Monday, September 08, 2008

Translation services - the issue of healthcare

If you are voting for McCain, you're an idiot, there's really nothing I can say different than that. If you're voting for Obama, you've bought into a lot of hype. Here and maybe in future blog posts I will translate statements from his website and express how dysfunctional, and corrupt they truly are. I want to expose the idea that Obama brings significant change to the way Washington is now a slave to big, corrupt, environmentally destructive, human rights insensitive "business."

Barack Obama on healthcare (source http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/):
Barack Obama's Plan
Quality, Affordable and Portable Coverage for All

Translation:
Instead of using the taxes we already pay for healthcare to insure that all Americans have healthcare, Obama believes that we should continue to allow insurance companies and drug companies to make a profit off of American's taxes and their continually declining health.

Solution:
HR 676, introduced by Dennis Kucinich, who also approached Al Gore and John Kerry to support this bill. Not only does this bill cover all Americans, it costs less than we're already paying in taxes. Instead Obama and the rest want us to have access to affordable insurance - MEANING we're still paying more than what we already pay in taxes.
Please read: http://www.healthcare-now.org/hr676.html
http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dennis_Kucinich_Health_Care.htm (This will help you understand the issue in depth)
or simply watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTgPFJnV76c (It's less than a minute)

P.S. I consider this like a seva (selfless service) for those who have bought into "change" and "hope" and are being led down a path that leads to more of the same. Also, I'm willing to tear down McCain as well if the readers of this blog wish. I just think that if you have any intelligence his normal speeches are enough to turn you off to his diseased behavior. I shouldn't have to translate him, he's already espousing in plain language the same things which are destroying this great nation (i.e. war, human rights abuses, heavy dependence on oil (foreign or domestic), mass consumption, environmental destruction, fear-based tactics, socially conservative ideas which limit the freedoms of religion, choice, etc.)
I'm not a pessimist, I just don't put faith in either of these politicians. I have faith in God and that we are all part of God. Our hope and change comes from our behavior and lifestyles, which have a global impact. Let's celebrate our own power of change and hope and become great within ourselves. WaheGuru!

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

A Catholic Case Against Barack

http://buchanan.org/blog/2008/08/pjb-a-catholic-case-against-barack/

by Patrick J. Buchanan

".........Barack the most pro-abortion member of the Senate..........He supports the late-term procedure known as partial-birth abortion, where the baby’s skull is stabbed with scissors in the birth canal and the brains are sucked out to end its life swiftly and ease passage of the corpse into the pan.........."

Harpreet Gill

Anonymous said...

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/20080902_Fatimah_Ali__We_need_Obama__not_4_more_years_of_George_Bush.html

"If McCain wins, look for a full-fledged race and class war, fueled by a deflated and depressed country, soaring crime, homelessness—and hopelessness!"

http://buchanan.org/blog/

"Would the defeat of Barack Obama be taken as an affront to black America? Could we be in for a time of deepening racial division rather than healing? Could we be in for a long, hot autumn like the long, hot summers some of us recall from 40 years ago? "

" No candidate has ever been nominated by a major party with fewer credentials or a weaker claim to the presidency, or more doubts as to his core beliefs. If Obama wins, the country could be in real trouble. And if he loses, the country could be in real trouble. "

Harpreet Gill

Anonymous said...

I don't like obama, but many sikhs over on sikhnet & in everyday life in the west love Obama - simply because he is coloured & not white.

In various discusions i have had on sikhnet...it come as a shock to me many Punjabi Sikhs are racist against White europeans - simple as.

I will expain what I have learnt of their mindset in the next comment

Harpreet Gill

Anonymous said...

Well not most but some punjabi sikhs really think

1.) Western civilization has been built on the back of massive atrocities on the non-european masses

2.) The greatness of western civilization is directly proportional to the the amount of atrocities committed on the non-european masses

3.) The atrocities europeans commited is the greatest evil ever in human history par none

Furthermore I have observed

4.) Some of these Sikhs living in Western nations have absolutely no appreciation for the benefits of western society. It is all taken for granted. To them it means nothing at all

Furthermore

5.) Some Sikhs truly believe the continuing prosperity, nah the very existence of western civilisation is dependant on immigrant communities living in western lands. Sikhs believe they & other minorities provide immeasurably large contributions to the Western nations economies & culture. We the Sikhs & all other minorities are the very pillars holding up western Society!


I have tried to suggest

1.) Much of Western civilsation is born of high genius which led to industrial revolution, western enlightenment, scientific revolution

2.) Europeans never did anything that the non-europeans had not being doing to each other for 1000's of years or infact are still doing to each other today. Europeans actually tried to give the world rule of law, human dignity & rights i.e. principle architects of post WW2 ideal

3.) Sikhs & other minorities living in western nations have a superior quality of life than they would of ever had in their native lands

But all of this falls on deaf ears

Some Sikhs & other minorities have a emotional investment in hating whitey. If anyone glances a critical eye back at them they scream bloody murder and proceed to repeat slogans about equality & brotherhood of man. (I have been accused of being brainwashed & having an inferiority complex)

Harpreet Gill

Anonymous said...

For many people it simply a case of defeating evil whitey & his evil racism & putting the world right by putting a coloured man in the white house - nothing else matters...thats why even Michelle Obama said "For the First Time in My Adult Lifetime, I'm Really Proud of My Country"

As I said, some sikhs feel exactly the same way - "damn evil whitey & his filthy decadent ways"

For me this article sums up what really is important & what should continue to be the foundation for the future for all nations

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6164

The Greatness of Western Civilization

In this age of diversity-worship, it is considered virtually axiomatic that all cultures are equal. Western culture, claim the intellectuals, is in no way superior to that of African tribalists or Eskimo seal hunters.

There are three fundamental respects in which Western culture is objectively the best. These are the core values or core achievements of Western civilization, and what made America great.

