The Cold War Hoax

Global War deceptions & mass manipulation, fear-mongering terror schemes and propaganda in the Age of the Bomb

Re: The Cold War Hoax

Postby hoi.polloi on May 7th, 2016, 3:53 pm

aa5 wrote:Now where the socialism seems to work quite well, is when the government is simply redistributing money. Social Security distributes $700 billion a year to those who through age or disability cannot work. The overhead of the program is just $7 billion - 1% of the cost! As science & technology advances and as industrial capital builds up, the pie gets bigger allowing ever more money to be redistributed.


Careful about trying to tell conservative Americans that Social Security — let alone any positive aspect of government — employs any principle remotely related to "social" or "populous" programs. Man, do they get offended! Especially over conservative dinner gatherings suffering a little bit from "white fragility". :lol:

But of course, only an idiot like me could think politics and religion make the best discussions at family gatherings.

Anyway, interesting perspective. I am not sure all of that totally holds up all the time, though the very important point about education is strong! It's a pretty interesting analysis. Are there any examples we can think of where the State actually runs things alright? I think that just like different families and groups lead to different cultures, different States may "luck out" for a while with fairly passable governance in some areas. Kind of like when there's a monopoly on something that doesn't go to shit and they charge a reasonable price because they're decent folks. Not that it ever changes the fact that a good group of collaborating non-corrupted people is hard to find and maintain. It's a worthy goal, though. In all likelihood, we'd only find examples of this in smaller, less "Imperial", States — which (if we're looking at it cynically) may only have decent morals because they want to distinguish themselves in some way from the dominant State.

In the case of food being more plentiful, I would say that is true in the sense that food waste in many Western countries is at absolutely shocking levels. But to make food actually profitable is a matter that can be discussed on its own. Healthy good food — not inflated food-shaped money management like monocrop GMO pesticide-ridden agribusiness mutant plants stripped of nutrients and processed to death in the end package that makes eating look like a video game or other recreational drug — but real food — is expensive to produce, market and sell. There are all sorts of studies we could do about how marketing has changed what people eat and how they seek (i.e.; "shop") for nutrition, but that probably belongs in the Engineering Disease thread. Let's take that there if we want to.

Back on topic, it is said Russia had an enormous scarcity issue with their bread — their wheat. And this is apparently what allowed Kissinger to push for the "people for wheat" trade. I can believe that Russia was in a very weak state and I can believe the stories of people living through the late Communist era that they deliberately destroyed their intellectual class that would have broached more livable ideas. I cannot believe, however, that Russia was a huge threat to Statism. It seems the opposite was true. Maybe just one competing brand of Statism, perhaps?

[ADMIN UPDATE: This topic did feed into the "Engineering Disease" topic, and those posts have been moved there. Please see: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=1854 Thanks. -HP]
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4703
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: The Cold War Hoax

Postby fbenario on May 8th, 2016, 1:22 am

hoi.polloi wrote:Especially over conservative dinner gatherings suffering a little bit from "white fragility".

... and white privilege.

Are there any examples we can think of where the State actually runs things alright?

Public health programs, interstate highways, GI Bill, consumer protection laws, clean water/clean air programs, anti-discrimination laws, workplace safety, national weather service, food and drug safety, national parks, air traffic control, etc.

All could be described as Socialist, which just shows how silly it is to use Socialist as some kind of generic insult/bad thing.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2164
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: The Cold War Hoax

Postby aa5 on May 8th, 2016, 5:42 pm

I think through media and selective education people are given a false dichotomy. The 'choice' they are given is to be low paid powerless workers for some big monopoly corporation, or low paid powerless drones in some all powerful government. And that the only trifling power they have is to vote for this or that politician.

But the common law isn't about voting. Its about rights of people and legally binding contracts. As an example, this allows people to organize together however they want. So a group of left wing artisans/artists, right now, can create a co-operative, where they pool together their resources, and buy houses, workshops, and they can even open co-op owned stores where they sell their work. They can divide out profits and expenses however they agree, through the contract of joining the co-op. They can write into the contract that anyone who walks away from the co-op forfeits their share of ownership in the co-op. Daycare is a hell of a lot easier to do when there is like 20 families working together. When they purchase food and make meals it can be done together, so think of how cheap their meals would be. The crazy thing about this is that its not some utopian pipe dream, that depends on a revolutionary change in our society - its all doable right now.

How many left wing people do you see talking about how to set up their own co-ops, and how to set up the contracts and governance structure? No, they are holding out hope for that miracle politician Hoi mentioned. Volunteering at a phone bank for Bernie Sanders.

