The Revelation of Greta: no heavens behind the heavens

[Rockstar]

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by sober

Neo-liberalism is rife .

And what would you rather have if not neo-liberalism?
because thats a dirty term^ to both much of the right and the equity obsessed far left.
As per Catfish's definition its pretty much what the western world has been running on for some time now.

[Skybird]

I am still wondering whether Sober meant "neo-liberalism" in a left meaning (=neo-socialism) or centrist meaning (=neo-libertarianism). Liberals are not liberal anymore, but more or less openly socialist and in favour of state intervention and planned economy. Caling somebody liberla today mostly means "left". What was "liberal" in the past, now is meant with the term "libertarian", in English even much more than in German, but even in German the terms "libertär" and "Libertarismus" have found entry.

[Skybird]

Some weeks ago, there was a German young woman with Down Syndrome on TV and in the media. She kind of vicously attacked the world of "normals" and said she wants to have many babies and wants them all to have Down syndrome as well so that "there may be many more people like me" and that Down syndrome becomes part of normality and all world turns Down. By that, she said, she wants to be recognised as part of "normality".


Dont get me wrong, I do not mock DS patients like I do not mock Aspergers as well. But both to me do not define any norm qualifying as "normality". And as a matter of fact Down syndrome means the individual often is a.) not really the brightest, but has a deficitary intellect, has b.) growth delays, and has c.) typical childish facial expressions. Thats part of the diagnosis. And the genetic defect goes not away just by the social environment acting as if it were not there.



All I could think about this flawed logic of this young woman and the sad state of thinking was somethign like "gnfghrrrrraaahhhhhh." What else could you comment with to such a messy logic? Intentionally wanting to raise the number of people with diseases or gene defects? Whats next? Clipping fingers of newborn to have more people with misfigured hands in the world and calling that a rise in "normality of misfigured hands"? Why not, I mean sexual mutilation of children is very much en vogue, too...



She was so unnormal and mentally limited that it completely escaped her that this way she only illustrated how very much not normal she is herself for sure.



I noticed no protest against what she said, not on TV and not in newspapers, instead both gave her the platform to spread this crap of sick opinion. And assuming by that that they, the plubnlishing paltforms, were so very tolerant.



And if the world and if the people give in to such flawed logic, then we all are doomed for sure, for the stupids take over the world completely.



Greta's pathetic speech at the UN about her "stolen childhood" and "I want you all to panic and be as afraid as I am afraid all day long, and then act", reminds me strongly of this. This holds no emotional appeal to me at all. To me it is a very strong evidence for how mentally/intellectually limited she really is. A girl with serious mental problems. An obsession that makes her quite imperial, intolekrant and totalitarian. Heaven may have mercy if she would become the ruler of the world - she would cause the killing of millions and sacores more - all for the good cause, of course.



She should not be given the red carpet at the UN. She should be in therapy, sorry, but thats the simple truth. The whole family should be, btw.


One comment to the video Rockjstar linked, put it best, saying something like "Nobody stole yourn childhood, greweta. Your parents handed it away." Because the parents have a psychopathologically relevant history of own problems.

[JU_88]

Yeah its funny one, from what I gather:

'Liberals' are what Moderate Right / Conservatives tend to brand most left of center, and now use it to describe those who are anything from a Moderate Left (who maybe be an actual liberal) to full blown Socialist/Communist/neo marxist.

Its mostly Far lefties that use the term 'neo liberal' to describe moderates, center left and right, all of which they consider to be 'right-wing' by their own metric.
As the 'neo liberals' they speak of typically support free market economy with some government intervention and social programs. A blend of restrained capitalism and restrained socialism. which is pretty much what we have now.

Then there is 'libertarian' which is for the least amount of government possible, yet that's somehow a 'far right' position to many on the far left. (because it ultimately equates to indirectly handing power over to co-orperations and the private sector). even though the true far right (as in neo nazism) are not in favor of limited government and the sovereignty of the indervidual at all

Far left and far right have alot more in common than they realize there. Their principles are very similar, they just disagree one which group deserves what, but they are playing the same game.
It like we have two far rights?,
the libertarian and the neo nazi.
Depends who you ask.

[Buddahaid]

The "liberals" can't use the old bad names to describe themselves and so bend the meaning further from it's origins

"Liberal government often adopted the economic beliefs espoused by Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and others, which broadly emphasized the importance of free markets and laissez-faire governance, with a minimum of interference in trade."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_liberalism

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Far left and far right have alot more in common than they realize there. Their principles are very similar, they just disagree one which group deserves what, but they are playing the same game.

They have a shared enemy: freedomö-.loving libertarians. Libertarians who prioritize self responsibility and freedom, cannot be corrupted by typical left or right party programs and bribes, and by that are a threat to the existing political and governmental systems both left and right- and the power interests of the acting persons.

As I reminded of before: the Nazis were socialists, too. Many people forget that or even never realised that. The third Reich was a socialist tyranny with a planned economy, massive expropritation of private property and production means, and added a strong taste of racism to this recipe. Hitler until the end said that there are no principle differences or divisions between Bolshewism and Nationalsocialism. Thats the reason why both regimes, Hitler'S Nazigermany and the USSR of Stalin, looked to similiar and commited the same type of atrocities, established the same kind of police states and planned economies. Later Mao did the same and joined the two. And many others.

You either have market economy and a free market, or you have regulation, then you have no free market, but a planned economy. This nonsense about third ways and social market economy is all bull, just hides the truth. A free market is social, and it is just. But Capitalism has an inevitable tendency for monopolism, like life has an inevitable tendency towards death, but nobody would conclude that life is in vein and trying to survive and fighting desease and trying to get old is pointless. So it is with Capitalism as well. Monopolies must be confronted, and thrown back time and again. Ever new generations need to fight the fight for physical survival, the fight for free, non-monopolistic market again and again. The biological being fights for survival and against death, the economical being fights fopr fre market bartering and against monopolism and reuglation. That is what we call "life". That is what we call "capitalism. Like life is not death, capitalism is not monopolism. Both have an inbuild antagonist that serves like a negative attractor: death for life, and monopolism for capitalism. Monoplism is not part of capitalism - it is its antagonist. It seems many do noo get this, and so they take both for the same thing.

Many criticsms of capitalism, are wrongly aimed. They often are correct in their claims, but adress the wrong receiver. The problem is not capitalism or free market, the problem is monopolism. I mean nobody would argue that the problem of disease is that life exists, the problem is germs, infections and this attractor named death.

Churchill put it well: "Some regard private enterprise as if it were a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look upon it as a cow that they can milk. Only a handful see it for what it really is--the strong horse that pulls the whole cart."

Shoot the horse, and see where you get with all your belongings on the cart. Not very far, I assume.

[JU_88]

Well you cant win, Monopolism is a possible out come in capitalism.
And you cant prevent it without some regulation or intervention. The Socialists are right about that one.
What they are wrong about, is empowering the State to the point that it becomes the all powerful monopoly itself.
The fallacy of 'it would be alright so long as it was me/us in charge'

I think the verdict is in pretty much, capitalism is wasteful, highly exploitative, and not everyone is good at it.
Yet its responsible for more prosperity, innovation and increased living standards than any other system in existence.
Biggest danger is, it can lead to a massive wealth divide. Leading to as sense of unfairness and resentment, (especially when the rich play dirty and rig the system) leading to people wanting to burn it all to the ground.

Socialisms solutions are overkill, as well as being rather over optimistic, e.g just hand it all over to the state, let them control the bulk of wealth & resources, and trust they will act fairly towards the indervidual, not run up a massive deficit and continue to innovate.
Three things its been proven time and time again they are completely incapable of.

The Marx dream of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
Seems to be just that - a dream.
In practice what happens is that it ends up persecuting which ever groups it saw as 'advantaged' when it took power. Seizes their assets & businesses and then squanders them because they don't poses the skills to sustain those assets & businesses, so eventually they drag everyone down to the same level of mediocrity at best and total misery at worst.
People feel trapped, resentful and powerless - once again, leading to people wanting to burn it all to the ground.

Maybe....
Too many Capitalists try to exploit the tools of good for evil (and succeed in the evil)
Too many Socialist try exploit the tools of evil for good (and fail to do the good)

Either select Cooperations rig the system, or state does. Pick your poison.
Capitalsim wins because on an indervidual basis it tends to provide the better out come for most people, few will make it to the top - but most will do ok out of it.
Its possible for Socialism to allow people to do ok too, but it removes most of the possible routes to 'climb up' that capitalism provides, (that's the price of equity) and that's a deal breaker for most.

Perhaps power just doesn't do good things to people, yet as a species we are dependent on hierarchy.
Quite tragic.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Well you cant win, Monopolism is a possible out come in capitalism.

Its not just a possible outcome, its an atractor that inevitsably gets moved onto. So can life not avoid age and death. But it can create new life. That what lives must die, is not a defeat, nor is it an argment against life.
A consumer population that is aware of this and would be taking this into calculations when deciding its buying behaviour, is the antidot to monopolism, since then companies would necessarily fail to lead them into dependency. The other antidot is creativity and competition, and preventing that lobbyists hijack the legislative and political will-building, but must face the ever new competitors and their revolting ideas. See how the internet brings down the banking sector. The FIAT money system is not kept afloat becasue it is competitive - it is afloat only due to endless political interventionism that distorts the market. On a free market, FIAT money would be dead since long. Or would never have arrived at all. The state interventionism is the source of most of the problems we have today. And this interventionism is being done to give career politicians a reason to claim their existence. This is also the entry gate of lobbyists beign send out to help establishing monopolies for corporations.

And you cant prevent it without some regulation or intervention. The Socialists are right about that one.

I doubt that. Also, once yo allow the first exception fromt he rule, the first intervention by state, you have oepned pandorras box and ensured that from now on ever ore interventionism and eegulatiosn will follow. You set a precedence, and states util today always got ruined by this, in the end. Without exception.

A state shall only collect fees for building defences and securing the borders. Already with state police services I have a problem, for i see no reason why not companies should provide security, law enforcing and jurisdiction. Just that they must be prevented to build monopolies, there must be competition and there must be total transparency. Cartels must be prevented at all costs. Then you have rivalling security providers who see a functioning system as a cost-reducing factor and thus have a strong incentive to do a good job and maintain good jurisdiction ties with other companies when it comes to courts and laws . Because contractors that they are, they can and will be held liable if they do not fulfill the contract for which they get paid. They can be sued, their contracts cancelled. A state cannot be sued, cannot be held liable, cannot be replaced with another competitor on the market. He dictates the service prices. He provides them good or badly. He must not be transparent. He can change contracts UNILATERALLY: And cannot be held responsible for that either. States are a mess. A tyranny. Always. Inevitably.

What they are wrong about, is empowering the State to the point that it becomes the all powerful monopoly itself.

You fall to a logical fallacy there, I think. States are the condensate of monopolism, they are monopolism's manifestation and expression. You cannot avoid to have states being monopolists.

I think the verdict is in pretty much, capitalism is wasteful, highly exploitative, and not everyone is good at it.

So is socialism, if not even more so. And yes, capitalism is somehtign not everyone is good at. The point is if peopel are free to do what they want (within the range of the Golden Rule (that I agree should, and must be enforced by all, everywhere, always), they can go and try to find their niche that meets their individual capabilities and possibilities. That is justice, that is fairness. Not everyone can be an industrial captain and company founder. On a free market everybody is free to try finding his place. And if an independent existence is not available due to lack of skill and wits and options, then people must choose to work for somebody else. And I tell you, many people do not even want to be entrepreneurs, because that means a lot of work and responsiblity and risks. Most people are quite happy to work in a dependent job environment. Konfuziius had it right when claiming that in an dieal society, everybody has some lowers below him and some highers above him. Key is that companies as well as regions and local facilities meet not an oversupply of workers and employees, but must compete for them, else the wages system will not stay intact and monopolies in job offerings will emerge, which of cours eis not good again. Thats why I see labour migration critical. Regions, companies must be in need to comete for talents and skilled people, and to be competitive, they must get their homework done and be attractive themselves. Everybody wins!

Yet its responsible for more prosperity, innovation and increased living standards than any other system in existence.
Biggest danger is, it can lead to a massive wealth divide. Leading to as sense of unfairness and resentment, (especially when the rich play dirty and rig the system) leading to people wanting to burn it all to the ground.

Maybe that is the natural antidot. Violence is no unntural state or method in nature. It is omnipresent, and quite common. Very often as the method of choice to defend oneself from the violence somebody else is directing against oneself. But before it goes this far, people decide on the market, they build their bartering decisions, and they are responsible for them and the consequences they bring. Maybe they should not want to buy always at the same company because they have this one item, and by that allowing the monopoly that they better should avoid? Diversification is something not only governments should take into account when deciding on the nation's external ressource and energy supliers - it is in the individual's own interest as well.
Schools must teach these contexts and ideas, of course. For which it is inevitable that the state holds no longer the monopoly for public education. It mst be destroyed, like so many other state monopolies as well.

The Marx dream of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
Seems to be just that - a dream.

The first part of it is a nightmare . It means the subjugation of the individual under the collective interest. We call that totalitarianism. The second is not fair, is not just. I want it being replaced with "to each according to what he deserves".

We see the consequences of "according to his needs" in germany currently, with this mass migration. Many volunteer helpers have given up by now and are desillusionised, because they report that three years ago they started enthusiastically and were met by friendly thankful foreigners - who then learned that if they just stick to their customs and culture and refuse to work and integrate and reject to clean their houses stairways, according compensations and service will be provided by the state. By this help of the state, the will for integration and adaptation has been actively reduced, instead the demands levels by newcoming migrants is being risen. No, please not "to everybody according to his needs", keep it fair instead, give justice a bigger stand. "To each according to what he deserves. " Its also a good boost for own pride. It leaves people the choice to achieve by themselves. Look at wellfare households, how low self esteem there often is, and how willing some parasites accept to reduce their life goals since then they can make a living at state expenses. Not all, but quite some - numbers growing, and now the migrants add to these numbers tremendously.

Too many Capitalists try to exploit the tools of good for evil (and succeed in the evil)

And too many lifeforms turn ill and get infectious. That is not argument against life. Corrupt or monopolistic"capitalists" (we all should be capitalists) are destroying the free market. People have it in their hands to not let them get this far. The answer to monopolism is - competition amonst rivals and diversification of buying decisions. That everybody is subject to regulation by market changes. The value of labour as well as the value of items and resources is decided by bartering market participants. They do the regulation alltogether, while none of them can ifeunce it all by himsaelf. its a bit reminding of the blocchain tehcology. everybody who is part of the blockchain, particpates in prviding the securit yin it, but nobody has the power to dicate the system the standards of security. Thinking of the invisible hand by Adam Smith.

Either select Cooperations rig the system, or state does. Pick your poison.

Thats why I am "zero state", and am pro "local region". Thats why I am against big corportions and globalization, mega states and supranational organizations. Small regional business and trade structures. By the way, this interpretation and understanding of "small is beautiful" is at the very basis of germany'S highly successful business model, the socalled Mittelstand and linked to it the so-called "duales Ausbildungssgssystem". (Add to this the fact that nowhere else in the world the quota of family ownership of companies is as high as in Germany). No other country does this like germany does. Trump sings songs on the consequences of it, although he does not meet the notes.

Capitalism wins because on an indervidual basis it tends to provide the better out come for most people, few will make it to the top - but most will do ok out of it.
Its possible for Socialism to allow people to do ok too, but it removes most of the possible routes to 'climb up' that capitalism provides, (that's the price of equity) and that's a deal breaker for most.
Perhaps power just doesn't do good things to people, yet as a species we are dependent on hierarchy.
Quite tragic.

A capitalist societyy necessarily will always include inequality. It must, else there cannot be innovation and competition. Its is about the difference, the will of those ranking lower to reach higher, that injects ever new movement and energy into the system. The former GDR and the Warsaw Pact economies were good examples of what happens if this incentive gets removed. Life paled. Economy stagnated, petrified. Corruption at the top of the hierarchy nevertheless blossomed.



Life means constant chnaging. No change and no movement: life dies.


The sad truth that we have instead, is a social-psychological fact that was even experimentally supported. When people in a group context are left with choosing between these two alternatives: to have very few belongings and "wealth", but everybody having the same, and alternatively everbody having more in total, but at the "price" of needing to accept a certain spread of differences between people, a certain level of inequality (while still everbody havign more than in the first group) - then the huge majority of people to my great depression prefers to accept equality of everybody in the same misery. -This is the point where I cancelled my solidarity with common society. There is material truth in the saying that in socialism all people are equla and united in the same misery. Most people want it this way. Its fair that they get what they want. And that those not wanting it can flee from them.

[Skybird]

That could have been said by me.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-eu...climate-change

Russian understatement in the beginning. Who said the man has no sense of humour?

[johan_d]

Picture deleted for profanity.

[fumo30]

Is she really 16?
To me she looks more like a 10 years old brat.

[ikalugin]

Need more nuclear

[JU_88]

if they want to get CO2 out of power production, the harsh reality right now -is either: Nuclear or lights out, lol.
Nuclear is most efficient by miles and while its alot better than it once was, (produces far less waste + and better regulated) it will never be 'risk of catastrophe' free and no one will ever want one in their back yard.
Mind you people don't want solar or wind in their back yard either, just because its ugly, lol.

Wind, Hydro and Solar are all great, but they are not enough on their own as they are inefficient and their production is very inconsistent.
it looks like Hydrogen fuel and 'clean oil' might be the best answer and possible alternative to nuclear, but they are both still W.I.P and it will still take alot of time and money to get the infrastructure in place for them.

But yeah coal and oil have to go, even if the environmentalists are all wrong (which i don't think they are) Coal and Oil will run out eventually anyway. Lithium is drying up too (for anything reliant on batteries. e.g solar)

[mapuc]

Another thing about these wind and solar power

Which came clear some years back in Denmark

For almost 2-3 days there wasn't any sun and there wasn't any wind that could make those big windmill.

The production of green electricity was almost at zero those two days.

Secondly the effects of these things is not that great

Wind power is less than 30 % or something.
Can't remember how much it is when it comes to solar power.

Markus