1. Reason. The Greeks were the first to identify philosophically that knowledge is gained through reason and logic as opposed to mysticism (faith, revelation, dogma)

2. Science and Technology. The triumph of reason and rights made possible the full development and application of science and technology and ultimately modern industrial society. As a result, horse-and-buggies were replaced by automobiles, wagon tracks by steel rails, candles by electricity. At last, after millennia of struggle, man became the master of his environment.


Individual Rights. An indispensable achievement leading to the Enlightenment was the recognition of the concept of individual rights. John Locke demonstrated that individuals do not exist to serve governments, but rather that governments exist to protect individuals.

******************************

Wheras the rest of the non european world was

1. Built on mysticism & superstition

2. The entire history of all non-european world development of science & technology pales in comparison when compared to someone in western world like say Nikola Tesla

3. All european nations esp India & China Firmly believe individuals DO EXIST TO SERVE & WORSHIP GOVERMENTS, AND LIKES OF THE INDIAN UNION OR COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA IS SUPREME - AND CITIZENS SHOULD LIKE THE BOOTS OF AUTHORITY & POWER

Harpreet Gill

Prabhu Singh said...

lol - I have to laugh at the mentality you've mentioned which I have seen and probably participated in. I agree that Europeans have committed a lot of atrocities on others to gain material benefit, but I also agree that their success isn't due solely to those atrocities. In fact in the modern times it is for the most part the local populations and governments which are inflicting the atrocities, while the whitey's are unaware that their products come from such conflict.
The abortion issue with Obama doesn't bug me. I support all forms of abortion as well. If somebody desperately does not want to bring a child into this world, then we shouldn't force them to do it. I can't say that I would have an abortion, but I won't ever have to make that choice. So I'd rather leave it to those who find themselves in such difficult situations.
Thanks for the input. Where everybody is stuck on black and white I'm going green. I love the idea that Obama's "hope" and "change" will cause people to be hopeful and live better lives, but I think that most will leave it to him to implement "hope" and "change" and he'll just screw them over like every other politician.
Just a few years ago, I was hardcore into party politics, but now I'm really into making a difference and I recognize and try to practice real environmentalism and real progressive social action which I see nowhere amongst the two leading candidates. Nader on the other hand was very instrumental in the Freedom of Information act, which is hugely progressive. Knowledge is power!

Anonymous said...

Abortion is wrong......its almost murder if not murder...only exceptions for me if the child is disabled...then that should be the exception

Leading on from that I believe euthanasia should be completely legal.

And the only abortions allowed would have to qualify under euthanasia

My ideal society

Its what God, The Universe & Nature would want

Anonymous said...

Thu Sep 04, 01:47:00 PM - thats still me Harpreet

I am all for eviromentalism & clean technology

- but i firmly believe the global warming carbon emissions are a hoax

- its a form control, neo-serfdom esp when we have to start buying carbon credits

Did you know that

1. Polar ice caps on mars are melting rapidly

2. Saturns moon Titan has gone from ice moon to one with liquid seas

3. The Sun goes through cycles of getting hotter than normal i.e the cause of global warming in solar system

4. Certain volcanic eruptions have the potential to put out so much CO2 which would dwarf man made C02

Plants breath CO2, it is a life giving gas.........

Al Gore lied & made up his graphs

Polar bears can swim for very long periods

So what if we lose Mumbai to flooding

Huge areas of Siberia & northern canada will become extremely habitable in the near future.........Massive amounts of arable land will be freed up..........you could probaly support billions up there.....build a dozen nations from scratch

Prabhu Singh said...

Wrong and right are a matter of perspective.
I think it's more wrong for somebody to abuse a child and give them a crappy life, because abortion wasn't an option for them.
With the exception of rape and babies with disabilities, I generally agree that it is irresponsible to have an unwanted pregnancy and then abortion.
Ultimately it is a human interest story, which distracts people from the real problems. While so many people get upset and argue over abortion, people who are actually living are suffering greatly because of the leadership of this country, who "respect the sanctity of life" i.e. their own life and no one else's.
I can't agree that western civilization is the best. Also I don't agree that ALL "knowledge is gained through reason and logic as opposed to mysticism." Logic and reason didn't give birth to meditation or consciousness and it doesn't recognize grace. Somebody could be armed with all the logic and reason of the world, but if they have no grace, nobody will listen.
I believe in a balanced approach to life. I like logic and reason, it appeals to me as a westerner. Also I like spirituality, ultimately that is what may cause people to act in a Godly manner. Trying to use dogma without reason or logic in place of spirit won't work.
I believe in a liberal approach to other people's beliefs, practices, cultures, but a conservative approach to government. Government should be based on logic and reason. Real conservatives believe in less government and more personal freedoms. Instead Bush has given us more government and less civil liberties. The "free" market that is talked about is a method for criminals to "freely" commit all the destructive "business practices" that they want, be it polluting in another country, using child labor in another country, etc. etc.

Prabhu Singh said...

It may not be due to human influence that global warming is occurring, but it may be - I think the Jury's still out.
My point in being an environmentalist is that I want clean air to breath and natural habitats to experience. I also want food that is good for me and not filled with chemicals. I'd also like to see farm land capable of producing without chemicals in the future. I'd also like to see the rain forest survive and the meat industry die.
I really love Amritsar, but it's hard to bear the air there. That should be enough to make every Sikh look at their "footprint."
Furthermore, my consumption of resources affects the access to resources of others. There needs to be a more equitable system for humans and the earth. Aside from Global warming, could we undo the other negative environmental impacts that we have created?

Anonymous said...

"Aside from Global warming, could we undo the other negative environmental impacts that we have created?"

Yeah of course we could & we should

Thank you for indulging me Prabhu, really appreciate it & I really enjoyed reading your input

Waheguru ji ka Khalsa Waheguru ji ke Fateh

Harpreet

Prabhu Singh said...

I'm not so sure about Ayn Rand. First of all wikipedia states that she's against altruism, which is what I strongly believe in.