I noticed that many sophisticated people in our society, like people in their 50's, who are professions like lawyers, engineers, doctors, computer programmers, senior managers - they have seen through the false dichotomies. They want a share of ownership, and parachute clauses in their contract so they get paid out if 'downsized', in addition to guaranteed salary. Many get so fed up with working in a big organization, that they strike out on their own or form a new business with friends.
aa5
Member
 
Posts: 117
Joined: April 15th, 2016, 4:03 am

Re: The Cold War Hoax

Postby ICfreely on July 22nd, 2016, 9:22 pm

aa5 » May 8th, 2016, 8:42 am wrote:The crazy thing about this is that its not some utopian pipe dream, that depends on a revolutionary change in our society - its all doable right now.


I couldn't agree more, aa5!

I recently read Reading the Signs – today’s lesson: Karl Marx by Miles Mathis. I have to give credit where credit is due. If nothing else, the guy’s an exceptional essayist (dare I say in the realm of CF’s own Hoi Polloi/Critical Mass/Ataraxia). Anyhow, I thought I’d add an excerpt from his essay to this thread because, IMO, his take on Marx is pretty sharp.

Reading the Signs
today's lesson: Karl Marx

by Miles Mathis

First published November 23, 2014

In short, the leaders of the progressive movement in Germany had already cut their own throats by focusing on religion instead of politics. Most workers weren't interested in overthrowing the Church. Atheism was a pose mostly taken by university students, not by workers. The masses weren't going to be swayed by talking to them about atheism, and Marx knew that. These attacks on Christianity only turned most of the workers off. But the leaders of the progressive movements like Bauer were too ensconced in their ivory towers to see that. So Marx and Engels cleverly goaded them into thinking they had failed because they hadn't gone far enough in their attacks on religion. Marx's job was to push the progressives into further radicalism, a radicalism that would both disenchant the real workers and mobilize the conservatives in government to shut down the magazines and meetings. The same sort of controlling the opposition we see now was going on in the 1840's. There are many subplots to this control, but one of them has always been encouraging the progressives to play their hand too far and too early. Marx was inserted as a mole: a creator of dissension, a confuser, and a giver of bad advice.

We see more proof of that in 1849 when August Willich and Karl Schapper recommended an immediate uprising. Marx and Engels did everything they could to stop it, warning that it would be crushed by the police.

Changes in society, Marx argued, are not achieved overnight through the efforts and will power of "a
handful of men.” [Fedoseyev, p. 233] Instead, they are brought about through a scientific analysis of
economic conditions of society and by moving toward revolution through different stages of social
development.


That is classical Marxist misdirection, of course, with the blather about a scientific progression of history. It also refutes itself for at least two reasons: 1) Willich and Schapper weren't calling for action by a handful of men, they were calling for action by millions of men and women simultaneously across Europe—the very thing the industrialists feared most. 2) The industrialists had changed society in a matter of decades, and they were in fact “a handful of men.” A few powerful people working together can achieve incredible things, and history is full of examples of that. Marx and his backers knew that, which is exactly why they were publishing manifestoes saying the opposite.

I encourage you to study that last quoted sentence closely. Here it is again: Instead, they are brought about through a scientific analysis of economic conditions of society and by moving toward revolution through different stages of social development. When did anything in history ever happen that way? Answer: it didn't. The French Revolution happened in just the opposite way, with no scientific analysis of economic conditions and no moving through stages of social development. The 17th century overthrow of Charles by Cromwell didn't happen that way, either. Both real history and human nature are the opposite of scientific. They are the opposite of Marxist.

As more evidence of this, I beg you to reconsider Marx's pitting the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. This should have always seemed strange to you, seeing that the great enemy of the worker was not the bourgeoisie, but the very rich industrialists who owned the companies. As now, it was the super rich that were preying on the workers, not the middle class. The lower class and the middle class should have been natural allies against the upper class, since both were and are being preyed upon mercilessly. Well, the upper class recognized that fact, and had to prevent that alliance by any means possible. Enter Karl Marx.

Do you really think it is a coincidence that Marx came from a family of super wealthy industrialists, and that he was misdirecting attention away from them all along? You will tell me that when he returned to Cologne in 1848, he pressed four of the ten points of the Manifesto, believing that “thebourgeoisie must overthrow the feudal monarchy and aristocracy before the proletariat could overthrow the bourgeoisie.” [Wheen, p. 129.] But again, that is misdirection, since his rich uncle Benny was neither monarchy nor aristocracy. The Philips family was composed of bankers and industrialists, not aristocrats. In fact, these industrialists wanted to supplant the existing aristocracy. It was upper class versus upper class, and in some parts of the world it still is. Remind yourself what happened in Russia: the monarchy and aristocracy were overthrown, but not by the bourgeoisie. They were overthrown by a group of mysterious intellectuals like Marx—Lenin, Trotsky, etc.—and under closer examination we find they too were financed by bankers and industrialists.

