Leftist dystopia and an article on China

[Gideongamer]

http://westernworldpolitics.blogspot.com/2005/12/leftist-dystopia-war-on-tradition-and.html

A brilliant article. This guy's articles sum up a lot of modern hard right conservative thinking. Notice I did not say "Republican" thinking as many republicans tend to be rather liberal.

Check out the article "Feeding the dragon; the Wests short sightedness towards Red China"

http://westernworldpolitics.blogspot.com/2005/11/feeding-dragon-wests-short-sightedness.html

People keep thinking that China will just "come along" now that it has economic ties to much of the world, but what if its just using this economic clout to build up its military? What if China is merely biding its time? No doubt China has that kind of patience. We see that in fact China IS building up its military at an almost alarming rate. When was the last time China used intervention tactics? WHY would China need to build up its military to specifically challenge US power? What threat is China facing that it needs to build up its military to such powerful levels? Why has China been fanning the flames of Chinese nationalism lately? And why the hell isn't anyone asking these questions?

In the meantime we keep pumping money into China and basically giving them what they need to [possibly] wage war against us in the future. Of course, of course they are becoming capitalists now and China will never be a threat and blah, blah, blah. I KNOW what businesses that depend on China for economic reasons and of course the US governments overly optomistic views are, but China is not our friend. The red Chinese may have changed a few tactics, but I believe they are as "red" now as they have ever been philosophically. Why do we keep pretending otherwise? Or are we now so dependent on China that we won't be able to counter them until they have us bent over?

Interesting how they defined democracy:
"[ensuring] that the party's views become the will of the people"

That was apparently in a recent Time magazine article. No, they haven't changed stripes. They are merely changing tactics.

[Nellie]

What threat is China facing that it needs to build up its military to such powerful levels?

Maybe China has the same view of the rest of the world that the US does? It feels threatened by it.

[Gideongamer]

What threat is China facing that it needs to build up its military to such powerful levels?

Maybe China has the same view of the rest of the world that the US does? It feels threatened by it.

Why is it building up its military in a way thats aimed specifically at destroying carriers and super carriers ala the US navy? I am saying China has a plan and they are building up a powerful kind of navy and air force aimed at fighting a foe like the US military for a specific reason. No doubt the US government knows this- we just don't know why, how, or when they will strike. It will probably be in the next couple of decades and something tells me it will involve Taiwan.

Look at the spy we recently caught who was giving military secrets to China. Chinese spies have likely been stealing rocket and missle tech from us for the past 20 years. This spy had info regarding the AEGIS ANTI missile system. Think China just wants it for themselves? Sure they do, but its just as likely they need to know how it works so they can counter it. Why would they need to know that if they weren't anticipating a future engagement with the US? They probably are.

If you think that just having heavy trade between nations prevents wars histroy has proven that SO wrong SO many times. Its utter foolishness to assume such a thing. YET, thats what we keep hearing.

[Nellie]

Why is it building up its military in a way thats aimed specifically at destroying carriers and super carriers ala the US navy?

Because logically the biggest threat, perhaps only military threat to China is the US?

I am saying China has a plan and they are building up a powerful kind of navy and air force aimed at fighting a foe like the US military for a specific reason.

It sees the need to defend itself from the US perhaps? In the same way I dont doubt that there are more than a few people in the US military dedicated to figuring out how to defend the US from China.

Why would they need to know that if they weren't anticipating a future engagement with the US? They probably are.

Can you blame them?

You seem to be assuming that China is preparing to go on the attack, have you considered the notion that the Chinese might consider the US to be an agressive nation that might decide that China has something it wants and will try to obtain that militarily?

Watching a cold war from the start rather than from the end could be quite interesting. Two massive economies, populations and millitaries, both paranoid of the intentions of the other standing off again.

[Tim Partlett]

Whoever it is that is smurfing as Gideongamer: fantastic parody man!

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Leftist dystopia? Sign me up! This rightist dystopia's not working out so well for me.

I'm glad to see China arming itself -- they're going to need to defend the free world sooner or later.

[Flowers]

Why is it building up its military in a way thats aimed specifically at destroying carriers and super carriers ala the US navy?

Because logically the biggest threat, perhaps only military threat to China is the US?


The United States Naval supremacy is of such a high degree that until China acquires a sufficient spread of vessels to counter the Aircraft Carriers and submarine threat, every single ship they build is a complete waste of money because the United States can sink them at will with virtually no risk to their own equipment.


At least, that is what the man who briefed Nixon before his visit to China told me.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

The whole "What threat is China facing that it needs to build up its military to such powerful levels?" canard has been thrown around a lot in some circles, so it's not like the question isn't being asked. I think I heard Secretary Rice say it a while ago.

It's a stupid question anyway. What is the US so afraid of that it still spends billions more on defense than many nations combined? Are we necessarily planning an aggressive action?

