The Hazing Thread - introduce yourself *here*

[golinux]

Funny how, ever since they introduced GMOs, they claim that they can feed more people than with regular crops, yet increasingly more people have been starving since then.

It is an economic/social justice issue. There is plenty of food. People just do not have the money to buy it.

GMOs were introduced for profit and profit alone.

Of course profit but more sinister is control of the food supply. The multinationals will decide who eats, what they eat and at what price.

The seeds that crow the sterile grain must be purchased separately every year.

Thankfully, terminator technology has not yet been commercialized. A South American country was recently considering it but didn't happen AFAIK. Second generation GMO seeds will germinate though there have been no studies on their viability because such study is forbidden . . . you could get your a$$ sued for doing so. Soon there will be seeds that require a proprietary chemical cocktail in order to germinate. Oh, joy!

There are three large business concerns with interest in Ukraine - one is a large energy corp, the other two are involved with GM produce - all three are big US based multinationals.

Exactly. That is why Russia recently banned the importation and cultivation of GMOs. Putin is a smart guy who knows better than to have US multinationals in charge of Russia's food supply.

[cynwulf]

It is an economic/social justice issue. There is plenty of food. People just do not have the money to buy it.

When a large proportion of the world do not have clean drinking water and sanitation that pretty much says is all. The "charities" perpetuate this situation because there is profit to be had. For countless decades there have been the usual pleas for money and sponsorship, digging wells, providing tools, education, medicine, etc but in reality it has achieved little. For every unit of currency donated a large percentage goes towards "administration" costs - who do you think pays for those TV and newspaper ads and pays the directors' wages...?

The fact is that the fat cats are making a lot of money out of poverty - the capitalist system depends on there being consumers for their products who will also be compelled to work for the capitalists, for the lowest wage, in order to buy their food and survive. The unrealistic idea that everyone has a fair crack and can become rich is just utter bollocks and is the classic control the ruling classes use to exercise tight control over the poor. A tiny few in fact may be able to cheat. swindle and stamp on their fellows, climb the ladder and accumulate enough money to rise out of the mire - then proceed to treat their former peers as they were treated themselves.

Of course profit but more sinister is control of the food supply. The multinationals will decide who eats, what they eat and at what price.

True but note the word "price". It's all about profit at the end of the day and no one would be pushing GM crops on the world if they didn't stand to make a disgusting amount of money - just like the guy on the street corner pushing drugs.

People need to stop being so naive and understand that these businesses are "lifestyle" supports. It's about someone being able to have a few mansions, a private jet, a few Ferraris/Lamborghinis and a big yacht and being able to afford to spend 20 grand on booze per week. Many are also politically motivated, very few are ideologically driven (probably none of the monstanto or cargil people would actually eat their own frankenfood).

Thankfully, terminator technology has not yet been commercialized. A South American country was recently considering it but didn't happen AFAIK. Second generation GMO seeds will germinate though there have been no studies on their viability because such study is forbidden . . . you could get your a$$ sued for doing so. Soon there will be seeds that require a proprietary chemical cocktail in order to germinate. Oh, joy!

Genetic patents are one of the most worrying aspects of this.

Exactly. That is why Russia recently banned the importation and cultivation of GMOs. Putin is a smart guy who knows better than to have US multinationals in charge of Russia's food supply.

While I'm not a fan of the regime - Putin has to be respected in that he has not bowed to pressure or sucked up the US/EU as many other countries have. He has played his cards carefully and looked after Russian interests. If he were an American president doing exactly the same thing, no one would bat an eyelid.

[FretfulMother]

The "balance of powers" has always been hugely important. Nowadays there is this idea among the masses that we can just live in peace and let one superpower act as babysitter, key holder and world police. We can sit back and trust this super rich 'benevolent' capitalists and be sure that they'll do the right thing...

Take Iraq for example - they fucked up Iraq over the last 11 years. Now they're stabbing their own quisling in the back to cover up their own incompetence. People should be asking a simple question: It took 11 years to achieve supposed stability and get the puppet regime rooted in - now the puppet regime are pretty much lost, no support and not enough foreign firepower to guarantee security - so the country is being overrun - by non other than the extremist militias the west had been funding against Assad in Syria.

The next stage will be another Syria like civil war - but this time with the west targeting the very groups they had been bankrolling. Probably just another excuse to continue occupation and usurp al-Maliki.

And they will get away with it.