I encourage you to read that last quoted sentence yet again, and despin it like this: Marx wanted to see the bourgeoisie overthrow the aristocracy before the proletariat overthrew the bourgeoisie. Why would he push that idea? I suggest to you that it is because the overthrow of the aristocracy was the plan all along. All this talk about the proles and bourgeoisie is just misdirection. The goal was for the aristocracy to be replaced by the industrialists in Marx's family, after which the proletariat could all go get hanged. Marx and his backers knew that the proletariat would never gain the ability to overthrow anyone, but they especially wouldn't have the power to overthrow a new upper class that had just defeated the old aristocracy and co-opted all their resources.


You see, recent history has been the industrialists against everyone else. But they were always least worried about the “proletariat.” The lower class was mostly lower for a reason. They had the fewest resources, intellectual and tangible. That is why the industrialists were always misdirecting you toward them. They wanted the world to think they were concerned with the lower classes, but they weren't. They were most concerned with the aristocracy, since the aristocracy had all the things they wanted. This is why Marx was advising that the aristocracy needed to overthrown first. He is actually tipping his hand toward us here, but almost no one has read the cards right. [ ;) ]

The secondary concern of the industrialists and bankers was the upper-middle class. They had to watch their flank while they were going after the aristocracy. They couldn't have those just beneath them bite them in the butt while they were pulling down kings. In hindsight, we see that they dealt with this by pushing a materialistic and economic worldview. This materialistic worldview kept the upper-middle class chasing the very wealthy above them, rather than attacking them. The middle class didn't want to ally itself to the lower class, since that would just pull them down. This effectively isolated the lower class. It also isolated and ultimately doomed the middle class, since after the industrialists had defeated the aristocracy, they turned and attacked the stratum just beneath them. The new upper class has now been preying voraciously on the middle class for the past half century—so much so that the parasite may end up killing the host. Once the upper class has pushed the entire middle class down into the lower class, it will have only itself to feed upon. We are already seeing the first stages of that.

http://mileswmathis.com/marx.pdf
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 549
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: The Cold War Hoax

Postby hoi.polloi on July 23rd, 2016, 6:47 pm

ICfreely wrote:
Changes in society, Marx argued, are not achieved overnight through the efforts and will power of "a
handful of men.” [Fedoseyev, p. 233] Instead, they are brought about through a scientific analysis of
economic conditions of society and by moving toward revolution through different stages of social
development.


Actually, this is how the PsyOperators work right now. They scientifically study people, they decide on a change which they write in a "legal" language, they design events with particular symbols to be interpreted, then they create the events out of nothing using stage performance, acting, lying and illusions which include the symbols; then release their "journalism" which is how the event and its symbols are publicly turned into legal language, then they release their prefab legislation written in the same language.

Hence, control of language and dialogue is indeed a method of revolution. What Marx doesn't mention, and Mathis points out the dearth, is that the language and dialogue are controlled primarily through control of business/industry ("journalism", illusion technologies, mesmerizing technology, the 'celebrity' of inventions), enhanced with willing liars and actors protecting that business/industry Mafia-style.

Mathis' argument that small groups of people can and do suddenly overturn this process is not a denial of the process at work. It only shows that Marx shared a philosophy with the hoaxers that benefited the elite as it does now.

It does point out that we can seek radical change quickly, though. And even though it would be great to definitely continue our efforts to stop unfairness and injustice through our writings, aa5 makes an excellent point: you can eschew the entire drama and just live well together in local communities just fine, without corrupt involvement of the cabals or mobs.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4703
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: The Cold War Hoax

Postby aa5 on July 24th, 2016, 4:31 am

ICFreely, that is where my opinion is leading now, that the last 2 centuries have mainly been a political struggle between the new industrialists that emerged in the industrial age, and the old power of the aristocracy. The aristocracy's position deriving from land titles, monopoly commerce licenses, resource licenses, farm quotas, etc.

Before the industrial revolution, no one in a single lifetime could amass enough wealth, to take on the power of the aristocracy's inherited wealth. And the state worked on behalf of the license holders to forcibly stop ambitious people from emerging. What a family could do, is through wise moves & beneficial marriages, move up 1 notch in a generation. While it might seem like all but the richest families should be against this situation of licenses & restrictions - the family at the 50% mark, would be assured that they remained at the 50% mark, and thus look down at all those below them. Whereas in either capitalism or communism, their position would not be assured.