That said, there are lots of reasons to suspect China wants the capability to neutralize our intervention in the Taiwan Straits. It's hardly shocking. They see Taiwan as their sphere of influence. We disagree. With any luck, the entire rotten Chinese structure will collapse from within before we have to settle it militarily.

Troy

[MatthewF]

Ah, Gideon. Always good for a laugh with my morning coffee. I would simply argue that too much of anything leads to fundamentalism, and fundamentalism is bad for everyone outside the extreme. Just like China being too leftist leads to an overly oppressive socialist/communist society, and you being too rightist leads to you being insane. It's a delicate balance, 'tis.

[Midnight Son]

"many republicans tend to be rather liberal" :lol:

[Rob Beschizza]

China wants to be the undisputed military and economic power in south-east Asia.

Put bluntly, the guns are for pointing at Japan, Vietnam and India. The U.S. only matters if the U.S. gets involved in defending Taiwan one way or another, which is rather less likely now than is was a few years ago.

[Gideongamer]

China wants to be the undisputed military and economic power in south-east Asia.

Put bluntly, the guns are for pointing at Japan, Vietnam and India. The U.S. only matters if the U.S. gets involved in defending Taiwan one way or another, which is rather less likely now than is was a few years ago.

China also wants to spread communism- communism is like a virus with an insatiable appetite. So I guess we just let them take Taiwan? We just let them sell arms and tech to extreme leftist governments in South America and help create communist revolutions? Russia certainly seems to agree with China spreading communism and influence as Russia continues to sell high tech to China. Then again, we all know that while the USSR is dead, communist generals and ex officials won't mind if China spreads even more of its evil ideology. Russia is not our friend either. Communism has so perverted Russia that it has become so corrupt and tainted I am not sure we will see a full recovery in our lifetime.

I have a better idea. How about the west- ALL of western civilization- get together and slim down trade with China? Cut back trade to the bare necessity. It may happen in the future, but by then it may be too late.

Its interesting that there would be those here who would sympathize with Chian and perhaps even Chinese agression. "Well they need to because THEY see US as a threat and blah, blah, blah." I am certainly not surprised that there would be those who sympathize and excuse perhaps the most oppressive, evil nation in the world building up its military, its generals threatening to nuke some of our major cities (REMEMBER THAT folks? ), and getting increasingly aggressive towards a democracy like Taiwan. If they weren't trying to spread a filthy, evil ideology then perhaps we could excuse them. But no, its no better than excusing Hitlers Germany. Thier ideology is just as perverse and arguably just as evil and yet we make them rich! Actually the Chinese have proven to be more efficient in butchering their own people than Hitler ever was.

Thats ok. Liberals were in love with Mao (the worst butcher in human history) during the 60s and in love with Stalin for decades so its no surprise. Many liberals were in love with the communist Vietcong while they were torturing our POWs, so its actually expected. Lets hope China never becomes a threat.

[Anders Hallin]

We just let them sell arms and tech to extreme leftist governments in South America and help create communist revolutions?
lol

[Lizard_King]

Yeah, trade war worked really well to avoid crisis with Japan back in the day. Rock on... :roll:

[Gideongamer]

The United States Naval supremacy is of such a high degree that until China acquires a sufficient spread of vessels to counter the Aircraft Carriers and submarine threat, every single ship they build is a complete waste of money because the United States can sink them at will with virtually no risk to their own equipment.



The Chinese can EASILY sink anything we send against it using the Russian made SS-N-22 Sunburn anti-ship missile:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/1/22/190620.shtml

" In July 1999, defense analyst Richard D. Fisher wrote an evaluation of the Sunburn. Fisher reported that the Sunburn is capable of a dive speed of nearly 3000 miles an hour, helping it evade U.S. naval defenses.

"The Sunburn anti-ship missile is perhaps the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world," wrote Fisher in a review of the Chinese navy."

The missle was specifically designed to defeat the Aegis system. You see, China can pick off even our super carriers at long range.

[Rob Beschizza]

China is just a dictatorship like all the others. Accpeting "communist china" as literally true is just as errant as accepting "people's republic of" at face value.

The only good reason for continuing to accept China's as commie would be if you looked at them as going for a New Economic Policy thing.

(This is more or less the idea that communism must emerge from a fully-fledged, advanced capitalist economy, or it will fail. This was Lenin's idea, but he died not long after recapitalizing the Russian economy, and Stalin didn'ae like that plan.)

[bago]

China sure has a funny way of threatening us, like buying our national debt.

[madkevin]

...Communism is like a virus with an insatiable appetite.

Much like stupidity.

[Jason McCullough]

Gideon, name a mainstream liberal in the 1960s who was in love with Mao.

