Glen
> Marco,
>
> You seem pretty uptight about this racist thing. You think you've never had
> a rascist thought or never made a racist statement before?
Could be, but I'm pretty sure that my post about Nigeria was completely
anti-racist. On the other hand, I think that exploitation of weak populations is
nourished by (our) indifference.
> 1. I agree that a civil war is not always a good option. We both seem to
> agree that the emargo on Cuba is idiotic and that American implementation
> and policy in Vietnam was ill conceived. Still in Cuba's case Castro
> policies are as idiotic as the US's. Oh yeah, we just finished overthrowing
> a dictator so what kind of government do we want... think hard... hmmm... I
> know let's have another dictator! The man is a f--king genius.
At least one agreement. Even if the Cuba situation has been a little more
complicated. Castro in the beginning was not a communist dictator, but the
complete aversion Cuba received from the USA triggered their alliance with the
Soviet Union. And anyway the ideologic politics of Castro is much better than
the corrupted politics of Batista.
> 2. Here we part company. If the conditions in Nigeria are as you say I
> don't see how the Nigerian people have any option but civil war. They owe
> it to themselves. Duty to Self? Arete? (Considering some of your arguments
> in 4 I think it safe to say they are as advanced as Homeric greeks)
I'm not the only one stating that the intellectual era has not been still
established in the great part of the world. See the recent Bo's post (12 june)
on the "Toffler" thread:
Bo:
"First of all, my grand sweep which sees the rising change curve as
Intellect's evolution, is limited to the western and /western-like
democracies*, the greater part of the world is still social-level
focussed.** "
> I wonder about your conception of civil war is exactly. A civil war doesn't
> neccessarily mean that getting your matchette and chopping up your local
> offical (although it might). If your enemy is a corporation then it has
> certain vulnerabilities (just like a technologically advanced society does).
> Acts of sabotage (eg destroy all the power stations) alone can make a
> corporations existenance in a local unprofitable.
Few days ago in Nigeria, about 15 Chevron (?) workers have been kidnapped. There
are many sabotages, but it is, as said, a war of knives against bazookas.
> Above all else to be an
> effective rebelion you need organization and dedication. Possibly the
> Nigerian rebels biggest weapon is public opinion in the West where these
> companies have their markets (which they must defend). I sincerely hope
> there is rebelion going on in Nigeria and I wish those people well. With
> any luck they'll get it better next time.
So we agree. I'm just making the least I can to inform western public opinion!
> 3. CNN is about as about as news worthy as Ally McBeal.
Another agreement.... I'm scared!
> IMHO if your
> government is a dictatorship you are definitely over due for a revolution
> anyway. On the other hand if the dictatorship is voluntarily supported by
> most of the people then what are they complaining about? Don't whine to me
> about how your government abuses you, if you support it! Work to change it.
Well, Hitler was supported by the majority of German population. Usually
dictators have the control of the media, so it's not easy to have an informed
population.
> 4. Yes social patterns of value evolve. Yes perhaps the Nigerian social
> patterns are not yet at a point where they can see the value of a
> non-dictatorship form of government. Yes they will compete with other
> social patterns (corporations) and may get taken advantage of. This seems
> pretty normal. Based on the MoQ what else would one expect? I see
> evolution as a gritty nasty messy business. If the Nigerian patterns are as
> devolved as you say then they are not going to last nor should they.
> Survival of the fitess? Do you expect the west to swoop in and take care of
> those poor Nigerians? That to me sounds like a racist sentiment.
As said, I've not easy solutions. I just try to show that Saddam is worthy to be
fought (even if he has probably the support of his population) as we want his
oil. In other cases, similar dictatorships are ignored as their oil is in the
hand of the Oil Sisters. My posts on this thread were not humanitarian or
socialist. Were mainly to say that the purpose of the market (money, the social
blood) is blind to the individual intellectual rights. So an unruled market
creates or supports often injustices, especially towards those *intellectually
weak* populations. Where this *intellectually weak* does not mean stupid. It
means that they don't feel the importance of the individual freedom over
society... (like many Germans and Italians 60 years ago).
Ciao
Marco
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