But an industrialist could have 2,000 people working for him, and easily see his income surpass most/all of the aristocracy. As you can imagine the new rich self-made men, often of lowly birth, and the old money high class aristocracy - hated each others guts, and wanted to destroy the other.
aa5
Member
 
Posts: 117
Joined: April 15th, 2016, 4:03 am

Re: The Cold War Hoax

Postby aa5 on July 24th, 2016, 5:01 am

Hence, control of language and dialogue is indeed a method of revolution. What Marx doesn't mention, and Mathis points out the dearth, is that the language and dialogue are controlled primarily through control of business/industry ("journalism", illusion technologies, mesmerizing technology, the 'celebrity' of inventions), enhanced with willing liars and actors protecting that business/industry Mafia-style.

Mathis' argument that small groups of people can and do suddenly overturn this process is not a denial of the process at work. It only shows that Marx shared a philosophy with the hoaxers that benefited the elite as it does now.

It does point out that we can seek radical change quickly, though. And even though it would be great to definitely continue our efforts to stop unfairness and injustice through our writings, aa5 makes an excellent point: you can eschew the entire drama and just live well together in local communities just fine, without corrupt involvement of the cabals or mobs.


An example of this control, is average couples are worried of things like legal liability. It is something that prevents them from taking risks, and just learning to live with lowly paid big government or big corporation jobs.

I was trying to explain to a couple that was worried of a lawsuit, that unless they had more than $1 million in net, liquid assets - they had nothing to fear of getting sued. No lawyer would bother with such a case, even if the couple was grossly negligent. The couple was also unaware of how high the bar is in the real world for negligence. On television, there is absurd stories of people winning jackpot lawsuits. But in the real world it doesn't work that way.

But since what I was saying was so diametrically opposed to what they have heard their whole life, they didn't believe me. The other side never ended up suing(as this couple maybe had $5,000 in net worth).. and the couple felt they 'got lucky', and had to double down on risk aversion going forward.

edit for formatting.
aa5
Member
 
Posts: 117
Joined: April 15th, 2016, 4:03 am

Re: The Cold War Hoax

Postby ICfreely on July 24th, 2016, 4:43 pm

aa5 » July 23rd, 2016, 7:31 pm wrote:ICFreely, that is where my opinion is leading now, that the last 2 centuries have mainly been a political struggle between the new industrialists that emerged in the industrial age, and the old power of the aristocracy. The aristocracy's position deriving from land titles, monopoly commerce licenses, resource licenses, farm quotas, etc.


Well, in Iran, the landed aristocrat/feudal landlord usually received half the harvest from his land and sold it on the open market. The workers usually traded their half with other communities of workers. Seeing as they lived rent-free, they didn’t have much use for money. However, many did have cash paying off-season vocations/trades so they were able to accumulate a decent amount of money. Moreover, if their children displayed a desire to study the landlord would cover the cost. More often than not, those children married into the landlord’s family. The landlord also acted as a mediator/judge to settle disputes among the workers.

Every region/group/tribe chose their own leaders (‘kings’) autonomously. The king of kings (shahenshah) acted as the final arbiter of the “United Kingdom.” The pseudo-liberals pushed the Shah for ‘land reform’ - under the auspices of helping the ‘downtrodden’ labor class. When the Shah gave in to them and forced landlords to give the land titles to the workers the whole system broke down. The jigga rich workers sold their lands & moved to the big cities to ‘enjoy the good life.’

In no time their money ran out & they couldn’t find suitable jobs to remain in the big cities. The pissed off Big Mullah landlords and Bazaris/Qajars/Baktiaris colluded to convince the simpletons the Shah was to blame. They got rid of the Shah and sank further. Now all the opposition groups are targeting the children/grandchildren of the displaced working class to overthrow the Mullahs – promising them Heaven on Earth! :rolleyes:

The old way of doing things was far from perfect but this pseudo-progressivism is even worse.


P.S.

Sorry to get off to-pick, Hoi! :P


P.P.S.

My grandfather was FAR from wealthy but was forced to give away half his land which pretty much wiped him out. My father started from scratch & eventually built up a successful land surveying partnership only to have it taken away from him after the 1979 devolution (it got 'nationalized'). To add insult to injury, the 'glorious' Islamic republic claims not to have a record of his employment in Iran (the building conveniently burned down & the seven copies of his tax payments magically disappeared) & never paid him a cent in Social 'Security.' The textbooks have it all wrong & the pompous Iranologists know Jack $chitt!


P.P.P.S.