[MatthewF]

Thats ok. Liberals were in love with Mao (the worst butcher in human history) during the 60s and in love with Stalin for decades so its no surprise. Many liberals were in love with the communist Vietcong while they were torturing our POWs, so its actually expected. Lets hope China never becomes a threat.
Who are these phantom LEEBOREELS you speak of? Nobody liked Stalin or Mao. It's comments like this that make you into an asshole nobody around here can stand. If you just had a discussion with us instead of inserting your token "ALL LIBERALS ARE HIPPIE JOINT SMOKING MURDER LOVING SCUM" maybe, just maybe, I won't have to insult your fascist bitch ass every time I respond. Oh yeah, fuck you.

[mtkafka]

its like in Civ IV... you think you have the tech advanatage, or that you can culture bomb China, but your gold is near 0... China's gold is rising and they too are working on getting those oil spots! Maybe its planned... you know... illuminati stuff...

etc

[shift6]

China also wants to spread communism- communism is like a virus with an insatiable appetite.
For the record, Chinese commies and Russian Soviet commies almost never got along in philosophy. Ever. The schism was so wide that when Che Guevara (Castro's #2 man during the Cuban revolution) publicly sided with Mao and made statements about their communism as opposed to the USSR, Castro almost totally lost the support of the USSR.

Another major difference between Chi-com and Soviet-com is expansionism. The Chinese communists have barely hinted at expansionism in their entire 50-ish years. Now, it's true that they want to reunite with Taiwan (which was only split off because of the communist revolution) and Tibet and other small areas that they believe are part of China, but they've never really been big on sending billions of dollars of military and propoganda aid to far reaches of the earth in support of "the revolution".

Just as an FYI.

Personally, I believe that if some hardcore hardliners come into power there and do attack the US for whatever reason, it won't be to subjugate. It will be to bomb us back to the stone age and give them an outside shot at being the most powerful nation on earth. But that's totally just my opinion, and I haven't kept up with Chinese politics much.

[deccan]

For the record, Chinese commies and Russian Soviet commies almost never got along in philosophy. Ever.

Just my opinion as well, but I think one key thing to keep in mind is that Chinese communism is nationalistic and racist: it's all about the good and betterment of Chinese peasantry in particular, and not ideological in the sense of seeking justice etc. for the poor and downtrodden in general.

[Nellie]

China also wants to spread communism

Wheee! It's all about the commies!

[Bob Violence]

Hey, Gideongamer, remind me again: which U.S. administration opened up China to American military technology and Foreign Military Sales?

[XPav]

The Chinese can EASILY sink anything we send against it using the Russian made SS-N-22 Sunburn anti-ship missile
You shouldn't be reading the marketing literature. It just confuses you. And Newsmax as a source? Please.

People have been playing the "Russian SSM will destroy US carriers en masse!!11" card for the last 25 years. However, there's a major problem with that:

What assets does China have to locate US carriers and provide a targeting solution to launch the missiles at the carriers? The Soviet Union had fleets of patrol aircraft. China.... doesn't.

In addition to that, there's one easy method that the US can do -- kill the shooter. We've got carrier air, a strong C4I network, and the ability to see the Sovremennys coming long before they're in range, and take them out.

[Dirt]

China is just a dictatorship like all the others.
Is it? Who is the dictator?

[Midnight Son]

It's a Collectivist Leftist Communistic People's Democracy of Love! :lol:

[Flowers]

I believe this policy paper by Eric Idle sums up my position on Chinese Regional and World Hegemony. The title of the piece is also the central theme, which the author returns to throughout. (I apologize for lack of footnotes.)

The world today seems absolutely crackers.
With nuclear bombs to blow us all sky high.
There are fools and idiots sitting on the trigger.
It's depressing, and it's senseless, and that's why...

Intro: I like Chinese,
I like Chinese,
They
only come up to your knees,
Yet they're always friendly and they're ready to please.
Verse: I like Chinese,
I like Chinese,
There's nine hundred million of them in the world today,
You'd better learn to like them, that's what I say.
Chorus: I like Chinese,
I like Chinese,
They come from a long way overseas,
But they're cute and they're cuddly, and they're ready to please.
Verse: I like chinese food,
The waiters never are rude,
Think of the many things they've done to impress,
There's Maoism, Taoism, I Ching and chess.
Chorus: So I like Chinese,
I like Chinese,
I like their tiny little trees,
Their Zen, their ping-pong, their
yin and yang-ese.
Verse: I like Chinese thought,
The wisdom that Confucious taught,
If Darwin is anything to shout about,
The Chinese will survive us all without any doubt.
Chorus: So I like Chinese,
I like Chinese,
They only come up to your knees,
Yet they're wise and they're witty, and they're ready to please.
Verse: (in Chinese)
Chorus: I like Chinese,
I like Chinese,
Their food is guaranteed to please,
A fourteen, a seven, a nine and lychees.
Chorus: I like Chinese,
I like Chinese,
I like their tiny little trees,
Their Zen, their ping-pong, their yin and yang-ese.
Fade: I like Chinese,
I like Chinese...