Secondly the following article is scary:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr012=04jdwsgcj1.app14b&page=NewsArticle&id=8403&news_iv_ctrl=2457

Yeah, some people go to extremes with environmentalism or anti-technology, but honestly environmentalism IS about living "longer lives, healthier lives, more prosperous lives, more enjoyable lives."
Working in the dirt has proven just as effective as anti-depressant medication. In that case the environment beat out technology. That's just one of many examples. If we are educated there is a way for us each to live harmoniously with our environment. The current approach involves our dependence and slavery on destructive industries. Environmentalism for me has a lot to do with justice and peace and having nice places with clean air for us to enjoy what God has created without our impact.

Anonymous said...

The article "The Greatness of Western Civilization " is one I read a little while back - I simply googled it up again

Its by a Edwin A. Locke, Ph.D. and it is hosted on many different websites

on wiki it does say

Dr. Locke is a proponent of global capitalism[2] and is affiliated with the Ayn Rand Institute.

The article when i first read it really resonated with me

I don't know

websites like Ayn Rand or even like www.amren.com (check out the back issues) have a lot of extreme views - but also a lot of information that is simply censored and forbidden, but some of it to a large degree may be very true


Harpreet

Anonymous said...

The thing is.....like you said Amritsar

If the west continues deindustrialising, China & India will simply pick up the slack - & over there are no controls & no one will be able to force them to conform the even the most reasonable enviroment or health & safety standard

Technologies in the West are clean anyway, the cars made in Japan, USA, Europe barely give out emissions anyway - the problem is in Asia Today & may be in Africa tomorrow.

In fact in China there is probably hope - it will go the way of Japan (japan in 70's massively cleaned up pollution )

In India you will have industrialisation taking the most wasteful, inefficient, slowest, most damaging path possible

The West should cut Asia loose

Stop outsourcing

The West should rebuild their industries & maintain a monopoly on 1st world technology which will ensure the viability of 1st world wages.

China will join the 1st world in 20 years with or without the West - the nation already has all the momentum/infrastructure/national consciousness it needs to achieve full development.

India & the rest of the 3rd World should be given financial incentives, aid packages, technical expertise, h1-b visa STRICTLY on the basis of those nations getting their population growth down.

Whats the point of all the enviromentalism when this century will see

India growing from present 1.12 billion to 2 Billion people

Bangladesh growing present 160 million to 300 million

Pakistan growing from 170 million to 1/2 billion

All European derived Nations + Japan are facing serious depopulation as birth rates plummet below 2.1

China birth rate is 1.77 meaning the population will stabilise at and begin to decline from 1.4 billion quite rapidly

Even nations like Brazil, Turkey, Iran have below replacement fertility

Anonymous said...

As far as enviromentalism goes, this video i saw a little while back sums it up

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5871651411393887069&ei=bGXASKG4CZjiiQKhy4CiCQ&q=+immigration+environmental

i.e. whats the point of any enviromentalism if immigration will push US population to 1/2 billion or even a billion this century

Stop Immigration and you half way their to reclaiming natural farming methods, clean air, natural habitats etc

Prabhu Singh said...

I agree that the U.S. should also bring back manufacturing and do it in an environmentally friendly way. The biggest question for me however, is if we have enough resources to allow Americans to continue to consume the way they do. I don't think so. The estimation is that if all people in the world lived like Americans, it would take 9 earths to support us. Unfortunately we don't have 9 earths. If religion taught that God was within and American values accepted that material wealth isn't as great as hard work, sharing, meditating, etc. We might be able to individually, and as a result collectively, reduce the burden we create on others by unfairly consuming and hoarding.
Here is an interesting article about population:
http://mondediplo.com/1998/12/08bourdieu

I don't really see immigration as a threat, most evidence shows immigrants working harder and using less social programs, costing less to the tax payer. Plus if our population is declining, and increasing elsewhere, then immigration could create a nice balance.
Thanks for the discussion. I'll watch the video soon.

Harpreet said...

"....if all people in the world lived like Americans, it would take 9 earths to support us....."

I think thats a lie told to us Prabhu

We have all the arable land we will ever need in the Cerrados - the Brazilian savannas.

We have all the mineral resources we will ever need in the Congo & Siberia

& in Siberia, the Artic Circle, & according to many Alaska - there is so much recoverable crude oil that we Humans have not probably even used up 1% of the earth crude oil & natural gas (look into Lindsay William)

Yes lets protect the Rainforest, lets make extraordinary efforts to save the Big Cats, Birds of Prey.

But I don't care about Savannas or some species of beetle or fly going extinct

In the Judeo-Christian tradition God gave Man dominion over nature & I kinda like that idea

Basically all European populations around the planet are set for extinction faster than any animal/plant species due to very low fertility which is ever decreasing

East Asians are not far behind i.e. Japanese, Koreans, & now the chinese have began on the same trend (though the Han Chinese still have centuries)

African people in Africa do have high fertility but thats ok - Sub Saharan Africa with all its resources & arable land can support a much higher population than present - and should. The DR Congo is the size of india, probably has potentially more arable land along with other mineral resources - yet the population is only 62 Million

The problem is in South Asia, parts of middle east & north africa & in Central Asia.

This explosive population growth in already extremely dense populated nations is scary

India today is as densely populated as Japan, and is still set to double this - unimaginable

Rural Bangladesh pretty soon will have higher population density than many Europe/USA cities

Central America & the greater middle east (excluding South Asia) is in better position

But fact is

1. Central America will demographically conquer North America

2. Greater Middle East will demographically conquer Europe i.e. Eurabia

3. China will take Siberia from Russia & successfully settle it & develop the region (esp as global warming makes it far more hospitable)

Harpreet said...

http://agbrazil.com/frontier_land_for_sale.htm

Cerrado Farm Land for sale

Nobel Peace Prize laureate Norman Borlaug has described the Cerrado as one of Earth's last remaining arable frontiers for the expansion of agriculture. (Wiki)

http://books.google.com/books?id=BQj2ENDFXpsC&pg=PA118&dq=russia+global+warming&sig=ACfU3U3Rimd5LGDwYsiaUxt3-oC-0aE-gg

E-book about global warming benefits

i.e. Artic Shipping being easier, access to mineral resources of arctic

& above all as I said earlier, massive amount of permafrost tundra will turn into arable land

Why Russia loves global warming
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/2717

Global Warming Might Benefit Canada, Russia, Rust Belt
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,282615,00.html

Harpreet said...

(repeat of a post I made on Sikhnet)

I admit things look bad for the indian subcontinent with increasing temperatures.......armageddon...........because

1.) We could lose coastal cities such as mumbai, chennai, karachi due to rising sea levels triggering huge amounts of eviromental refugees fleeing inland

2.) Further temperature rise could cause massive dessertification in India

3.) Accelerate water table depletion

4.) & with indian subcontinent inevitable population rise to 2+ billion we could be looking at amargeddon.........a land which has lost its coastal cities which are the backbone of indian nation & where hopes for development lay...........we could be looking at agriculture devasted by water table depletion coupled with dessertifcation (agriculture making up the meagure livelhood of majority of inhabitants)

Bangladesh, Pakistan & India will suffer immensly & perhaps irrevocable. Only places with any hope of sustaining current level of living standard of the typical Indian will be areas like kashmir & assam, perhaps himmachal pradesh & the nations of Nepal & bhutan

To sum up

1.) India will lose most of industrial, financial capital
in the loss of coastal cities

2.) The indian city dwellers of today will be turned into tomorrows eviromental refugees fleeing inland

3.) The inhabitants of inland india, majority of whom are farmers could find their lands worthless because of dessertification coupled with underground water depletion

4.) Many of the poor farmers of today, will also be enviromental refugees of tomorrow

5.) Ex Farmers & Ex City dwellers with their familes will try of settle in areas of the subcontinent such as Assam, Kashmir, Nepal, Bhutan - Causing massive regional conflict (as inhabitants of areas invaded defend their turf)

5.) By the time all this comes to pass the Indian Subcontinent population will of comfortably grown to 2+ billion adding massive amount of fuel to this fire.

The end

But..........Also

Scandinavian peninsula & Greenland will benefit immensley from global warming at the same time & become far more hospitable

Plus

Most of the World Freshwater is in Northern Canada & Siberia in pretty giant lakes that remain frozen most of the year - when global warming comes it is easy to envision these present Siberian & Subartic Canadian Lakes being the centres of great new population settlements

Kinda like a repeat of North American Great Lakes Developement over last few centuries

Lake Baikal in a hotter climate..just imagine it

or 400 odd canadian lakes in Subartic Canada in a Hotter climate - wow

Prabhu Singh said...

I think there is more theory in the "everybody moves North and is saved" scenario than in the reality that we are currently depleting resources available to us now. There may be enough resources in uninhabitable places, but what about in a few hundred years? What will those people do, if we've used all the reserves? It may be the karma of the most wasteful now, to come back and inherit their legacy.
To me conservation also has a lot to do with humility and gratitude. God has given us so much, when we waste there is no gratitude in what was given. There is no reverence for the giver.
Currently most of us in the west are slaves to the companies that supply us with food, products, energy. If there is no food at the grocery store, most of us will be screwed. If we are in a habit of waste and unsustainability, we have no chance of making it on our own. If we figure out how to live in our environment and grow our own food and build/repair our own house, and generate our own energy, we won't be slaves. I don't want to move North or rely on more mining, more drilling, more oil to live comfortably. I want to learn to live with what I already have and maintain a society that doesn't always need MORE. In this way, I may be a model for all those who currently have LESS, which unfortunately is most of the world. Until everybody has equal access to resources, I think it is extremely important for westerners to notice their level of consumption and their unfair access and advantages to resources.
The UN says everybody needs 5 liters of water a day (minimum), that is for bathing, drinking and cooking. How many westerners could survive on that? We flush more than that every time we flush a toilet. At the same time there are millions of people trying to survive on less than that.
There may be extreme environmentalists, but honestly fox news is filled with propaganda and routinely distorts facts and straight out lies. To not concentrate on sustainability and equality at this stage of environmental degradation is to really live outside of reality. We ARE at a critical time, where billions of people on this earth breathe polluted air, drink polluted water, and where almost everybody eats polluted food.
Guru Nanak said "Pavan Guru, Pani Pita, Mata Dharat Mahat"
Air is the Guru, water the father and earth the great mother. Almost no human alive has experienced these three without pollution.

Anonymous said...

I relent, thats very good answer & way of looking at the world

Just takes quite a bit of effort to come around

Thanks Prabhu

I suppose my way is more Manmukh way intune with the spirit of Kalyug

& Obviously yours is the Gurmukh way intune with some future Satyug Utopia

"If there is no food at the grocery store, most of us will be screwed." - Yeah I agree

" If we figure out how to live in our environment and grow our own food and build/repair our own house, and generate our own energy, we won't be slaves." - excellent notion but realistically that is beyond me


"....rely on more mining, more drilling, more oil to live comfortably." - I should be ashamed to admit, but I would prefer more oil to continue living comfortably

As far as poor people (i.e. my brethren in more than one way)

Take India, most of the worlds poor reside in Indian Subcontinent

If india on independence 1947 had taken steps to control population at 300 million - today in 2008 there would be far more resources in that nation per indian head

I mean in South Asia, home to the largest number of poor outside africa the issue is population

Look at bangladesh

Tell me if you were in charge of that nation the size of Iowa or Illinois with the present population of 160 million, fertility rate of 3.08 children born per woman - what would you do?

Is it really the rich westerners fault South Asians do not have access to 5 litres of clean water a day?

The present bangladeshi population density is so great - to replicate it in the contiguous USA you would need to transplant whole of the world 6+ world billion population to it

And at the present population growth rate by about 2050 there will 300 million Bangladeshis

The present population density of 2,706/sq mi will jump to 5,400/sq mi

Los Angeles for comparision today has a population density of 8,205/sq mi

In Sub Saharan africa there is all the resources needed for everything i.e. arable land/freshwater/mineral wealth

All that is needed is for legions of Chinese Engineers to go over there and develop systems of distribution, sanitation, transportation etc.

And secondly all that is needed is couple of hundred thousand Chinese peace keepers to maintain political stability

I don't think Westerners living Green or not has any impact on Africans

So all Africans need is 2 things

1. Chinese Engineers to build infrastructure

2. Chinese peace keepers to maintain political stability

In return China should get concessions, mining rights, privileged trading status

Problem solved, sit back and enjoy The African Renaissance that is sure to follow.

Back to India.

When India population hits 2 billion, there will not be One Acre of Arable land per Indian

What are we going to do?

India industrial base is still tiny, 1/10 the size of China

India high tech service base is a myth...India barely makes up 2% of World I.T Market & overall 1% of World Trade.

Whats the answer?

Well everyone is praying that if india maintains current growth rate of 7-9% coupled with a new green revolution based on genetically modified crops, & a whole host of other ungodly biotechnology advances.......India might just come out on top in a few decades....i.e. become the Mexico of Asia....the average Indian of the future will live like the Average Mexican today

India present REAL nominal per capita income of $1000 might grow to match todays Mexico's of $9000

Westerners changing the way they live has got nothing to do with these issues


Harpreet

Anonymous said...

I suggested this plan of action for india on Sikhnet...it did go down to well...but it makes sense to me

I will leave this very long discussion that has taken up much of your time Prabhu, but greatly appreciate your reply putting me right & steering me away from my delusion

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

At the moment we have Bihar - representing the true nature of India

Bihar has same population as modern day Germany, yet only generates 1% of the production the Nation State of Germany does- while at the same time being ruled over by gangsta-godfather-policitian Lalo Prasad

All locked inside 36,357 sq mi- about the same size as a small US state like Maine or South Carolina

You ask me for solutions

Ok

Well lets establish some facts about india

Indian cities esp Mumbai generate 100's billion in production & smaller cities generate 10's billion in production.

Consequently Indian cities esp Mumbai provide Goverment of India with most of its tax revenues.

Most of the tax revenues raised from cities is spent on the country side.

The countryside problems cannot be solved by throwing money at it

The countryside problem is overpopulation consequently very limited amount of land per agricultural families & lower caste families in the countryside having no land whatsoever

Ok

This is how I would solve the problems of India

All cities of India would be made autonomous units. All tax revenue raised in say Mumbai could only be spent in Mumbai. Mumbai & everyother indian city would turn into 1st world metropolis in 5 years. Because at the moment a tiny fraction of tax revenues raised in cities is spent in the respective cities

The problem of the overpopulation & growing overpopulation of Indian Countryside would be solved by creating Imperial Army of India. At the minute the indian armed forces are only 2 million, representing 0.2% of population. India needs to create an massive indigenious military infrastructure - with the purpose of raising & supporting an Indian Army of 100 million. Conscript 100 million indian men from the countryside. Doing this will massively increase GDP of India as a whole as well. Build on the existing indian military-industrial complex, instead of building 60 arjun MBT Tanks over a few years..........build 50,000.
Where would the funding for all this come from...........

Well instead whole of India being under the fractional-reserve banking system

India needs to create a secondary system of financial credits

The basis of Hitler Third Reich massive rearnament was this..........for every Reichsmark they printed they made sure an equal amount of production or work took place - thus they could print as many Reichsmarks they wanted without inflation


This systems allows for unlimited rearnament, limited only in the end (as was with the Third Reich) by how much natural resources & manpower a State commands.

Infact the USA uses this Nazi system, offically USA defence budget is 600 billion or 0.6 Trillion.........but unofficially it is estimated the secret military expenditure or rather production comes to 6 Trillion, x10 offical figure - afterall there is even a real secret space program behind nasa.

Beyond this

India population is gonna be 2 billion, possible the Indian subcontinent population will probably stabilise at 3 billion. To support this nothing can be done under current agricultural practices. But hardcore genetically engineered crops could easily provide the agricultural system to support this, the dangers or cons be damned

Secondly India needs to set requirements for public officials, infact just one requirment IQ. Any chief minister have a minimum IQ 140. Any other MP of India must have an IQ of atleast 125. any member of any state lower legislative must have an IQ 110

Finally
For the crowning glory of this new Imperial India, unlimited research & application into stem cell research, human genetic engineering must be undertaken. Young indian couples must be given the choice to have designer babies. Create a new breed of superior indian.

Harpreet said...

OMG yesterday Dr Paul Craig Roberts has just come out with article that kinda hits the nail on the head. I reading the Dr's articles for a while & this is the 1st time i have read anything like this. I listen to alot of his interviews on the Alex Jones Show (www.infowars.com)

Some Background From Wiki

" Paul Craig Roberts (born April 3, 1939, in Atlanta, Georgia) is an economist and a nationally syndicated columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as the "Father of Reaganomics". He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/harvard_genocide.htm

Harvard Hates The White Race?

By Paul Craig Roberts

Is the multicultural campaign really about diversity? Or is it about stamping out Western civilization and the “white race” itself?

College students will tell you that a university education today is a guilt trip for whites. The purpose is to prevent whites from appreciating and absorbing their own culture and to make it difficult for whites to resist the unreasonable demands (quotas, reparations, etc.) from “people of color.”

To the questions, “who am I, what am I,” the white university graduate answers: “a racist, sexist, homophobic oppressor.”

Neither parents, trustees, alumni, nor the public are aware of the anti-white propaganda that masquerades as education. When someone who is aware tells them, they think the person is exaggerating in order to make a point.

Now comes Harvard educated Noel Ignatiev, an academic at Harvard’s W.E.B. DuBois Institute for African-American Research. Dr. Ignatiev is the founder of a journal, Race Traitor, which has as its motto, “treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.”

The journal’s purpose is “to abolish the white race.”

At the least, Dr. Ignatiev intends cultural and psychological genocide for whites. It is unclear whether physical extermination is part of the program. A statement by the editors on the web site says that the new abolitionists

“do not limit themselves to socially acceptable means of protest, but reject in advance no means of attaining their goal.”

Dr. Ignatiev does not believe his agenda is controversial. He writes:

“The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists.” Thus does he put whites on notice. If they oppose their abolition, they are “white supremacists.”

According to Dr. Ignatiev,

“The key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race.”

“Make no mistake about it,” he says,

“we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed--not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.”

What “social construct” will be left? A black one? An Hispanic one? Muslim? Asian? What about Jewish?

The Washington Times reports that Dr. Ignatiev is himself Jewish. If Jewish intellectuals and Israeli political leaders can be believed, Jews have a cultural and racial consciousness. Israel is the Jewish homeland, and Israelis seem determined to keep it that way. Can anyone imagine a gentile at an Israeli university founding a magazine devoted to abolishing the Jewish race?

Yet, Dr. Ignatiev believes that it is self-evident that whites in their homelands should be abolished.

Where did he get this view? His only education was at Harvard where he received two graduate degrees.

Is Harvard embarrassed? No. Dr. Ignatiev [ignatiev@fas.harvard.edu] is showcased in the current issue of Harvard Magazine. Getting rid of whiteness is not controversial at Harvard, because it is the business of American universities.

A white skin, you see, is a mark of privilege. It is not the privilege of being admitted to Harvard even though you don’t meet the entrance requirements. It is not the privilege of being hired independently of ability because of government enforced racial quotas. It is not the privilege of being able to sue whites and “white companies” if blacks are not proportionately represented in the work force. It is not the privilege of being able to call whites every name in the book and sue if a white replies in kind.

The privilege of being white is that whites can secretly believe they are superior and, as long as they don’t mention it, be loyal to the white race.

“The white race is like a private club,” says Dr. Ignatiev.

I am sure Dr. Ignatiev is well-informed, but I see no signs of this white loyalty. Most of the multiculturalists and radical feminists are white. Whites disadvantaged whites by imposing racial quotas. Despite widespread opposition to quotas, neither “white” political party will act to stop unconstitutional quotas, which have made a mockery of equality under law. Whites are inundated by massive non-white immigration, and neither “white” political party will act to restrain immigration. To the contrary, both parties pander to the immigrants.

But Dr. Ignatiev has an idea like Hitler. A race is guilty and must go. The communists said it was a guilty class that had to go.

If you thought genocide was left behind in the 20th century, be apprised that today genocide has a home in the educational system.

Paul Craig Roberts is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice

darren v said...

on global warming. According to the International Panel on Climate Change, which has to be extremely cautious with its statement because of the nature of the organization it speaks for says that "there is very high confidence that the net effect of human activity since 1750 has been one of warming." Note that 1750 was the early stages of the ind. revolution. The IPCC also concludes that "the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations." While GHG are necessary "for plants to breathe" like a poster above commented, GHG has increased 80% between 1970 and 2004. GHG are primarily due to fossil fuel use.

In sum, I think the evidence is pretty compelling that we are responsible for observed global warming.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

prabhu, great to hear your stance on abortion.

also great to hear your opinions about obama. don't believe the hype! obama is strongly supported by the ruling class in this country. his main individual supporters are members of the financial community. wall street praises the guy. nevertheless, his campaign of hope has captured the imagination of a disillusioned population. over 80% of the US population believe that government is run by big business. its no surprise, therefore, that his campaign will tap into that frustration, which has been exacerbated by the incredibly unpopular bush jr. presidency. under his terror, US inequality has exploded to south american levels.
if elected i hope that the increased expectations, coupled by political pressure (from us), will force obama to adopt the policies we need: HR 676! the end to war, the end to US role on global affairs (all things that the US population supports)
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has" Margaret Mead

of course, a mccain presidency would be much worse, and in a large country, an obama would mean something. especially for the country's poor who would basically gain back the losses of the last 8 years. believe me thats not an endorsement for obama. he represents the continuity of corporate domination of our government.


money for schools, not for war! money for health care, not for war! money for jobs, not for war!

stop the war, on the poor!

Harpreet said...

http://mondediplo.com/1998/12/08bourdieu

This article by Frenchie is mind numbing

I don't get it

I have just Wiki Pierre Bourdieu

Still don't get it or him

As I try to retackle the article or read wiki I am getting a headache. I can't even read a full paragraph

Maybe I am stupid

But one things for sure - people on the left are *expletive*

You read any of Dr Paul Craig Roberts articles

Or anything Written by Jared Taylor

You can't help but devour every word.

The right make a compelling case, the far right make one even more so.

The left is insane

I cant even read his Obituary

I will try again on a good day

Anonymous said...

Franz Boas = Pierre Bourdieu

Harpreet said...

http://www.amren.com/ar/1998/02/

Humpty-Dumpty History

Why facts no longer matter to “historians.’

reviewed by Jared Taylor

The Killing of History: How Literary Critics and Social Theorists are Murdering Our Past
Keith Windschuttle

Simon & Schuster, 1997, $25.00,
298 pp.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said,
in a rather scornful tone,
“it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice,
“whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”
— Alice Through the Looking-Glass, Chapter 6
For most of the past 2,400 years, Europeans have understood history much as the Greeks did: as an effort to understand what really happened. We have taken for granted their pioneering insight that history should not be myth or fairy tale but — to the greatest extent possible — the truth. Now, according to the Australian historian Keith Windschuttle, a powerful new movement is undermining the very foundations of the academic discipline of history. Known by such names as “postmodernism,” “deconstructionism,” or “universal history,” the new intellectual fashion holds that since the past is unknowable, history is no more real than fiction — that what used to pass for history was nothing more than the expression of the unconscious biases of historians.

According to Mr. Windschuttle, this way of thinking is now rampaging through virtually every history department in the English-speaking world, discrediting the traditional, fact-based view of history and the die-hards who still practice it. It is Mr. Windschuttle’s fear — reflected in the title of his book — that current thinking could completely transform and falsify the way we understand the past. The Killing of History is a description of what is happening in history departments and a stinging critique of the thinking that drives it.

Although Mr. Windschuttle only touches on this, the destruction of history is a central element in the destruction of the thinking, culture, and people of the West. First elaborated and disseminated by whites who hate their own intellectual traditions, this new “history” is a powerful weapon in the hands of anyone whose only interest is the exercise of power in the name of his own group.

French Mumbo Jumbo

For those outside the university, it is difficult to imagine that the queen of the humanities could be dethroned. Nevertheless, Mr. Windschuttle cites this 1991 description of a compulsory honors seminar in history:

“The old-fashioned concept of the historian’s task was that he (rarely she) “described what really happened in the past.’ This notion, though still widely held, has been exploded by theoretical developments which have occurred largely outside the field of history itself. The work of social philosophers, anthropologists, linguists, scientists, political, literary and feminist theorists, have, from a variety of directions and with increasing momentum, exploded the old concept of history.”
This was a seminar at the University of Sydney, but Mr. Windschuttle assures us it could have been anywhere in America, England or
Canada.
What are these “theoretical developments” that have “exploded” history? Mr. Windschuttle has studied them carefully and makes a manful go of trying to explain them, but as he points out, they are almost deliberately opaque. The founding fathers are all French — people like Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Jacques Lacan, and Pierre Bourdieu — and take pride in writing impenetrable prose. Prof. Derrida, one of the original high priests, has even said that clear writing is the sign of a reactionary. Mr. Windschuttle notes that there are plenty of books written about “postmodernism” and “post- structuralism” but the authors have learned from their masters only too well: “most [such books] leave the uninitiated reader more confused than when he or she started.” Mr. Windschuttle’s own account leaves the reader with little appetite for the details of which Frenchman thinks what, but the confusing and often contradictory essentials can be more or less summarized as follows:

First of all, facts are fundamentally unknowable. Partly, this is because we describe the world with words, and words never fully convey reality. Also, we are all so thoroughly imprisoned by our own experiences and expectations that when we describe what we think are facts we are describing our own prejudices. This is especially true for historical writing, since the historian may be writing about a period or people completely alien to him. Ultimately, therefore, history is no different from fiction, so literary critics can analyze a history book just as they do a novel. This sounds crazy, but Mr. Windschuttle says this approach is sweeping the academy.
One especially fashionable critical technique from literature is “deconstructionism.” The idea is to “demystify” a text and explain what the author unconsciously meant. Experts claim to be able to show how an author was limited by the preconceptions of his age. Since we do not discover the truth — only invent it — the trick is to unmask the unconscious inventions of others.
Literature types are also keen on overarching theory or “meta- narrative.” They claim to have worked up theories that explain all of literature, and are busy with theories that will explain all of history. Facts, to the extent that they are even knowable, are of no interest unless they fit the theory. (Karl Marx’ view — that class struggle and dialectical materialism explain everything — is the best known theory of history; Mr. Windschuttle does not explain what theories the literary critics are cooking up.)

The newfangled history is also “postcolonial.” History used to be written by European colonial masters but should now be written by liberated native people, or at least from their point of view. The idea of “the other” is central to this, the other being the wise native whom the colonial bureaucrat misunderstood and therefore despised. These days, all sorts are claiming to be “the other”: women, homosexuals, criminals, the insane, etc. Traditional history is supposed to have been written to justify existing power structures but now “others” are providing the more truthful perspectives that dead white males tried to suppress.

Finally, no culture, knowledge, or point of view is absolute. No one may criticize anyone else’s myths, histories, or “ways of knowing.” What is true depends on who is saying what to whom.

Mr. Windschuttle offers more than this, but this is more than enough — mysteries already abound. If historians are blinkered by their own prejudices, why aren’t the poststructuralists equally blinkered? “We are,” some of them cheerfully reply, and do not claim that their “histories” are any different from fictions. But then how are we to choose between competing versions of the past (or present)? Mr. Windschuttle quotes a feminist historian who appears to be a follower of Humpty Dumpty: “Knowledge is entirely an effect of power, … we can no longer have any concept of truth at all.” History is on the side with the big battalions.

Another problem is that when “poststructuralists” piously claim that no judgments can be passed because all cultures are equal and cannot be criticized, they are simply lying. They prohibit criticism only of non-whites. As Mr. Windschuttle points out, the 500th anniversary of Columbus’ discovery of America turned into an orgy of judgment- passing: “In book after book … the whole process of European discovery and settlement was denounced by academics as one of the greatest calamities to have befallen not only the native Americans but the human species as a whole and, indeed, the planet itself.” Mr. Windschuttle notes that historians have been seized with a “fervour to adopt a politically correct stance against their own society.”

Likewise, only whites are excluded from the view that there are many differing truths validly held by different cultural groups. Historians can now win debates, not by pointing out that someone got the facts wrong (no one much cares about them anymore), but by unmasking the white, phallocratic character of an opponent’s thinking. The stone-age, head-hunting character of a New Guinean’s thinking is, of course, not a defect.

Occasionally someone asks the all-cultures-are-equal school to justify societies that practice human sacrifice or cannibalism. No problem. Once these traditions are understood in proper cultural context, it is clear that they are not nearly so bad as plenty of things white people have been doing for centuries.

Perhaps the purest expression of relativism — held, apparently, by only a hardy few — is to claim that science itself is just another white man’s prejudice and is no more valid than voodoo or witch doctoring. Mr. Windschuttle has actually dug up a Professor Paul Feyerabend at Berkeley who claims that the “knowledge” of necromancers and haruspices is as valid as that of geologists.


Just another way of knowing.

Not a Joke

All this ought to be a huge joke but, alas, it is not. A school district in California has reportedly been demanding text books that contradict the general consensus that American Indians crossed a land bridge from Asia during the last Ice Age. According to the Indians’ own myths they have been here much longer; how dare archaeologists claim to know better? Likewise, the Aborigines say they sprang from the soil of Australia, so we are now supposed to ignore the clear evidence that they migrated from the Indonesian archipelago.

Misappropriations of history for political purposes are routine. Some of the questions raised elsewhere in this issue of AR are whether Martin Luther King was a womanizer, plagiarist, and communist sympathizer, and whether the African who led the Amistad rebellion became a slave trader after he was freed. According to contem- porary historiography, the facts can’t be known and even if they could they wouldn’t matter. Such so-called facts are subsumed in the “meta-narrative” of white wickedness and black virtue. To raise these questions does not illuminate the past; it only reveals the prejudices of the white males who write for AR.

The notion that facts merely serve theory has found ready acceptance outside the university. Whenever a notorious “hate crime” is shown to be a hoax, someone is bound to tell us that the so-called facts do not matter; even a phony “hate crime” properly highlights the sufferings of non-whites at the hands of whites. The 1987 Tawana Brawley hoax flushed out many an amateur “poststructuralist,” as did black college student Sabrina Collins’ 1990 claim that her Emory University dorm room had been vandalized. Needless to say, goose and gander get different sauces. Incantations about the unknowability of the past may never be mumbled over the memory of slavery or the Wounded Knee massacre.

What is looming in history departments is not just a disaster for scholarship. It would be a tragedy if the ancient practice of accumulating and evaluating evidence were abandoned; history as we know it would cease to be written. But this is much more than an academic question. As Humpty Dumpty and the feminists are brazen enough to admit, to jettison any pretense to objectivity is to make a naked grab for power. If stylish barbarians really do manage to destroy history, the past will belong to whichever mob shouts the loudest — and the mob will find in the past innumerable crimes for which its enemies in the present must be punished.

Harpreet said...

http://vdare.com/francis/boas.htm

Franz Boas – Liberal Icon, Scientific Fraud
By Sam Francis

Two of the major superstitions of our time are the notion that man is merely a blank slate whose behavior is merely the product of the social environment and its sister, that race doesn't exist. Yet one by one, the pseudo-scientific sources of these myths are being discredited by serious scientists, and last week, one of the biggest sources of all took a nose dive.

Franz Boas, often called the grandfather of modern anthropology and a pioneer pusher of the idea that race is not a very meaningful concept, merely a "social construct" not found in nature, probably ranks with Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud as one of the most influential thinkers of the modern age. As a Columbia professor from 1899 to 1942, he virtually created modern anthropology, and the students he trained—among them, Margaret Mead and some of the most famous names in the field—dominated the discipline until only a few years ago.

One of Boas' favorite targets was so-called "scientific racism," and much of his own writing was intended to combat what he saw—sometimes rightly—as unscientific or simply false thinking about race.

But it now turns out that Boas himself was guilty of no small degree of unscientific blunder—and maybe even fraud.

In 1912, Boas published what became a classic study that claimed to show that the skull shapes ("cranial forms") of the descendants of European immigrants to the United States altered from those of the original immigrants. Boas offered no explanation for why the changes took place, but if they were real, his finding pretty much wiped out the idea that different racial and ethnic types differ in fixed physical characteristics.

Boas's study, write Abram Kardiner and Edward Preble in their popular history of anthropology, They Studied Man, [pay archive]

"did much to establish the notion in human genetics that what are transmitted in the germ plasm are not fixed characters but potentialities ... dependent upon the environment for the particular form they will assume. The 'nature-nurture' controversy was largely obviated by this alternative."

In political terms, if human beings have few or no "fixed characters" and are shaped by the social environment, then what we know as modern liberalism is in business. So is communism, which also assumes that human beings can be transformed by manipulating the social environment.

It's no accident that Boas was a lifelong sympathizer of Marxism.

Unfortunately, for the social and human engineers, the study has now been shown to be invalid. Last week in the New York Times Science section, science reporter Nicholas Wade reported on an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by anthropologists Corey Sparks and Richard L. Jantz that took another look at Boas's study and methods. The effects of the new environment on the skulls of the immigrants' descendants, they found, are "insignificant," and the difference between the European and American born children were "negligible in comparison to the differentiation between ethnic groups." [“A New Look at Old Data May Discredit a Theory on Race” By Nicholas Wade, NYT.Oct 8, 2002]

Moreover, as Dr. Jantz told the Times, Boas

"was intent on showing that the scientific racism of the day had no basis, but he did have to shade his data some to make it come out that way."

In other words, Boas decided what his conclusions would be before he finished the research and then "shaded"—i.e., cheated on—the data to make them support the conclusion he wanted.

This is not science; it's fraud -- and modern liberalism is founded on it.

It doesn't mean that the "scientific racism" Boas wanted to destroy is valid, but then again, as Dr. Jantz, says, it also "doesn't mean cranial morphology [the classification of skulls by race] is meaningless either."

Yet Boas was by far not the worst offender when it came to twisting data to support politically desired conclusions. His student Margaret Mead has been shown to have outright fabricated much of her data on Samoan sex life in the 1920s, and the claims about the lack of genetic influence on IQ of several other scientists trained or influenced by Boas have also been challenged by later research.

Anthropologist David Thomas, curator of anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, tells the Times

"once we anthropologists said race doesn't exist, we have ignored it since then,"

but now, the reappraisal of Boas' work

"really does have far-reaching ramifications."

You can say that again.

Not only has a giant of modern social science—and a pillar of modern liberalism—tumbled from his pedestal, but the dogma that man is merely a blank slate, on which state bureaucrats and social engineers may scribble whatever ideologies they please, has toppled with him.

If that dogma really can be killed, then much of the tyranny and chaos it has helped create will die with it.