Getting back on topic, Souls of the East has an excellent collection of essays on the Bolshevik Devolution.

Managed Dialectics and the Liberal Imperium

July 23, 2016 by jay008

By: Jay Dyer

The hyped and engineered “race war” the existing establishment in the United States desires is a long-term strategy of tension with numerous historical precedents. To say this tension is exacerbated and stoked by the ruling liberal elite is not to say the difference are not real. On the contrary, cultures and civilizations produce different societies as a natural result of the soul of that people, and this is a good thing. In reality “diversity” is a natural good, as well as the rightful existence of different ethnoi, a classical Orthodox notion. In our day, however, with the rise of atomistic individualism post-enlightenment, “diversity” is now an fundamental dogma of doublethink where the subversive goal of “diversity” is the obliteration of real distinctions and differences.

It is through this crucial contradiction and Orwellian doublemind that two completely oppositional notions are held simultaneously in the minds of the liberal western world. On the one hand, the United States and the liberal West purport to represent “democracy,” “freedom” and egalitarianism, while waging wars of foreign aggression for the establishment of the “Pax Americana,” while extorting the natural resources and inverting and destroying the cultural heritages of nations guilty of the heinous crime of being diverse from the U.S.’s liberal imperium. In this regard, diversity as an ideology is a managed dialectic that exists in the minds of many westerns, still (though there are many signs this facade is beginning to wane).

The dark, inner logic of this imperium is precisely self-destructive to the domestic population, as well as the nations where it spreads its aggression, be it through the soft power of NGOs, think tanks and cultural toxicity, or through outright war or proxy attacks. The “open society” is open only to the dominance of the anti-human collective, a collectivist identity only united in its foundational premise of negative liberty which, in political philosophy, denotes a philosophical starting point of negation of collective obligations and ontological realities. It is in this sense that America now represents the actual Brave New World, fulfilling the alchemical prophecy of Bacon, as the engine of the Atlanticist powers, a great machine by which to project full spectrum subversion upon the globe under the laughable guise of “human rights.”

Enlightenment ideas of liberty as liberty-from all external constraints embodied in the state must logically extend to what, in philosophy is sometimes called epistemic self-consciousness. This means a worldview or belief system will, over time, become more consistent with its foundational premises. If those beliefs are contradictory, as many of the Enlightenment empiricists’ views were, progeny will feel these effects, where the guiding geist moves these societies towards more internal consistency. This consistency can have a dark side, as mentioned, where the false can become more false and more corrupt. This is the case with America as the Enlightenment experiment having chosen as its destiny the Satanic, to develop as the anti-Imperial Imperium. As such, it is now inherent within the anti-logic logic of America to raise the worst, exalt the worst, and seek to subvert globally.

Seen in this way, America as a global force and ideology, has become a kind of shell, a simulacrum of a nation, an anti-metaphysical imperium at war with all that is traditional, natural and organic. Energized with all the force of demonic fury that characterizes the rings of Dante’s Inferno, the LSDisnelyand nightmare must be extended globally to bring the post-human imperium of a fanatical monoculture whose war on distinctions and real diversity eats its own “humanism” like a self-devouring ouroboros. In this sense, the ouroboros is a perfect dialectical symbol of the classical mythos of America as both the Brave New World and Atlantis. It’s a necromantic sorcerer’s Atlantis where the alchemical cauldron of black and white men must be combined into violent chemical reaction to dissolve and destroy both ethnoi (as well as all others), arising from the fact the ruling elite seek to become post-human.

https://souloftheeast.org/2016/07/23/managed-dialectics-and-the-liberal-imperium/
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 549
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: The Cold War Hoax

Postby aa5 on July 24th, 2016, 9:47 pm

In the West we see the Islamic world through the lenses of our own society. Without seeing that a country like Iran is making the monumental transition from a society of rural farming villages & a feudal order, to the modern mega-urban area capitalist society.

Families who live in villages for centuries and had a place in that village(in a feudal order you have a place even if it is lower down) - are forced to migrate to these urban areas, where they culturally are not prepared, and out of place.

It is the same thing that imo drove Bolshevism in Russia. Tens of millions of Russian Empire farming families had to flee the farms and move to Russia's urban areas. They were not culturally prepared to succeed in these cities and their frustrations made fertile grounds for revolutionary movements. Your example in Iran of selling their land & seeking 'the good life' in the cities with excitement, to being broke & frustrated a year later.


The plan of new revolutionary groups to recruit the children/grandchildren of the formerly displaced villages, now in the cities.. seems like a plan with little chance of success. Because given time families do find out how to succeed in the cities - and the opportunities are so much bigger in the cities than in their old villages.