It is a great day when, thanks to Gideongamer, those lyrics are only the second silliest thing posted to the thread.

[Midnight Son]

Psst..... (every sperm is sacred!)

[Flowers]

Psst..... (every sperm is sacred!)

Good Call.

[antlers]

What assets does China have to locate US carriers and provide a targeting solution to launch the missiles at the carriers? The Soviet Union had fleets of patrol aircraft. China.... doesn't.


How about satellites, airborne radar, sonar buoys, and GPS?

Aircraft carriers are quite difficult to hide.

[foogla]

That's what they want you to believe...

[TriggerHappy]

What assets does China have to locate US carriers and provide a targeting solution to launch the missiles at the carriers? The Soviet Union had fleets of patrol aircraft. China.... doesn't.


How about satellites, airborne radar, sonar buoys, and GPS?

Aircraft carriers are quite difficult to hide.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/moskit-specs.htm

Maximum effective range

48 nm (90 km)
65 nm (120 km) in 3M80E
some sources claim 250 km

Weight 4500 kg

The Harpoon (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/agm-84-specs.htm) has a range of 60nm, and can be carried by a carrier-based F/A-18, which has a range of 1800nm without refueling.

Having a nasty warhead doesn't help if you can't get close enough to use it. Even if the rumors of the sunburn having a range of 140ish nautical miles are true, I'd imagine it'd be pretty unbelievably hard to actually sneak that close to a carrier group without them noticing you and taking you out with air to sea missiles.

Edit : Even better, the P3 can carry two harpoons at a time, has a range of at least 2500 nautical miles, and a can be up in the air for hours.

The best I can find for a China is the SU-27K, and saw this :

Although it was exhibited with an inert 4,500 kg Kh-41 (3M80 Moskit: mosquito) anti-ship missile on the centerline, this considered as impracticable as an operational load.

[XPav]

How about satellites...which China is still in the early stages of deployment...

airborne radarWhich the Chinese are just getting into, of which the only focus seems to be on anti-aircraft usage.

sonar buoysThe sonobuoys dropped by which aircraft that weren't spotted by the aircraft carrier's radar screen? Hrm.

and GPS?How does GPS help you find aircraft carriers? More than that, the US has this big massive switch on the GPS system that says "no one gets to use it but us".

And out of all this, the Chinese C4I capability is negligible. It does nothing to day that you've detected an aircraft carrier on a sonobuoy if you can't get the information to a launching platform.

Is the SS-N-22 dangerous? Yes. Is it unbeatable? Not at all. Worst case scenario is a Pearl Harbor-style attack -- with US forces contrained by ROE until not firing until fired upon. That would hurt. However, attacking first always gives you the initiative, no matter the weaponry.

[Nellie]

More than that, the US has this big massive switch on the GPS system that says "no one gets to use it but us"

Which is one of the reasons why they're really pissed off at the EU for Galileo

[magnet]

In the meantime we keep pumping money into China
As bago pointed out, who's pumping money into whom?

China has loans outstanding to the U.S. government of more than $120 billion, in the form of Treasury debt that China owns. It holds probably that much again in Fannie Mae and other dollar-denominated debt securities.

Contrast that with what U.S. companies have invested in Chinese plants and equipment -- not a direct comparison, by any means, but revealing nonetheless. This "foreign direct investment" stood at $10.2 billion at the end of 2002, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, about one-twenty-fifth the level of China's U.S.-securities holdings.
They loaned another $177b to the US in the first half of 2003, and then I lost count. For comparison purposes, Americans paid ~$400b in personal income taxes during that period.

Now it's estimated that one third of the Chinese economy is invested in US debt. They are thought to be partly responsible for keeping our interests rates nice and low.

America's addiction to foreign money hands China and other potential adversaries a weapon, some influential voices warn. Among them is Aaron Friedberg of Princeton University, an authority on Britain's imperial decline who is now a national security adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney. Mr. Friedberg wrote in a 2000 article in Commentary that China could one day dump its dollar assets to "trigger a run on the dollar, an increase in U.S. interest rates and perhaps a stock-market crash."

I say we kiss their ass a little more.

[Bren]

China also wants to spread communism- communism is like a virus with an insatiable appetite.

You know what's good for that? Crelm toothpaste with the miracle ingredient, Fraudulin!

[DeepT]

Look dude:

The capitolistic cat has gotten out of the bag, and it is not going back in. Capitolism flourishes under free markets, which only work in free socioties.

While right now it may only have a tenious hold in china, it is growing fast. At some point it will be stronger then the red army (too much finical power in to many peoples hands) and that will be that.