I like all of that alot (not the facts, the summary of the facts).

I have come to think the West goes for war to a) test new weapons or b) get rid of old weapons. There might be other reasons too, but it always looks a lot like a testcase (Come on: It takes the biggest military power, US, with the help of the biggest economy of Europe, Germany, 13 years to fight one of the poorest countries of the world? I would assume it would take less than a month to bomb Afghanistan to the ground).
That is also said in German TV discussion shows, btw. "We are training", "We have to learn warfare again", etc. That is a good argument: We commited warcrimes (Oberst Klein), but we are still learning, so bare with us. What a fuck. Killing innocent people to learn warfare again? And yes:

They get away with it

Of course. They will use the magic word "terrorists." The sheep will blindly support the war against "the terrorists."

For the bigger part of the world population it is very clear who are the terrorist: The self-declared free world.
And history will have the same opinion.
The masses, or sheep, can't see it, of course.

I'd really love to know _for sure_ how many people died in Iraq, and how many died in Afghanistan. Compare that with the ~5000 dead of 11.11 (which is exactly one day. Compare one single day with the permanent bombing of Kabul for 5 weeks, every day). Torturing in Guantanamo. etc. And they still whine about it, oh what a tragedy, while the rest of the world has to take the bombs as they come.


-
What to do? I for one have no idea. Simply waiting for better chances for a slightly better world isn't the worst thing one can do. Right now nothing can change for the better (due to the lack of "balance of powers" and the zombies called "the masses" or "sheep". There is no change you could expect from them). It might take a couple hundreds of years until the chances will be higher, so one will need patience. Better doing nothing than doing the wrong thing and making it worse (like, to give one example, the arab spring). .

[JohnDeere630]

I have come to think the West goes for war to a) test new weapons or b) get rid of old weapons. There might be other reasons too, but it always looks a lot like a testcase (Come on: It takes the biggest military power, US, with the help of the biggest economy of Europe, Germany, 13 years to fight one of the poorest countries of the world? I would assume it would take less than a month to bomb Afghanistan to the ground).
That is also said in German TV discussion shows, btw. "We are training", "We have to learn warfare again", etc. That is a good argument: We commited warcrimes (Oberst Klein), but we are still learning, so bare with us. What a fuck. Killing innocent people to learn warfare again? And yes:

They get away with it

Of course. They will use the magic word "terrorists." The sheep will blindly support the war against "the terrorists."

For the bigger part of the world population it is very clear who are the terrorist: The self-declared free world.
And history will have the same opinion.
The masses, or sheep, can't see it, of course.

I'd really love to know _for sure_ how many people died in Iraq, and how many died in Afghanistan. Compare that with the ~5000 dead of 11.11 (which is exactly one day. Compare one single day with the permanent bombing of Kabul for 5 weeks, every day). Torturing in Guantanamo. etc. And they still whine about it, oh what a tragedy, while the rest of the world has to take the bombs as they come.


-
What to do? I for one have no idea. Simply waiting for better chances for a slightly better world isn't the worst thing one can do. Right now nothing can change for the better (due to the lack of "balance of powers" and the zombies called "the masses" or "sheep". There is no change you could expect from them). It might take a couple hundreds of years until the chances will be higher, so one will need patience. Better doing nothing than doing the wrong thing and making it worse (like, to give one example, the arab spring). .

+1
Nothing is going to change until the entire rotten system collapses from it's own putrid weight. The average sheeple are just too apathetic and in many cases, stupid, to feel the water coming to a boil. What is needed is to do away with socialism, communism, and capitalism. None work, and the best of the three, capitalism, is too easily corrupted into what it is now; a bastardized mix of corruption, crony capitalism and cynical market manipulation to benefit the 1%. Even our (US) beloved Constitution was written by old, rich, white guys for the benefit of...wait for it....you guessed it! Old, rich white guys. I like the idea of the so-called "Sovereign Citizen" with guaranteed, absolute rights to free speech, to own property, to privacy, and to be armed. That of course, will never happen until the existing world kakistocracy of central banks and corrupt "leaders" collapses. Unfortunately, 99.9% of the time in such circumstances, the replacement is worse than the original...think the collapse of Rome and the resulting 1000 years of Church fueled superstition, ignorance and horror that were the Middle Ages. Maybe we'll get lucky this time...{sigh}.

[Randicus Draco Albus]

Soon there will be seeds that require a proprietary chemical cocktail in order to germinate. Oh, joy!

They are not selling those seeds yet? Must be harder to create than I thought.

True but note the word "price". It's all about profit at the end of the day and no one would be pushing GM crops on the world if they didn't stand to make a disgusting amount of money - just like the guy on the street corner pushing drugs.

And if the agricorps can replace regular food with genetically altered food they create and control? The only limit to food prices would be how many pennies people have.

hink the collapse of Rome and the resulting 1000 years of Church fueled superstition, ignorance and horror

One person's science is another person's superstition and one person's magic is another person's religion.

[cynwulf]

What is needed is to do away with socialism, communism, and capitalism. None work, and the best of the three, capitalism, is too easily corrupted into what it is now; a bastardized mix of corruption, crony capitalism and cynical market manipulation to benefit the 1%.

I wouldn't call capitalism the best of the three. All three systems allow cronyism and corruption. But socialism is at least a system based on the idea of equality. Like any system, socialism can go wrong and has done, but has always been a bit of a non starter - any system which threatens the lifestyle, power and assets of the super rich won't get far. True socialism always arrived on the back of revolution - not the best start, but almost always the only means for the oppressed to put down the oppressor.

Any conversations regarding socialism and communism will inevitably lead to discussions based on historical examples - i.e. USSR and China, which were just two examples and not bar setting examples. China in particular is still referred to as "the communist country" in the press here. This is clearly misleading as modern China is anything but. I see an authoritarian state controlled by a dictatorship, but also big corporations, fabulously rich people, an emerging middle class alongside some of the worst poverty and deprivation. It doesn't take a genius to work that - irrespective of whether you like communism or hate it - that certainly isn't it...

Capitalism however has failed constantly and we live among it's failure - yet it is heralded as a success (not surprising by the few who have benefited, who own the governments and media and are in a position to brainwash and indoctrinate the masses). And by the middle classes, still a minority in the world, who have achieved a comfortable standard of living. Capitalism is of course a system built on the idea that a minority will control the wealth and that there will be social hierarchy ending with the majority poorest "have nots". If you happen to be in that latter group - well tough luck...

A big factor in this is keeping the have nots in their place and maintaining this. Without these basic ideas it cannot flourish as the redistribution of wealth is the anti matter to capitalist polity. This is why capitalism inevitably leads to established ruling classes, a wealthy elite who protect their own positions and influence, even if there were no classical established aristocracy in the first place.

Fundamental to capitalism is the exploitation of labour - paying the worker much less than they are worth and increasing profit margins so that the individual - the 'capitalist' can horde capital and essentially 'escape' the system.

[FretfulMother]

It might be an idea to compare the existing socialist/communist systems with a) the countries which are similar and b) with it's own history.

As an example Russia before socialism had slavery and what not. Compare Cuba with other countries in the same region (as far i know most are horribly poor, but i don't really know much about it).

Comparing socialism _only with the 5 capitalistic systems which work rather well ( due to the fact they exploit each and every other nation on earth) is not realistic. Look, for example, at Greece these days (or at Portugal, Spain, etc). Germany, otoh, is rather well off these days, and even for the poor it is ok. How come? Well: a) they sell weapons to all kind of dictaorships and b) they got the rest of Europe under their thumb.

-
But, like said above, none of that matters much, cause for the next few centuries there won't be a (positive) change anyway. Facism (with a new face, of course) seems way more likely in the near future.
Let me quote T.Adorno: "If you don't want to speak about capitalism, then be silent about facism too" (Wer nicht vom Kapitalismus sprechen will, der soll auch vom Faschismus schweigen). Facism in the meaning of a) Repression inside (look at the Snowden leaks) and b) war outside (too many to mention, wikipedia has a list of US wars). Someone posted somewhere that UK will have the first warfree year since 100 years soon. So: i might well be wrong.

You still have freedom of speech in the free world. As long you don't care for a job, social life or similar things, and don't fear decades in prison (all leakers in the US) and if you don't mind that it won't change a damn thing anyway. Say in the pub you can rant away to your liking (well: you won't have the money for the pub, so a park bench wil have to suffce for your rants. Or, to end with a joke, an online forum or social network.... ).

[JohnDeere630]

....You still have freedom of speech in the free world. As long you don't care for a job, social life or similar things, and don't fear decades in prison (all leakers in the US) and if you don't mind that it won't change a damn thing anyway. Say in the pub you can rant away to your liking (well: you won't have the money for the pub, so a park bench wil have to suffce for your rants. Or, to end with a joke, an online forum or social network.... ).

And ain't that the truth. In the end it doesn't matter what any of us think; we're just politically impotent old men waving our canes and raving.

Having said that, I find that I generally agree more than disagree with Cyn's post above, except about socialism. When you boil the water away and get down to the salt of the matter, and leaving morality and emotional judgement about who deserves what out of the equation, socialism is a disincentive to produce, pure and simple. Again, setting aside the issue of sustainability, et al; we live in a material world, with a real need for material products, ie; food, clothing, shelter, etc., that must be produced by someone, somewhere. If I can get what I need without working, I'd be a fool to work, and if I do choose to work, if someone is just going to steal, er, uh...I mean tax it away from me, then again, why work? Carried to it's logical conclusion, at the end of the day, all the "wealth redistribution by force" results in no one having anything, except a tiny clique of elites. Think Haiti and the Philippines. There are probably others, like Somalia, Niger and Chad, but I have personally been to the first two, and they are hell-holes for the overwhelming majority.

Capitalism, I have come to understand, is not much better for 99% of folks, as it leads inevitably to monopoly, with, again, all the wealth concentrated in the hands of a tiny, elite minority; as examples: Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Carnegie and Vanderbilt in the late 1800's.

It would seem that the common people are screwed no matter what, since whatever "-ism" you care to name is administered and ultimately corrupted by the same tiny group of elites. Always has been, probably always will be.

[FretfulMother]

If I can get what I need without working, I'd be a fool to work, and if I do choose to work, if someone is just going to steal, er, uh...I mean tax it away from me, then again, why work?

What has "get what one needs without working" to do with socialism? You probably think the european welfware systems, but they ain't got anything to do with socialism (and didn't exist in socialist systems). In fact their main purpose is to stablize the capitalistic system.

Carried to it's logical conclusion, at the end of the day, all the "wealth redistribution by force" results in no one having anything, except a tiny clique of elites.

The "elite" of existing socialist systems sure weren't outstanding rhich (East German politicians took luxury to a new level by, hold your breath, drinking canned (!) beer from West-Germany.

Think Haiti and the Philippines. There are probably others, like Somalia, Niger and Chad, but I have personally been to the first two, and they are hell-holes for the overwhelming majority.

They are socialist? It is the first time i hear that.

Taxes, one might like them or not, don't have anything to do with socialism.

And, like said above, you only compare it with the most rich capitalistic systems. + most socialist systems were faced with military aggression by the West (not Russia, of course, they wouldn't dare that. But Cuba or Chile, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, etc). Live for 2 years in Greek in this time. Or try India.

[JohnDeere630]

Nadir, I doubt you and I are going to find much common ground politically, but that doesn't matter. My statements are my opinions only, and not gospel, as are yours. Nor do I wish to get into a fight over something neither of us has any control over anyway. I would also go on to say that the conditions in Germany and the UK are probably a lot different than here; mindsets also.

Socialism as is practiced here has everything to do with getting something for nothing. It may be different in Europe, I wouldn't know, having never been there.

My examples of broken countries were examples of "wealth redistribution by force" carried to the end stage. Whether they got there by socialism, colonial exploitation (Haiti), etc., is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make, which was that the makers were endlessly robbed by the takers until there was nothing left to take. In hindsight, Rhodesia/Zimbabwe would have been a better example, as Mugabe's methods seem to be a bastardized mix of socialism, communism, and plain old corruption. The results are the same in any case.

Be that all as it may, my give-a-shit meter reads pretty low on political issues nowadays anyway. As I have gotten older (wiser? -- debatable), I have come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter a pinch of shit what you or I think anyway. The modern world is heading to hell in a handbasket for a multiplicity of reasons, and no power on earth is going to alter what is coming, even if there was the collective political will to change, which there isn't. One of these days in the not too distant future, some decision or other is going to lead to that big silver handle on the side of the bowl being pulled, and then it's not going to matter in the slightest what one's political views are or were. On the other side of that great upheaval, which neither of us will likely see, the remaining people will be a lot sadder, but stronger, and I hope, wiser. Maybe they will realize that it isn't about political rhetoric, but about other people, and at that point, we, as a race can finally begin to truly evolve. I'm not holding my breath, though.