23-Dec-18 World View -- Al-Shabaab double bombing kills 16 people in Mogadishu, Somalia

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: 23-Dec-18 World View -- Al-Shabaab double bombing kills 16 people in Mogadishu, Somalia

Re: 23-Dec-18 World View -- Al-Shabaab double bombing kills 16 people in Mogadishu, Somalia

by FishbellykanakaDude » Wed Dec 26, 2018 10:15 pm

CH86 wrote:
FishbellykanakaDude wrote:
CH86 wrote:
But the west did operate under an socioeconomic model similar to what I suggest from the period of Julius Caesar's conquests until the protestant victory in the 30 years war. That's 1700 years of history in which this was the dominant socioeconomic model for ordering society in the western world and it's offshoots (the original Muslim empire was a partial exception to this, but only partially).
So,.. you're telling me that there were no "border incursions" from Julius Caesar until the 30 Year's War?

Hmmmm... obviously I'm not understanding what it is you're speaking about, as I'm pretty sure there were several border incursions (!!) within that time period. If you could narrow in on what I'm missing, that would be helpful.

"(D)ominant socioeconomic model for ordering society",.. do you mean "autarky"?

Autarky ("complete economic independence") is not possible for a "large society", and even an empire (and I like empires!) will have interdependencies between it's various "national" regions,.. which inevitably are the fracture zones of said empire when it can't hold itself together any longer.

Once again, autarky is a utopian "ideal", as are "sacred borders", and both of these (and many others) will warp the minds and actions of "rulers" and make them highly vulnerable to "boo-boos" that invariably topple them. 'Though it may take more than one generation to do so, of course.
Obviously there were wars and conquests during this period, as this was the era of first the romantic empire; then the dark ages once the empire fell, then the migrations, then the middle ages, after that the mongol invasion followed by the plague, finally the age of discovery followed by the religious wars within the west.

What I meant in the previous posts that throughout these periods the dominant macroeconomic model was autarky with trade being mostly for political purposes or with mainly a location's nearest neighbors.

The notion of free trade only arose after the destruction of local based economies in the west in favor of unrestrained trade simultaneously with the notion of keeping access to the "instruments of violence" to as few hands as possible.


This was accompanied by the idea that those who had political responsibility had to keep mind of elements within society interests instead of the ruler implementating reforms that he/she saw fit. This idea broke the west and was started by mid-1600s protestants.
So, you're promoting a system where:

1) Trade is to used primarily for "political purposes", and then primarily only with "least travel time" distance neighboring countries/localities.

2) All economies should be "locally isolated" by government mandate so as to "serve the locals".

3) The local government should exclusively regulate all economic activity, so as to "de-complicate" external political relationships.

4) "Instruments of Violence" should be widely distributed.


Point #1: That kind of "trade" is not trade. It is removing the "voluntary" property of trade, making it the tools called threat and bribery.

Points #2 and #3: That kind of "control" is called slavery.

Point #4: Under a society described by the other 3 points, the only actual people allowed to possess said "widely distributed instruments of violence" would be the "economic controllers" and their slaves.

Thanks for the clarification as to what you meant. I think you are incorrect in claiming that that "system" describes "the West" from Caesar to the 30 Year's War, by the way, especially in terms of the way that trade worked.

Your confirmation that you espouse a "sacred border" based slave state ruled by an angry angst ridden adolescent Momma's Boy with a severe inferiority-to-Papa complex, very much akin to North Korea, seems to me accurate, as that is what you constantly go on about.

Well described. Touche, dude!

Re: 23-Dec-18 World View -- Al-Shabaab double bombing kills 16 people in Mogadishu, Somalia

by CH86 » Wed Dec 26, 2018 8:00 pm

FishbellykanakaDude wrote:
CH86 wrote:
FishbellykanakaDude wrote:
I fully agree with you that it's always better to BASE one's economy on self-sufficiency, but the only way to improve one's "economic position" is either via voluntary trade relationships, or conquest of resource bearing territory.

You CAN threaten trade partners so that they'll be inclined to agree to having it your way, but that removes the "voluntary" part of the trade relationship, turning it into a subtle version of a "conquest" relationship.

Once again, I realize that you say what you say because you're of the mind that borders need to be utterly inviolable barriers so that rulers within their borders can be utterly safe to do whatever they want to do to "maintain their preferred system of governance", even if that system is unworkable and/or evil.

But your view is quite completely utopian, as it violates basic human nature. The sooner you realize that, the healthier your mind will perform.

Totalitarianism rots the mind, and the soul, my good fellow.
But the west did operate under an socioeconomic model similar to what I suggest from the period of Julius Caesar's conquests until the protestant victory in the 30 years war. That's 1700 years of history in which this was the dominant socioeconomic model for ordering society in the western world and it's offshoots (the original Muslim empire was a partial exception to this, but only partially).
So,.. you're telling me that there were no "border incursions" from Julius Caesar until the 30 Year's War?

Hmmmm... obviously I'm not understanding what it is you're speaking about, as I'm pretty sure there were several border incursions (!!) within that time period. If you could narrow in on what I'm missing, that would be helpful.

"(D)ominant socioeconomic model for ordering society",.. do you mean "autarky"?

Autarky ("complete economic independence") is not possible for a "large society", and even an empire (and I like empires!) will have interdependencies between it's various "national" regions,.. which inevitably are the fracture zones of said empire when it can't hold itself together any longer.

Once again, autarky is a utopian "ideal", as are "sacred borders", and both of these (and many others) will warp the minds and actions of "rulers" and make them highly vulnerable to "boo-boos" that invariably topple them. 'Though it may take more than one generation to do so, of course.
Obviously there were wars and conquests during this period, as this was the era of first the romantic empire; then the dark ages once the empire fell, then the migrations, then the middle ages, after that the mongol invasion followed by the plague, finally the age of discovery followed by the religious wars within the west. What I meant in the previous posts that throughout these periods the dominant macroeconomic model was autarky with trade being mostly for political purposes or with mainly a location's nearest neighbors. The notion of free trade only arose after the destruction of local based economies in the west in favor of unrestrained trade simultaneously with the notion of keeping access to the "instruments of violence" to as few hands as possible. This was accompanied by the idea that those who had political responsibility had to keep mind of elements within society interests instead of the ruler implementating reforms that he/she saw fit. This idea broke the west and was started by mid-1600s protestants.

Re: 23-Dec-18 World View -- Al-Shabaab double bombing kills 16 people in Mogadishu, Somalia

by FishbellykanakaDude » Wed Dec 26, 2018 7:23 pm

CH86 wrote:
FishbellykanakaDude wrote:
CH86 wrote:
The old fundamentals of warfare still apply. 9/11 was the aberration, driven by first the fact that Al-Qaeda had no standing army or autonomous manpower base, and second the opportunity that only existed due to globalist open travel and open borders. Take present day Vietnam for example: China is a much greater threat to them by land, than it is by sea. Only globalists care about sea lanes and undisturbed world trade because globalist financiers parasitic control of the world can't exist if there is any interdiction of the trade routes, the same reason is why globalists support open air access worldwide.

Selfish Globalists and Selfish boomers hate Autarky.
I fully agree with you that it's always better to BASE one's economy on self-sufficiency, but the only way to improve one's "economic position" is either via voluntary trade relationships, or conquest of resource bearing territory.

You CAN threaten trade partners so that they'll be inclined to agree to having it your way, but that removes the "voluntary" part of the trade relationship, turning it into a subtle version of a "conquest" relationship.

Once again, I realize that you say what you say because you're of the mind that borders need to be utterly inviolable barriers so that rulers within their borders can be utterly safe to do whatever they want to do to "maintain their preferred system of governance", even if that system is unworkable and/or evil.

But your view is quite completely utopian, as it violates basic human nature. The sooner you realize that, the healthier your mind will perform.

Totalitarianism rots the mind, and the soul, my good fellow.
But the west did operate under an socioeconomic model similar to what I suggest from the period of Julius Caesar's conquests until the protestant victory in the 30 years war. That's 1700 years of history in which this was the dominant socioeconomic model for ordering society in the western world and it's offshoots (the original Muslim empire was a partial exception to this, but only partially).
So,.. you're telling me that there were no "border incursions" from Julius Caesar until the 30 Year's War?

Hmmmm... obviously I'm not understanding what it is you're speaking about, as I'm pretty sure there were several border incursions (!!) within that time period. If you could narrow in on what I'm missing, that would be helpful.

"(D)ominant socioeconomic model for ordering society",.. do you mean "autarky"?

Autarky ("complete economic independence") is not possible for a "large society", and even an empire (and I like empires!) will have interdependencies between it's various "national" regions,.. which inevitably are the fracture zones of said empire when it can't hold itself together any longer.

Once again, autarky is a utopian "ideal", as are "sacred borders", and both of these (and many others) will warp the minds and actions of "rulers" and make them highly vulnerable to "boo-boos" that invariably topple them. 'Though it may take more than one generation to do so, of course.

Re: 23-Dec-18 World View -- Al-Shabaab double bombing kills 16 people in Mogadishu, Somalia

by CH86 » Tue Dec 25, 2018 11:31 am

FishbellykanakaDude wrote:
CH86 wrote:
FishbellykanakaDude wrote:
Isn't China connected to Africa by sea?

And, of course, England had to be "invited in" by "North Americans" to have been taken over north America, right?

..BUT,.. considering CH's pathological fixation on "the absolute sanctity of borders", even if it's just an imaginary "direct border made of water" such as that between China and the Philippines, his statements make PERFECT sense!
The old fundamentals of warfare still apply. 9/11 was the aberration, driven by first the fact that Al-Qaeda had no standing army or autonomous manpower base, and second the opportunity that only existed due to globalist open travel and open borders. Take present day Vietnam for example: China is a much greater threat to them by land, than it is by sea. Only globalists care about sea lanes and undisturbed world trade because globalist financiers parasitic control of the world can't exist if there is any interdiction of the trade routes, the same reason is why globalists support open air access worldwide.

Selfish Globalists and Selfish boomers hate Autarky.
I fully agree with you that it's always better to BASE one's economy on self-sufficiency, but the only way to improve one's "economic position" is either via voluntary trade relationships, or conquest of resource bearing territory.

You CAN threaten trade partners so that they'll be inclined to agree to having it your way, but that removes the "voluntary" part of the trade relationship, turning it into a subtle version of a "conquest" relationship.

Once again, I realize that you say what you say because you're of the mind that borders need to be utterly inviolable barriers so that rulers within their borders can be utterly safe to do whatever they want to do to "maintain their preferred system of governance", even if that system is unworkable and/or evil.

But your view is quite completely utopian, as it violates basic human nature. The sooner you realize that, the healthier your mind will perform.

Totalitarianism rots the mind, and the soul, my good fellow.
But the west did operate under an socioeconomic model similar to what I suggest from the period of Julius Caesar's conquests until the protestant victory in the 30 years war. That's 1700 years of history in which this was the dominant socioeconomic model for ordering society in the western world and it's offshoots (the original Muslim empire was a partial exception to this, but only partially).

Re: 23-Dec-18 World View -- Al-Shabaab double bombing kills 16 people in Mogadishu, Somalia

by FishbellykanakaDude » Tue Dec 25, 2018 3:13 am

CH86 wrote:
FishbellykanakaDude wrote:
CH86 wrote:
These sentences are both delusional, China does not border Africa at all. China borders Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines by Sea and Vietnam, Laos, Burma, India, Nepal and Bhutan on its southern Continental border, Russia Borders China to its north and Korea borders China to its immediate east/southeast. China has no ability to be in Africa unless someone invites them in and they are provided local infrastructure.
Isn't China connected to Africa by sea?

And, of course, England had to be "invited in" by "North Americans" to have been taken over north America, right?

..BUT,.. considering CH's pathological fixation on "the absolute sanctity of borders", even if it's just an imaginary "direct border made of water" such as that between China and the Philippines, his statements make PERFECT sense!
The old fundamentals of warfare still apply. 9/11 was the aberration, driven by first the fact that Al-Qaeda had no standing army or autonomous manpower base, and second the opportunity that only existed due to globalist open travel and open borders. Take present day Vietnam for example: China is a much greater threat to them by land, than it is by sea. Only globalists care about sea lanes and undisturbed world trade because globalist financiers parasitic control of the world can't exist if there is any interdiction of the trade routes, the same reason is why globalists support open air access worldwide.

Selfish Globalists and Selfish boomers hate Autarky.
I fully agree with you that it's always better to BASE one's economy on self-sufficiency, but the only way to improve one's "economic position" is either via voluntary trade relationships, or conquest of resource bearing territory.

You CAN threaten trade partners so that they'll be inclined to agree to having it your way, but that removes the "voluntary" part of the trade relationship, turning it into a subtle version of a "conquest" relationship.

Once again, I realize that you say what you say because you're of the mind that borders need to be utterly inviolable barriers so that rulers within their borders can be utterly safe to do whatever they want to do to "maintain their preferred system of governance", even if that system is unworkable and/or evil.

But your view is quite completely utopian, as it violates basic human nature. The sooner you realize that, the healthier your mind will perform.

Totalitarianism rots the mind, and the soul, my good fellow.

Re: 23-Dec-18 World View -- Al-Shabaab double bombing kills 16 people in Mogadishu, Somalia

by CH86 » Mon Dec 24, 2018 10:26 am

FishbellykanakaDude wrote:
CH86 wrote:
John wrote:
So, you think we should just hand Africa over to China?

Does that include Egypt and South Africa?
These sentences are both delusional, China does not border Africa at all. China borders Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines by Sea and Vietnam, Laos, Burma, India, Nepal and Bhutan on its southern Continental border, Russia Borders China to its north and Korea borders China to its immediate east/southeast. China has no ability to be in Africa unless someone invites them in and they are provided local infrastructure.
Isn't China connected to Africa by sea?

And, of course, England had to be "invited in" by "North Americans" to have been taken over north America, right?

..BUT,.. considering CH's pathological fixation on "the absolute sanctity of borders", even if it's just an imaginary "direct border made of water" such as that between China and the Philippines, his statements make PERFECT sense!
The old fundamentals of warfare still apply. 9/11 was the aberration, driven by first the fact that Al-Qaeda had no standing army or autonomous manpower base, and second the opportunity that only existed due to globalist open travel and open borders. Take present day Vietnam for example: China is a much greater threat to them by land, than it is by sea. Only globalists care about sea lanes and undisturbed world trade because globalist financiers parasitic control of the world can't exist if there is any interdiction of the trade routes, the same reason is why globalists support open air access worldwide.

Selfish Globalists and Selfish boomers hate Autarky.

Re: 23-Dec-18 World View -- Al-Shabaab double bombing kills 16 people in Mogadishu, Somalia

by FishbellykanakaDude » Mon Dec 24, 2018 5:18 am

CH86 wrote:
John wrote:
Goose wrote: > Africa should be abandoned and isolated there is no place for us
> there except to again bleed and die for no gain.
So, you think we should just hand Africa over to China?

Does that include Egypt and South Africa?
These sentences are both delusional, China does not border Africa at all. China borders Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines by Sea and Vietnam, Laos, Burma, India, Nepal and Bhutan on its southern Continental border, Russia Borders China to its north and Korea borders China to its immediate east/southeast. China has no ability to be in Africa unless someone invites them in and they are provided local infrastructure.
Isn't China connected to Africa by sea?

And, of course, England had to be "invited in" by "North Americans" to have been taken over north America, right?

..BUT,.. considering CH's pathological fixation on "the absolute sanctity of borders", even if it's just an imaginary "direct border made of water" such as that between China and the Philippines, his statements make PERFECT sense!

Re: 23-Dec-18 World View -- Al-Shabaab double bombing kills 16 people in Mogadishu, Somalia

by John » Mon Dec 24, 2018 12:58 am

Gosh, I never thought of that.

Re: 23-Dec-18 World View -- Al-Shabaab double bombing kills 16 people in Mogadishu, Somalia

by CH86 » Mon Dec 24, 2018 12:43 am

John wrote:
Goose wrote: > Africa should be abandoned and isolated there is no place for us
> there except to again bleed and die for no gain.
So, you think we should just hand Africa over to China?

Does that include Egypt and South Africa?
These sentences are both delusional, China does not border Africa at all. China borders Japan, Taiwan and the Philippines by Sea and Vietnam, Laos, Burma, India, Nepal and Bhutan on its southern Continental border, Russia Borders China to its north and Korea borders China to its immediate east/southeast. China has no ability to be in Africa unless someone invites them in and they are provided local infrastructure.

Re: 23-Dec-18 World View -- Al-Shabaab double bombing kills 16 people in Mogadishu, Somalia

by FishbellykanakaDude » Sun Dec 23, 2018 11:29 pm

Saucy Tart wrote:You are spot on, and as a prize, you win a new set of Samsonite luggage.
Image

Top