China may be wise and know this is comming, and be planning on some kind of coup, like gunning down every Entrepenur in the country at some point. I really doubt this however.

In the long run they will have to become a much more open socioty (weather by choice or being beaten over the head by capitolistic forces) and once that happens, the US and China are no longer a threat to each other and in the long run may become allies.

However, at this time they do feel thretened because the world is starting to change around them. There are forces far beyond thier controll (and perhaps beyond thier comprehension) in play. They are scared and the only thing they know to do is build big millitary toys.

[MikeSofaer]

The idea that free markets only work is free societies is not well established to my mind. Don't get too complacent about China.

[Bren]

However, at this time they do feel thretened because the world is starting to change around them. There are forces far beyond thier controll (and perhaps beyond thier comprehension) in play. They are scared and the only thing they know to do is build big millitary toys.

That sounds like a page right out of the US's foreign policy play book.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

However, at this time they do feel thretened because the world is starting to change around them. There are forces far beyond thier controll (and perhaps beyond thier comprehension) in play. They are scared and the only thing they know to do is build big millitary toys.

Um.

Edit: Beaten! But confirmed!

[Chris Nahr]

I just wanted to point out that the big communist revolution, the one in Russia, actually overthrew a capitalist system.

[jeffd]

How'd that whole revolution thing work out for 'em again? :D

I just wanted to point out that the big communist revolution, the one in Russia, actually overthrew a capitalist system.

[Chris Nahr]

Not so well in the end, but that's not really the point here...

[DeepT]

I just wanted to point out that the big communist revolution, the one in Russia, actually overthrew a capitalist system.

Hmm, I was under the impression that it was a monarchy and while there was some free market stuff going on, it was still a very opressive regime and not a free and open socioty.

[MikeSofaer]

I just wanted to point out that the big communist revolution, the one in Russia, actually overthrew a capitalist system.

Hmm, I was under the impression that it was a monarchy and while there was some free market stuff going on, it was still a very opressive regime and not a free and open socioty.
Well, it is true that free markets can only work in a free society if you define a free market to be a market in a free society.

[Lizard_King]

I just wanted to point out that the big communist revolution, the one in Russia, actually overthrew a capitalist system.

Hmm, I was under the impression that it was a monarchy and while there was some free market stuff going on, it was still a very opressive regime and not a free and open socioty.
I would say that is an extremely unfair characterization of Tsarist Russia, not just relative to what replaced it but relative to other countries at the time.

[shift6]

China also wants to spread communism- communism is like a virus with an insatiable appetite.
You know what's good for that? Crelm toothpaste with the miracle ingredient, Fraudulin!
OK, now that's funny.

I just wanted to point out that the big communist revolution, the one in Russia, actually overthrew a capitalist system.
... that was only 8-9 months old. The populace had been seething under the Romanov Tsars' feudalism before that.

[Lizard_King]

I just wanted to point out that the big communist revolution, the one in Russia, actually overthrew a capitalist system.
... that was only 8-9 months old. The populace had been seething under the Romanov Tsars' feudalism before that.

You make it sound like feudalism was the issue that toppled the Tsar. I mean, seething? Give me a break. Romanov screwed the pooch with his mishandling of WWI. There were plenty of issues with the Tsarist regime per se, but none of them were deal breakers. Only WWI and the misery it created, combined with his masterstroke of both separating himself from the direct control of government AND making himself personally responsible for how the war was conducted at the same time could be a catalyst for that kind of change. If anything, the Tsar was excessively open to reform in a manner that made him appear weak willed, which set the stage for his later mishandling of the war issue.
I don't know if you're basing this extremely negative perspective of pre Soviet Russia on some sort of conventional wisdom or on reputable sources; I'd be interested in seeing the latter if that is the case. I don't mean that to spur a lot of random googling, I just mean that most of the scholarly work on the matter, especially more recent ones, have really tossed the Soviet reimagining of their history aside.

[Chris Nahr]

The exact degree of civil liberties in Czarist Russia isn't terribly relevant anyway since DeepT was talking about freaking China, and they seem to do quite well in combining a repressive political system with a rapidly growing capitalist economy.

Also, freedom in Western countries has by and large declined, rather than increased, ever since the general trend towards socialism started in the 1930s, although there were temporary upsurges after toppled dictatorships here and there. The recent anti-terrorism legislation just confirms this trend.

If anything, historical evidence seems to suggest that the winning ticket, from the viewpoint of a politician, is a combination of as much economic freedom as necessary with as much state regulation as possible. Sadly, there doesn't seem to be an intrinsic link between liberty and prosperity.

The mistake of the Soviet bloc countries was not that they were oppressive but that their economy offered no profit incentives. They were ultimately toppled by bankruptcy, not by a revolt for freedom (of which their people had much more in 1990 than in 1950), and they eagerly voted their old communist oppressors back into power when the consumerist wonderland they had imagined was slow to arrive. China's government seems to have learned this lesson.

[Jason McCullough]

Also, freedom in Western countries has by and large declined, rather than increased, ever since the general trend towards socialism started in the 1930s, although there were temporary upsurges after toppled dictatorships here and there. The recent anti-terrorism legislation just confirms this trend.

Oh yes, we're real short on the "freedom" to starve in mass financial panics. :)

[Chris Nahr]

And the money needed to feed the masses just fell from the sky! Nobody was forced to pay for higher taxes or mandatory insurance!

[Aikes]

China is like every other government headed by bullies and tyrants. They feel most threatened when they start to lose control of their own people.

The United States has in all reality always posed a threat to communist, fascists, kingdom ships, etc. Even nations such as Germany, Britain, and France don’t have the freedoms of speech that the United Stated holds sacred.

People who are free to say anything they like and compete with the ruling classes on an educational and/or competitive level in business tend to disagree with governments that thrive on control and that is the threat China and North Korea feels.

They already know that if they don’t attack the US and if they dont support or supply others that attack the US then the United States will not attack them but the more their own peoples ears hear about the freedoms of others thru radio, TV, or other mediums the more those nations will feel as if they have to be militarily stronger. Not to protect their people from the US, but to protect themselves, the ruling class, from their own people.

As for the Western Civilizations, yes communism has been creeping in. Russia has released a lot of old documents of the former Soviet Union and something that is pretty striking is the McCarthy issue. We all know what the mass media label "McCarthyism" means because we hear it all the time used in the media to point out injustice.

The funny thing is, McCarthy was right. The Soviet documents show that a lot of money left the Soviet Union to pay subversives in the United States during the cold war era and that some of that money went directly to some of the people McCarthy named. Yet, they got off and even now poor McCarthy's name is used to define "witch hunt."

As it turns out, some of that money went also to fund some of the "Peace Movement" and other groups that turned the nation on its head. Sadly, the people who joined in the marches had only the best intentions in mind a lot of the time... well okay a lot of the time they had getting high and laid on their mind but masked it in a good cause.

Tyrants can not abide free people and so they try to influence them in such a way that benefits the tyrant. We humans are such willing fools.

Next topic you should look into is why the leaders of a free nation who should only have the best interests of the people in mind can be members of elite and underground groups that do not have public forum and do not answer to anyone.

The most powerful capitalists and government leaders of all nations seem to share membership in these groups regardless of their political views. The watchdog for the people should be the media, but even with the medias great amounts of bias and hunger for ratings, the members of the media who also go to these meetings don’t utter a whisper about them.

Top of this list would be the Bilderburg group, but there are others and they hold the power of the world economy and governments in their palm.

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Getting high and getting laid sounds like a pretty good cause to me.

And you're complaining that the Soviets funded peace activists? Is there some other way they could have spent money on mitigating the threat of a nuclear exchange or massive conventional war that you would have preferred?

[Aikes]

Getting high and getting laid sounds like a pretty good cause to me.

And you're complaining that the Soviets funded peace activists? Is there some other way they could have spent money on mitigating the threat of a nuclear exchange or massive conventional war that you would have preferred?

I was not complaining, I was simply stating fact. The Soviet intent for funding anything in those days was simply a means to an end... the free worlds end as a matter of fact.

No, I am not against anything, I am for everything and that makes me the biggest fool of all doesnt it.

[Johan O]

...
Next topic you should look into is why the leaders of a free nation who should only have the best interests of the people in mind can be members of elite and underground groups that do not have public forum and do not answer to anyone.

The most powerful capitalists and government leaders of all nations seem to share membership in these groups regardless of their political views. The watchdog for the people should be the media, but even with the medias great amounts of bias and hunger for ratings, the members of the media who also go to these meetings don’t utter a whisper about them.

Top of this list would be the Bilderburg group, but there are others and they hold the power of the world economy and governments in their palm.
So what groups are you reffering to? Masonic lodges? The Illuminati? The Elders of Zion? I am also curious how you know that the capitalists, politicians and media figures go to these meetings if no one is reporting about it.

[Aikes]

So what groups are you reffering to? Masonic lodges? The Illuminati? The Elders of Zion? I am also curious how you know that the capitalists, politicians and media figures go to these meetings if no one is reporting about it.

As I said, the Bilderburg group is at the top of that list. There is also the Tri Lateral Commission and a few others. How is it known who shows up at them? You see, because you have the worlds most powerful men all coming together and refusing to even acknowledge it, it is assumed they aren’t there to play chess so many freelance journalists live for those meetings. As a matter of fact, they do pretty well at getting pictures of the people who enter or exit at times.

Instead of trying to poke a finger at me, why don’t you look it up if you are truly interested. Elders of Zion? Masons? Trust me, your stabs don’t go unnoticed but like I said, I am only stating fact. I don’t intend to get into a debate over religions or old men wearing funny hats.

[Johan O]

The people attending these functions are still induviduals and they are still answerable to their electorate or stockholders, if they do not satisfactorily carry out their duties there are, in most cases, mechanisms present for their removal. There is no reason to believe that their loyalty to these groups would supercede their loyalties to their offices, it stands to reason that they are more concerned about their own sphere of interest and their own powerbase than the goals of these groups. When I look at the membership list of the Bildersburg Group I have a hard time imagening they can even agree on anything beyond vague and lofty mission statements. Likely they just attend to hobnob and feel special.

[Flowers]

...
Next topic you should look into is why the leaders of a free nation who should only have the best interests of the people in mind can be members of elite and underground groups that do not have public forum and do not answer to anyone.

The most powerful capitalists and government leaders of all nations seem to share membership in these groups regardless of their political views. The watchdog for the people should be the media, but even with the medias great amounts of bias and hunger for ratings, the members of the media who also go to these meetings don’t utter a whisper about them.

Top of this list would be the Bilderburg group, but there are others and they hold the power of the world economy and governments in their palm.
So what groups are you reffering to? Masonic lodges? The Illuminati? The Elders of Zion? I am also curious how you know that the capitalists, politicians and media figures go to these meetings if no one is reporting about it.

They are called "Country Clubs (http://www.prestonwoodcc.com/)."

[Glenn]

Well played, Mr. Flowers.

[Jason McCullough]

And the money needed to feed the masses just fell from the sky! Nobody was forced to pay for higher taxes or mandatory insurance!

My saucy point I was trying to make is that you can't just talk about "freedom" as a one-dimensional axis - it's tradeoffs of different types and degree. Give up a certain type of freedom to the federal reserve & unemployment insurance, lose some amount of freedom in taxes & whatnot, gain the freedom of probably no more financial panics or people destroyed by losing their job.

[Rob Beschizza]

They are called "Country Clubs (http://www.prestonwoodcc.com/)."

That is one of the best websites ever.

It proves that there is a level of humor too subtle to be produced intentionally.

[shift6]

I just wanted to point out that the big communist revolution, the one in Russia, actually overthrew a capitalist system.
... that was only 8-9 months old. The populace had been seething under the Romanov Tsars' feudalism before that.
You make it sound like feudalism was the issue that toppled the Tsar. I mean, seething? Give me a break. Romanov screwed the pooch with his mishandling of WWI. There were plenty of issues with the Tsarist regime per se, but none of them were deal breakers. Only WWI and the misery it created, combined with his masterstroke of both separating himself from the direct control of government AND making himself personally responsible for how the war was conducted at the same time could be a catalyst for that kind of change. If anything, the Tsar was excessively open to reform in a manner that made him appear weak willed, which set the stage for his later mishandling of the war issue.
I don't know if you're basing this extremely negative perspective of pre Soviet Russia on some sort of conventional wisdom or on reputable sources; I'd be interested in seeing the latter if that is the case. I don't mean that to spur a lot of random googling, I just mean that most of the scholarly work on the matter, especially more recent ones, have really tossed the Soviet reimagining of their history aside.
Fair enough. In my interested-hobby-amateur-Sovietologist opinion, the serfs' continued feudal-like existance (despite emancipation on paper), the Russo-Japanese war (in which the Japs handed ass to the Russkies), and the Tsar's dissolution of multiple Dumas (congresses of the people, dissolved because they didn't heel-toe to the Tsar) were also significant causes of dissent among the peasantry. I agree that WW1 was the final, and very large, spark leading to the fire of revolution, but not that it was the majority of the cause. I see it kind of like WW1 itself: the assasination of Ferdinand was a very large spark, but there was a huge pile of dry tinder already there waiting to be lit.

There's some good, albeit brief, info at wiki about the major causes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution_of_1917#Causes_of_the_Russian_R evolution) and chronology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution_of_1917#Brief_chronology_leadin g_to_Revolution_of_1917) up to 1917.

[Chris Nahr]

My saucy point I was trying to make is that you can't just talk about "freedom" as a one-dimensional axis - it's tradeoffs of different types and degree. Give up a certain type of freedom to the federal reserve & unemployment insurance, lose some amount of freedom in taxes & whatnot, gain the freedom of probably no more financial panics or people destroyed by losing their job.

Come on, now you're just making up new meanings for the word "freedom". First of all, "give freedom to the insurance"? Freedom is for invididual persons, not for institutions! Second, "freedom from job losses"? That's not freedom, that's guaranteed prosperity.

I agree that there's always a tradeoff -- that was my original point in this thread -- but it's freedom vs prosperity or freedom vs equality or even freedom vs survival, but not one kind of freedom vs another.

There's really only negative freedom (freedom from coercion) in any meaningful sense. If you allow for positive freedom (freedom of arbitrary action), let alone positive freedom for institutions, every society is just as free as any other society. Clearly someone can always do something, unless the entire society is plugged into the Matrix, so the total amount of freedom could never change, if that includes the positive freedom of a tyrant to do as he wishes.

[Aikes]

Freedom is a good thing. People who are free will gravitate to capitalism and then the only danger is themselves because as time goes on groups try to decide what other groups or individuals can or can not do. Here are a couple of quotes for you....

Here is my advice as we begin the century that will lead to 2081. First, guard the freedom of ideas at all costs. Be alert that dictators have always played on the natural human tendency to blame others and to oversimplify. And don't regard yourself as a guardian of freedom unless you respect and preserve the rights of people you disagree with to free, public, unhampered expression. ~Gerard K. O'Neill, 2081


Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves. ~Abraham Lincoln

[Unicorn McGriddle]

I don't think either of those quotes take Americans to a comfortable place.

[Jason McCullough]

My saucy point I was trying to make is that you can't just talk about "freedom" as a one-dimensional axis - it's tradeoffs of different types and degree. Give up a certain type of freedom to the federal reserve & unemployment insurance, lose some amount of freedom in taxes & whatnot, gain the freedom of probably no more financial panics or people destroyed by losing their job.

Come on, now you're just making up new meanings for the word "freedom". First of all, "give freedom to the insurance"? Freedom is for invididual persons, not for institutions! Second, "freedom from job losses"? That's not freedom, that's guaranteed prosperity.

I agree that there's always a tradeoff -- that was my original point in this thread -- but it's freedom vs prosperity or freedom vs equality or even freedom vs survival, but not one kind of freedom vs another.

There's really only negative freedom (freedom from coercion) in any meaningful sense. If you allow for positive freedom (freedom of arbitrary action), let alone positive freedom for institutions, every society is just as free as any other society. Clearly someone can always do something, unless the entire society is plugged into the Matrix, so the total amount of freedom could never change, if that includes the positive freedom of a tyrant to do as he wishes.d

I didn't say all types of freedoms are weighted equally by everyone.

Using your implied definition from earlier, Deadwood is "more free" than the United States, right? None of that nasty socialism bogging them down!

[Aikes]

I don't think either of those quotes take Americans to a comfortable place.

True.

Most people want to be free to do and say what they please, but dont seem to care if the other guy is free to say or do what pleases him.

It is what we must learn as people to endure. The freedom of others so that we are also free.

The Nazis once said Might is Right. A slogan that allowed them to dictate who was free and to what degree.

Maybe one day we can get beyond being human so that we no longer have to deal with human nature.

[extarbags]

What? It isn't human nature to not tolerate others' right to free speech.

[Peter Frazier]

Maybe one day we can get beyond being human so that we no longer have to deal with human nature.
What, you don't think that there are any Nazi robots out there? Pshhh.

[Lizard_King]

Fair enough. In my interested-hobby-amateur-Sovietologist opinion, the serfs' continued feudal-like existance (despite emancipation on paper), the Russo-Japanese war (in which the Japs handed ass to the Russkies), and the Tsar's dissolution of multiple Dumas (congresses of the people, dissolved because they didn't heel-toe to the Tsar) were also significant causes of dissent among the peasantry. I agree that WW1 was the final, and very large, spark leading to the fire of revolution, but not that it was the majority of the cause. I see it kind of like WW1 itself: the assasination of Ferdinand was a very large spark, but there was a huge pile of dry tinder already there waiting to be lit.

There's some good, albeit brief, info at wiki about the major causes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution_of_1917#Causes_of_the_Russian_R evolution) and chronology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution_of_1917#Brief_chronology_leadin g_to_Revolution_of_1917) up to 1917.
Just so long as we don't unwittingly slur the last Tsar...I mean, ragging on my commander in chief is one thing, but this sort of outrage I will not stand for...

[Chris Nahr]

I didn't say all types of freedoms are weighted equally by everyone.

Yes, I daresay that people being tortured don't value their torturer's freedom to torture them very highly, just to use one popular example...

Using your implied definition from earlier, Deadwood is "more free" than the United States, right? None of that nasty socialism bogging them down!

I've never heard of Deadwood before but it seems to be a TV series about some Wild West town. So I suppose it's safe to assume that Deadwood is indeed much more free than today's United States. It's likely also less safe and less prosperous, though, and what safety and prosperity there is may be more unequally distributed. That's the tradeoff.

The Republic will be reorganized into the First Galactic Empire, for a safe and secure society!