (i.e. by pollution with highly toxic waste or over fishing oceans, terrorism, proliferation of nuclear weapons) is unprecedented. Also the degree to which a lot of human work can be automated is also unprecedented. There are questions, such as how does natural selection work for humans if the nanny state makes life to easy for us ? What's the upper limit on population growth? Why do the owners need human workers anymore ?

Being "progressive" doesn't mean I'm immune to reality. I'm just more optimistic, which doesn't mean I think all mistakes can be avoided. Or that necessary change isn't difficult and fraught at times with growing pains.

So you say we're over educated and destined to have a dark age and mostly be peasants or slaves again or perhaps be replaced by robots, and therefore what ? Is the most hopeful thing you believe one can do is to try to get rich enough before the tide turns so that you or your heirs can be part of the future aristocracy ?

Or if that's not what you see, please share the most optimistic or least pessimistic view of where we are a century or two from now.
38   Reality   ignore (6)   2019 Dec 29, 8:11pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

marcus says
I will grant you that it would be very difficult to achieve a proper level of cooperation (not unification) and international law without it turning into something abusive. But I would also argue that sometimes "this time it's different" applies when history is laid out in the service of something almost resembling a coherent argument. Although I don't think we disagree as much as you might think. You're just more cynical than I am.


Did human rights exist before the founding of United Nations Human Rights Commission? Did people in developed nations enjoy human rights before the founding of United Nations Human Rights Commission? Do you feel your human rights are being safe-guarded by countries like Burundi and Venezuela, both currently sitting on the commission? Or Saudi Arabia and Libya, which sat on the commission in the recent past.

Mutually willing exchanges facilitating division of labor emerge naturally due to individual choices. English Common Law tradition has even laws arising naturally from individual human interactions and traditions. Government law givers from Hamrabi, Napoleon to today's "law-makers" can only inject their own selfish interest into what are natural laws.

Global trade can trace back to at least the early 1500's, when the majority of silver mined by the Spaniards from the New World ended up being shipped to the Far East (what we today call India and China, and surrounding areas) in exchange for consumer goods. If we leave out the New World, global trade can trace back to at least ancient Roman time; even back then, the trade volume between Rome and India was so big that it caused a silver specie shortage in WRE. Massive amounts of trade was taking place without requiring any bilateral or multi-lateral trade agreements among governments. If a bridge is that which can facilitate trade, government involvement can only be a "negative bridge"; nowadays, government can even make existing bridges into negative economic value: just look at how fast the various governments have raised bridge tolls around the country in recent years. Marcus, you need to understand that trade and cooperation are natural individual human behaviors, whereas government can only either make those exchanges more expensive (through tolls, tariffs and taxation) or turn mutually willing exchanges into coercion (i.e. partial or total slavery). They usually do both through making unnatural laws.

"This time it's different" is literally the most dangerous concept in investment and portfolio management . . . because as Einstein said: Insanity is keeping doing the same thing and still expect different outcome.

The world has progressed a lot and the world is now smaller than ever in terms of travel and even more so with respect to communications and transactions. The risk that "bad actors" pose to the rest of the world (i.e. by pollution with highly toxic waste or over fishing oceans, terrorism, proliferation of nuclear weapons) is unprecedented. Also the degree to which a lot of human work can be automated is also unprecedented.


It takes a high degree of ignorance or deliberate ignorance to make those "unprecedented" claims. Humanity has been trying to replace human labor with something less expensive since time immemorial. What do you think the introduction of horses and cattles did to job holders who were porters and plough pullers? What do you think sail did to rowers? Automobile to the entire land transportation industry built around horse buggies? Over fishing in waters where private ownership was absent was known to humanity for hundreds if not thousands of years before industrialization; that's why the Portuguese hid their discovery of Cape Cod fishing ground off today's Massachusettes before Coloumbus' discovery of the New World . . . because the North Sea, Bay of Biscay, Azores and Mediterranean had long been over-fished. Industrial pollution became a problem largely because the government courts threw out law suites filed by farmers demanding compensation for the damage the early factories were doing to their farm crop; that precedence was what unleashed the worst of pollutions becauase the polluters were immunized of any legal responsibility by the government! As for terrorism, do you know that there was a time, from late 11th century to late 13th century, there was a "Ḥashashiyan" sect that literally controlled world politics (all the major powers east and west on the Eurasian continent) and "world" trade via assassinations! That's where the word "assassin" came from. It was actually quite an efficient system, much more efficient than all the major empires surrounding them. Eventually the Mongols wiped them out and took over the trade routes via imperial management, which turned out to be much too costly and consequently much shorter-lived. Perhaps CIA was a replica of that sect in the past 70+ years. The primary downside of nuclear weapons proliferation would be putting many conventional weapons manufacturers out of business due to less wars.

There are questions, such as how does natural selection work for humans if the nanny state makes life to easy for us. What's the upper limit on population growth. Why do the owners need human workers anymore.


Human workers are needed for jobs not yet replaced by horses, cattle, wind, water wheel, steam engine, electric motor, wordprocessor, personal computer, etc. etc.. Evolution is ongoing at all time: if you decree a race of purple/green martian can receive free housing, free food, free education, free medicine, etc. all for free, then the females among them will select thugs for mating instead of upstanding productive citizens who can work to earn all the life's necessities before they became free. The result is crime and mayhem. Was that a description of inner city America or Palestinian "refugee" camp-cities? Seems to be fitting for all races.

Upper limit on population growth is determined by the percentage of free loaders imposed by the man-made laws. When there are too many free loaders, the producers decide to become free loaders too instead of producing . . . then the civilization collapses, which means population will starve due to stoppage of trade and division of labor. What was the upper limit on population at the Plymouth colony after Mayflowers landing? It was less than half the Mayflower's debarkation when they practiced communism (which encouraged free loading; more than half the people who got off the boat starved to death within the first year!), but after embracing capitalistic market economy (by necessity and very much against the education of the leaders) the same land quickly became able to support 10x, 100x, 1000x, 10,000x population! and still growing!


So you say we're over educated and destined to mostly be peasants or slaves again or perhaps be replaced by robots, and the most hopeful thing you believe one can do is try to get rich enough before the tide turns so that you or your heirs can be part of the future aristocracy ?


"Over-educated fools" as in people having had too much nonsense fed to them via "education" and due to their own low IQ unable to see the nonsense for what it is but instead expecting to reap good market rewards from their worthless paper certification just because they had been promised such nonsense previously. The very over-supply from the education system is making their certificates worth much less than during the previous generation: supply-and-demand; only the market can discover new jobs, whereas "education" system function like big old consolidators in old industries: they are net destroyers of jobs. At every civilization inflection point (to borrow a Soros word), those fools virtue-signal their nonsense and stupidity to be eliminated from the gene pool (e.g. French Revolution, and subsequent even bloodier copies).

Being ostensibly rich and being part of "aristocracy" are also invitations to being eliminated from the gene pool on those down slopes of civilization cycles. No one can realistically plan for their own offpsrings for more than a generation or two (for most, not even planning for their own lives). However, as most of us are likely to have children (I already do), and some even grandchildren before we die, we certainly hope those children and grandchildren that we meet in our life time to be handed a reasonably good society in which their own efforts will mean something positive. The rise of aristocracy in an extremely decentralized landscape may well be several generations into the future. The European feudalism (despite its name "dark ages" due to lacking court scribes to record history in detail) was actually not the problem but the solution to the economic chaos that resulted from the bureaucratic burden and collapse of late WRE. For now, the priority should be delaying the collapse first (even our children and grandchildren may live their lives before the collapse; whether they can delay it for their children and grandchildren will be up to them) . . . which is why I'm making those counter points to your "progressive" death cult: No, we do not want to embrace death and make "the inevitable" arrive sooner.

about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions