Why I No Longer Feel Comfortable Wearing a Poppy

[Geckos48]

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/madeleine-fry/poppy-day_b_4169581.html

very eloquently put. Exactly how I feel about the whole debacle.

November 11th should be for those who selflessly gave their lives in the World Wars, not those who chose to fight dubious campaigns abroad.

I did tell youstayclassy off for trying to fill up the thread with trivia.

What can I say? I am a hypocrite.

"Even that is coming toppling down now, I would say. Thankfully we are reaching a time when it has stopped being profitable to wage war, it didn't pay off, we spent billions fighting Iraq and the money was not recouped as we expected."

War is profitable to some always. The military industrial complex warned about by President Eisenhower always benefits. Tha taxpayer pays but there are always beneficiaries. In this world not everyone is equal and not everyone is a winner, but there are always winners who never lose.

War is only profitable when cost of war is ofset by the reduced cost or the ongoing cheap cost of goods.

So Libya was 'worth it' because it meant that we got cheap oil from whoever was put in charge.

It has stopped being profitable. That is why we have stopped going to wars and why we are leaving Afghanistan.

On that level, the 'alien' thing is really no different from the 'god' thing.

Nobody is going to swoop in and 'save us' we have to sort it out. Make Heaven on earth or continue making Hell.

It really our choice.

'My thought came from Independence Day and War of the Worlds'

Don't forget that lots of Hollywood movies are thinly veiled propaganda that push the message that the elite want pushed. They want you to accept the message by what they call predictive programming so that when one of their puppets eventually states it, then you will be receptive to it.

claig I find your thought processes thoroughly intriguing!

Limited - you do not know how much I love you for posting that.

Cup of tea anyone ? < offers a teapot in your direction:>

Biscuit;

'It has stopped being profitable. That is why we have stopped going to wars and why we are leaving Afghanistan.'

No. You must read George Orwell's 1984 to understand why war is profitable and why the Marxist notion of 'creative destruction' is at play in war as they destroy buildings and bridges and then win contracts to rebuild them and as they use up stocks of weapons and then win contracts to supply new weapons.

Orwell explains how war maintains the rule of the elite and hinders the masses, just as global warming and all the other elite policies, which many Marxists support, do as well

"The primary aim of modern warfare is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living.

...

For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away. In the long run, a hierarchical society was only possible on a basis of poverty and ignorance.

...

In principle the war effort is always so planned as to eat up any surplus that might exist after meeting the bare needs of the population. In practice the needs of the population are always underestimated, with the result that there is a chronic shortage of half the necessities of life; but this is looked on as an advantage. It is deliberate policy to keep even the favoured groups somewhere near the brink of hardship, because a general state of scarcity increases the importance of small privileges and thus magnifies the distinction between one group and another."

Marxists are merely puppets of the elites and are used to advance their one world government agenda. In the Second World War, America armed Stalin and helped him even though he was supposedly a "communist" and against the capitalists and bankers who were helping him.

I think that you hate your dad
I think that this and much of your life is a rant against him.

What would you do if diplomacy failed between two countries who didnt sort out their differences. Give up?

I dont think that is what Marx said, its certainly not in anything I have read by him.

Orwell's piece on war

akamat.wordpress.com/2007/07/31/the-purpose-of-war-according-to-george-orwell-1984/

Lots of the left are fooled and Marxists are fooled in thinking that they are against the rich elite and against teh powerful with their belief in global warming etc, but they are in fact used by the elite as a stepping stone to achieve their aims.

I dont think you can judge his work by reading other peoples work.

All Marx said was that Capitalism was a necessary stepping stone from feudal law to freedom.

He didnt go into detail about weapons and guns, he just said that eventually the fact that there are more of the 'workers' than there are of the 'rulers' means that revolution was a certainty.

I will agree that no system works fully, I think that for the world to work it needs to be allowing of many different systems and the benefits they can give to each other. I think we need to stop trying to make the whole world capitalist.

"Creative destruction, sometimes known as Schumpeter's gale, is a term in economics which has since the 1950s become most readily identified with the Austrian American economist Joseph Schumpeter,[1] who adapted it from the work of Karl Marx and popularized it as a theory of economic innovation and the business cycle. The term is derived from Marxist economic theory, where it refers to the linked processes of the accumulation and annihilation of wealth under capitalism. These processes were first described in The Communist Manifesto (Marx and Engels, 1848)[2] and were expanded in Marx's Grundrisse (1857)[3] and "Volume IV" (1863) of Das Kapital.[4]

At its most basic, "creative destruction" (German: schöpferische Zerstörung) describes the way in which capitalist economic development arises out of the destruction of some prior economic order, and this is largely the sense implied by the German Marxist sociologist Werner Sombart who has been credited[1] with the first use of these terms in his work Krieg und Kapitalismus ("War and Capitalism", 1913).[5] In the earlier work of Marx, however, the idea of creative destruction or annihilation (German: Vernichtung) implies not only that capitalism destroys and reconfigures previous economic orders, but also that it must ceaselessly devalue existing wealth (whether through war, dereliction, or regular and periodic economic crises) in order to clear the ground for the creation of new wealth .[2][3][4]"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction

But that is talking about capitalism being destructive, its not talking about communism needing to be destructive.

"I will agree that no system works fully, I think that for the world to work it needs to be allowing of many different systems and the benefits they can give to each other. I think we need to stop trying to make the whole world capitalist."

We need a functioning free market system that allows ordinary people the opportunity and incentive to amass private property and personal wealth and social mobility.

We don't want a Marxist slave society run by puppets of the elite that denies people the right to own their own property and denies them the incentive to become wealthy and keeps them as Orwell said

"somewhere near the brink of hardship, because a general state of scarcity increases the importance of small privileges and thus magnifies the distinction between one group and another"

for the benefit of the rich elite.

'But that is talking about capitalism being destructive, its not talking about communism needing to be destructive.'

Yes, it is explaining the capitalist system of "creative destruction" and how it is used in war to keep the people poor.

But, what it doesn't say, is that in realpolitik, the Soviet or Marxist systems are only another arm of the capitalist system used in the game of "creative destruction" to keep the masses poor.

You can't have a war with only one side, so the elite use the Hegelian Dialectic, from Marx's favourite philosopher, Hegel, to create and arm the sides that then go to war.

So instead of following Marx and international communism which is about destroying nation states and uniting the world, which is actually the aim of the aim of the plutocratic elite and their one world government, you should instead support independent sovereign nation states with their own armies which guarantee their independence.

That is the only way to protect the 99% from the tyranny of the 1% and their one world government.

Forget Marx, follow Farage.

Have been doing a bit of research on the dialectic actually. Not a big fan of UKIP so far.

I am going to bed now, thanks for the thoughts claig

Geckos48

Exactly. The question is whether you think war creates economic stability. I would say there is absolutely no examples that it does, except perhaps the war-mongering of America and Britain.

That's a ridiculous question. Why don't you ask whether war creates noodles, it makes as much sense.

Time to put money in renewable energies, making economies stable and working out what each nation can do to support each other, that is how we make the world safe. Not by foreign wars that do not improve stability and in fact bomb countries back into the dark ages.

Economic stability now means poverty for 4 billion people. No doubt Marx would approve since his sick ideology led to poverty everywhere it was implemented.

kim147

I admire the Dalai Llama for what he did. His country was under attack and instead of fighting, he met the Chinese with words. Just like Gandhi.

It worked with Gandhi. Unfortunately the Chinese are too strong and needed too much for us to help Tibet.

It only worked for Gandhi because he was facing the British. Any other Imperial power would have strung him up in his own nappy.

"Not a big fan of UKIP so far."

The Marxists don't like freedom and the elite don't like freedom.
The Marxists don't like UKIP and the elite don't like UKIP.
That's why the people do like UKIP.