Another aspect is looking backwards, the Islamic Revolution in Iran seems amazingly un-revolutionary. They did a few disastrous reforms, learned from those failures, and pretty much went back to the plans the Shah had.
aa5
Member
 
Posts: 117
Joined: April 15th, 2016, 4:03 am

Re: The Cold War Hoax

Postby ICfreely on July 24th, 2016, 11:37 pm

aa5 » July 24th, 2016, 12:47 pm wrote:In the West we see the Islamic world through the lenses of our own society. Without seeing that a country like Iran is making the monumental transition from a society of rural farming villages & a feudal order, to the modern mega-urban area capitalist society.


I’ll use Urmia (Ur-land, mia-water) as an example. My grandfather’s primary home was in the city of Urmia and his ‘vacation home’ was in a suburb of Urmia. Basically, he owned the farm-based suburb which had a population of roughly 30 families.

Families who live in villages for centuries and had a place in that village (in a feudal order you have a place even if it is lower down) - are forced to migrate to these urban areas, where they culturally are not prepared, and out of place.


Exactly! My grandfather spent the rest of his life trying to buy back the parcels of his land that had been sold off (@ double/triple the price) in order to keep the family land AND take care of most of the families who came back & lived rent-free. Everyone told him he was crazy. My dad, being the loyal son that he was, was ipso facto financing my grandfather’s noble endeavor. Long story short, we left in the mid 80’s & gramps passed away in 1990 (RIP!). My jigga rich aunt, out of the goodness of her heart, ‘gave the land back to the peasants’ - & swiftly went on to build a $15 million (U.S. dollars) McMansion in North Tehran! :lol: :lol: :lol:

…and pretty much went back to the plans the Shah had.


Not hardly! I’ll try to elaborate in the future but I have to take a break. This stuff isn’t just a clinical academic exercise for me.
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 549
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: The Cold War Hoax

Postby hoi.polloi on July 25th, 2016, 9:09 am

Your example in Iran of selling their land & seeking 'the good life' in the cities with excitement, to being broke & frustrated a year later.


This is entirely a form of reliable fuel for a police-State, which then must infinitely expand its military borders in order to take on new agrarians and "process" them in a perpetual activity that never ends and cannot end but which must rely on the premise of an infinite inhuman and "primitive" Earth to take over. It perpetually feeds the bloated ticks that reinvent the scam each year. It's apparently been happening for as long as States have existed, and what's more, it's documented with pride by its occupants who optimistically believed it to be perfectly ordinary and right to dehumanize anyone in the way of this machine, and therefore recording it more or less as it happened (and right along with the (re)invention of history itself a la Herodotus, early Abrahamist/Jewish texts, Buddhist texts and so on).

Of course, with that faith in the technostate comes its weird partner: the belief in a magical Golden Age where all was pre-right and primitive and populated by ennobled lawless savages subsisting on "acorns" which must regrettably go as assuredly as, and the way of, the dinosaur (itself a sadly apt metaphor given dinosaurs may be entirely fictional[ized]).

Again, this is as studied by Robert A. Williams in Savage Anxieties: The Invention of Western Civilization, though I'm not trying to push the book; I just think it makes some very good points about beliefs of the past we might see as prescient now. The "obsolete" way is all people living outside the polis who get naturally associated by those myths with inhuman beasts, which pretty much carry over into every xeno-centric "adventure" myth of our day too (perpetuated by Hollywood in Wizard of Oz, Star Trek (also known as "Wagon Train to the Stars") Avatar and on and on).

Whew.

All this is to say that Russia and America were, on some level, very much on the same mission. Rather than being pure competitors for all ideas available to the human race, they were merely pseudo-competitors and somewhat friends in the narrow habits that imperial colonialist super-States have in viewing and classifying ways of being on the Earth. Does that bring us round back on topic somewhat?

In any case, ICfreely, your personal experience sounds applicable. I bet many of us with awareness of past family transitions, moves, emigrations and so on could share things that draw up the big picture rather plainly. Hopefully readers can begin to understand what we're rambling on about and see if it applies to them as well.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4703
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: The Cold War Hoax

Postby ICfreely on July 25th, 2016, 5:35 pm

hoi.polloi » July 25th, 2016, 12:09 am wrote:
Your example in Iran of selling their land & seeking 'the good life' in the cities with excitement, to being broke & frustrated a year later.


This is entirely a form of reliable fuel for a police-State, which then must infinitely expand its military borders in order to take on new agrarians and "process" them in a perpetual activity that never ends and cannot end but which must rely on the premise of an infinite inhuman and "primitive" Earth to take over. It perpetually feeds the bloated ticks that reinvent the scam each year. It's apparently been happening for as long as States have existed, and what's more, it's documented with pride by its occupants who optimistically believed it to be perfectly ordinary and right to dehumanize anyone in the way of this machine, and therefore recording it more or less as it happened (and right along with the (re)invention of history itself a la Herodotus, early Abrahamist/Jewish texts, Buddhist texts and so on).



I’m not sure what you mean, Hoi.

Western governments & Iran’s progressive intellectuals were the ones who were pushing for ‘land reforms.’ The Big Mullah landlords had the most to lose. When the Shah initially held back on the land reforms the national/international press & Mohammad Mosadeggh made him out to be a stingy tin-pot dictator. When he finally went ahead with the land reforms the Mullahs turned on him overnight (in the name of Allah & preserving Iran’s ‘moral fabric’ of course). The progressive intellectuals, instead of thanking the Shah for implementing their policy, turned on him as well and radicalized the students – eventually joining the Mullahs!

The Bazari finally shut down Iran’s trade/commerce via union strikes (which they themselves encouraged) & sealed the Shah’s fate. Iran hasn’t tried to expand its borders in any way. In fact, Iran hasn’t initiated a war in over 300 years. Iranians have no imperialist/expansionist desires. Been there, done that!

And for what it's worth (according to non-Iranian sources), the Persian Empire, unlike the Greco-Roman Empires that followed, did not rape, pillage and enslave people after military victories.

All this is to say that Russia and America were, on some level, very much on the same mission. Rather than being pure competitors for all ideas available to the human race, they were merely pseudo-competitors and somewhat friends in the narrow habits that imperial colonialist super-States have in viewing and classifying ways of being on the Earth. Does that bring us round back on topic somewhat?

IMO, the USA/USSR were two fascist super-States working hand-in-hand to establish one socio-fascist super-State. Seeing as they couldn’t directly engage each other for fear of triggering a global nuclear holocaust, they sponsored/attacked opposition forces in practically every nation all over the world (killing, injuring and displacing hundreds of millions of people). Then a plethora of UN & NGO organizations were established to create order out of the chaos (i.e. containing nuclear proliferation, promoting nuclear medicine).

Their co-production of the Space Race gave us the Church of NASA, global cooling, global warming, climate change, good o-zone, bad o-zone, carbon credits, cutting edge microgravity vaccine research and all kinds of ancient alien theories.

Their thousands of satellites have also been instrumental in fighting the War on Terror - tracking shady sleeper cells to prevent them from getting/detonating a suitcase nuke. But, you know, that Putin’s a bit wacky so there’s always the possibility of a Cold War II Star Wars.
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 549
Joined: February 7th, 2015, 6:41 pm

Re: The Cold War Hoax

Postby aa5 on July 26th, 2016, 1:40 am

hoi.polloi » July 25th, 2016, 12:09 am wrote:This is entirely a form of reliable fuel for a police-State, which then must infinitely expand its military borders in order to take on new agrarians and "process" them in a perpetual activity that never ends and cannot end but which must rely on the premise of an infinite inhuman and "primitive" Earth to take over. It perpetually feeds the bloated ticks that reinvent the scam each year. It's apparently been happening for as long as States have existed, and what's more, it's documented with pride by its occupants who optimistically believed it to be perfectly ordinary and right to dehumanize anyone in the way of this machine, and therefore recording it more or less as it happened (and right along with the (re)invention of history itself a la Herodotus, early Abrahamist/Jewish texts, Buddhist texts and so on).


All organizations must grow or die... it can be a church, business, charity or a whole state. To take very large organizations, when the EU nations like Spain, France, Italy, Greece, etc., were no longer growing in population, I knew the end was near, although I didn't see it happening so fast. Only Germany looks like it will survive, as it is growing by swallowing the neighboring failed states, the others will be nations 'on paper', but in reality sovereignty will have been transferred.

The positive side for say Greeks, is that 'Greece' the land, the people, the culture is still there from 1 day to the next. Just 'Greece' the state organization, ownership has been transferred to new owners. And the new owners will do a management & administration, 'right-sizing', which the old organization was politically not capable of doing.


Of course, with that faith in the technostate comes its weird partner: the belief in a magical Golden Age where all was pre-right and primitive and populated by ennobled lawless savages subsisting on "acorns" which must regrettably go as assuredly as, and the way of, the dinosaur (itself a sadly apt metaphor given dinosaurs may be entirely fictional[ized]).

Again, this is as studied by Robert A. Williams in Savage Anxieties: The Invention of Western Civilization, though I'm not trying to push the book; I just think it makes some very good points about beliefs of the past we might see as prescient now. The "obsolete" way is all people living outside the polis who get naturally associated by those myths with inhuman beasts, which pretty much carry over into every xeno-centric "adventure" myth of our day too (perpetuated by Hollywood in Wizard of Oz, Star Trek (also known as "Wagon Train to the Stars") Avatar and on and on).


I hadn't heard of that book, it sounds very interesting. Perhaps they need the comparison to appreciate what the present is. While also needing the past to be virtuous, so that their state was always the good guys?

All this is to say that Russia and America were, on some level, very much on the same mission. Rather than being pure competitors for all ideas available to the human race, they were merely pseudo-competitors and somewhat friends in the narrow habits that imperial colonialist super-States have in viewing and classifying ways of being on the Earth. Does that bring us round back on topic somewhat?


I read that in the 1700's there were periods that England & France were in shooting naval battles with each other over some far flung colonies. But England & France were still friends. Commerce & travel across the English channel went on unabated.
aa5
Member
 
Posts: 117
Joined: April 15th, 2016, 4:03 am

Re: The Cold War Hoax

Postby hoi.polloi on July 28th, 2016, 2:01 am

ICfreely, I went off on a rant again. What I meant was that while Iran's innocent's basic stated ambitions to sort their place out may be well and good for Iran, destabilizing it is awful good for so-called "competing" (or predatory) States and/or cultures that wish to absorb/control it under a more "ambitious" (colonizing) system. Not having been there, I cannot say what actually took place, but it seems to be awfully like the way of the world, whether or not guided by invisible claws.

Furthermore, I don't want to conflate the worse methods of controlling land with the prosaic, and sorry if it seems like I was doing that. I reserve weird beliefs that cultures that can get by without States (in the incredible instances where we can even be aware that such cultures do in fact "still" exist) are rapidly going more or less "extinct" in the eyes of people who definitely are in the habit of conflating key cultural differences that separate lives of peace from lives of war/oppression/banking systems/legal systems and/or other weapons/tools of the State. In my opinion, natural anarchies are not going extinct. They are slow-boiled out of existence by a particular propaganda machine that we are eviscerating on this forum. For me, it's a bid sad that many of us would also agree with the idea that some anarchies are "outmoded" or "uncomfortable" or less ideal than the members of those cultures would opine. But I am just one young person with very little life experience so I have pretty much only explored these points in essays and writings. The more I see how people's minds are controlled, the more I feel we could live in a more peaceful, less State-dominated world without the leadership of madmen.

I think the perspective that Russia and America are staunch allies is true in at least the sense you gave. I don't think empires will quarrel much about the merits of empires. Not to each other. That's for the plebs to philosophize about while we get addicted to its fruits. Yet, it's funny how Russia and America both use language to accuse each other of being ... well, exactly what they seem to be.

aa5, I think what you write about Greece is a kind of positive thought. It's hard to be mad at a culture that "invented" the police State and concepts of outside 'barbarism' useful to Western empires' most insidious ambitions today, and has a frighteningly religious peninsula where no women are allowed, but which also gave us spanakopita.

I have appreciated both your and aa5's insights in this thread. Thanks!
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4703
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: The Cold War Hoax

Postby aa5 on July 28th, 2016, 7:13 am

I think that you are right, at the center of these hoaxes, is that we need an even bigger, better funded & more powerful government. Something I read a long time ago, that made it easy to see, was the line 'everything is a business'. The local public health authority is a business. It is a non-profit, but the people who work there, want growth. Bigger salaries, more opportunities for advancement, nicer buildings, more job security.. even additional new missions to take on.

While a 'for-profit' corporation grows by selling more of its products, government agencies grow by convincing citizens & politicians to allocate more of the tax money to them.

For the Soviet citizens I am guessing they were told alarming stories of how Western capitalists planned to conquer their country, and then make people work for 1 dollar a day in sweat shops, with children going in between dangerous machinery.

On the positive side, the state which allows the most freedom, new ideas, creative destruction, becomes the most powerful state. While nations which take away liberty, like Maoist China, become weak and unstable nations. Pessimistic people keep predicting China's economic demise, but I have been saying for a long time now, as long as China keeps allowing ever greater liberty than before, she is going to get stronger & stronger. A few months ago I was reading some comments by high level Chinese state officials & businesspeople on China's future plans.. and they were saying it outright, liberty makes China stronger.
aa5
Member
 
Posts: 117
Joined: April 15th, 2016, 4:03 am

PreviousNext

Return to WWI - WWII, the Nuke Hoax, the Cold War and JFK

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests