Rick Reuben wrote:

Cranius wrote:Consequently, power and rights will be automatically ceded to those who own the most....your hated elites.

Who are you to warn me about the elites?? You're too gutless to even acknowledge that there are elites. Let me ask you a simple question, so you can duck it and make me laugh:

You mean the rich/concentrations of wealth? That is what I understand elites to be. But I know you don't mean the same thing.

Do globalization and the New World Order come together as a package deal? Or are you saying that we can have globalization without a NWO?

Okay, which NWO are we talking about? The commonly understood definition of New World Order--with the US as it's principal aristocrat-- adopting the mantel of the old imperial order...or the shadow conspiracy definition of the phrase?

This is your recurrent communicative problem. You talk a parallel language with it's own caballistic lexicon, a lexicon based around fear and superstition.

Antonio Negri wrote:Conspiracy theories of governmental and extra-governmental plots of global control, which have proliferated in recent decades...conspiracy theories are a crude but effective for approximating the functioning of the totality. The spectacle of politics as if the media, the military, the government, the transnational corporations, the global financial institutions, and so forth were all consciously and explicitly directed by a single power even though in reality they are not.

He's saying you have been captured by the spectacle itself, by your belief in conspiracies; they replace your fears and desires with theirs. You have been co-opted and sold a flattened conception of reality, that keeps you from beginning to even approach the working complexities of global capitalism and make you fodder for Ron Paul's reactionary politics. Marx would say that this puts you on the level of an animal, as you are unable to produce your own 'species-life'. Fortunately, this isn't this isn't your fault, you are just subject to it.

We simply aren't having the same conversation. You are just picking up the fag-ends of the thread as usual.

You realise there are two defintions of NWO don't you? It's dishonest of you to pretend otherwise.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Cranius wrote:You realise there are two defintions of NWO don't you? It's dishonest of you to pretend otherwise.

My NWO has only one face: money. What face is your NWO wearing? Are you seriously alleging that globalism is not being promoted to profit the elites?

There are two distinct understandings of the word. You know full well what they are. I'm just saying it's pointless to for me to answer you question if you won't specify which one you mean.

Rick Reuben wrote:

Cranius wrote:There are two distinct understandings of the word. You know full well what they are.

No, it is the protectors of globalism who have added the second definition of globalism to the mix. The globalists themselves have convinced brainwashed shills like you to discuss NWO as if it was a conspiracy *theory*, when it is transparently an active and flourishing *conspiracy*, which can be documented with facts from the public record that show who has all the money and where they got it from.

Are the rich getting richer, Cranius? Is that because of the New World Order or despite the New World Order??

Mongrel gibberish.

Another thread killed. Laters.

Cranius wrote:Another thread killed. Laters.

Would you like to take a crack at my questions? I guess not.

I think the problem here is that Rick has a totally different definition of small and big government to everyone else.

Small government to me means reverting to free market economics, "rolling back the state", less welfare, regressive taxation.

Big government being a large welfare state, progressive taxation.


If I'm reading it correctly I think Rick means localised government when he talks about small government.

Sorry for being presumptive, I'm just trying to clear up what the hell he is going on about.

Skronk wrote:

Cranius wrote:Another thread killed. Laters.

Would you like to take a crack at my questions? I guess not.

Responsibilities to social life to me sounds like a society that is egalitarian and recognises the importance of a good and large welfare state.

Social democratic welfare state.

globalization is crap. but europeans are culprits just like america. the europeans who complain about american globalization's effect on europe are full of shit. many europeans simply think theyre more cultured and highbrow than america, and aww they're offended that they have to see coca cola everywhere. thats not what this is about. people eating mcdonalds inside the louvre is not what this is about.

globalization is about power, and believe me europe has more than enough of it.

what was it frantz fanon said?

"Europe is literally the creation of the Third World."

europe set up the empires whose legacy allowed this situation to happen the way it has. so what, they passed the baton to america, doesn't wash the dirt from their hands.

Rick Reuben wrote:

chairman_hall wrote:I think the problem here is that Rick has a totally different definition of small and big government to everyone else.

Small government to me means reverting to free market economics, "rolling back the state", less welfare, regressive taxation.

Progressive taxation and small government are incompatible? That's news to me. Why can't we have a small government that pays for the military *entirely* from taxes taken from the profits of Big Business? That would be the most progressive tax system imaginable. States and municipalities pay their bills on property and consumption taxes, and the smaller federal government pays its bills from corporate taxes and capital gains taxes.

Small government implies a smaller welfare state with the goal of reducing income tax. With less income tax and less welfare state, tax becomes regressive since taxation is levied moreso on a non-income or non-means tested basis. You are left with council or municipal tax and tax on goods/consumption. These taxes are static and do not vary according to a persons income. This means people on a lower income pay exactly the same amount of tax as someone on a higher income.

This is regressive taxation.