Baldwin or Nader

9 Responses to Baldwin or Nader

1. Friedrich Braun says:

   November 4, 2008 at 3:04 am

   I’d write in Adolf Hitler.
2. Z says:

   November 4, 2008 at 11:55 am

   The Jewish globalists and their bureacratic lackeys are pushing harder than ever before for most of the world’s agricultural lands to be put in to the hands of big Jew-led governments, which they will then operate as inorganic megafarms full of chemicals and run by people with no connection to the land; they want to de-organicize agriculture and their goal is to ‘de-peasantize’ people (i.e., make them much less locally sufficient; because they know that people who live self-sufficiently on the land are leery of centralized/globalist schemes) and turn them in to ‘middle class’ corporate slaves who all live happy lives as hyperconsumers in cities/suburbs and are entirely dependent on the The System for ALL of their needs and thus all facets of their existence is easily controlled.

   See the following statements by one of these agricultural globalists:
   —

   First, contrary to the romantics, the world needs more commercial agriculture, not less. … Second, and again contrary to the romantics, the world needs more science: the European ban and the consequential African ban on genetically modified (GM) crops are slowing the pace of agricultural productivity growth in the face of accelerating growth in demand.

   The first giant that must be slain is the middle- and upper-class love affair with peasant agriculture. With the near-total urbanization of these classes in both the United States and Europe, rural simplicity has acquired a strange allure. Peasant life is prized as organic in both its literal and its metaphoric sense. (Prince Charles is one of its leading apostles.) In its literal sense, organic agricultural production is now a premium product, a luxury brand. (Indeed, Prince Charles has his own such brand, Duchy Originals.) In its metaphoric sense, it represents the antithesis of the large, hierarchical, pressured organizations in which the middle classes now work. (Prince Charles has built a model peasant village, in traditional architectural style.) Peasants, like pandas, are to be preserved.

   But distressingly, peasants, like pandas, show little inclination to reproduce themselves. Given the chance, peasants seek local wage jobs, and their offspring head to the cities. This is because at low-income levels, rural bliss is precarious, isolated, and tedious. The peasant life forces millions of ordinary people into the role of entrepreneur, a role for which most are ill suited. In successful economies, entrepreneurship is a minority pursuit; most people opt for wage employment so that others can have the worry and grind of running a business. And reluctant peasants are right: their mode of production is ill suited to modern agricultural production, in which scale is helpful. In modern agriculture, technology is fast-evolving, investment is lumpy, the private provision of transportation infrastructure is necessary to counter the lack of its public provision, consumer food fashions are fast-changing and best met by integrated marketing chains, and regulatory standards are rising toward the holy grail of the traceability of produce back to its source. Far from being the answer to global poverty, organic self-sufficiency is a luxury lifestyle. It is appropriate for burnt-out investment bankers, not for hungry families.
   …
   Large organizations are better suited to cope with investment, marketing chains, and regulation…
   …
   Commercial agriculture is the best way of making innovation quicker and easier. ["commercial agriculture" - sounds like an oxymoron to me]
   …
   In Brazil, large, technologically sophisticated agricultural companies have demonstrated how successfully food can be mass-produced. To give one remarkable example, the time between harvesting one crop and planting the next — the downtime for land — has been reduced to an astounding 30 minutes.
   …
   There are many areas of the world that have good land that could be used far more productively if properly managed by large companies.
   …
   Global agribusiness is probably overly concentrated, and a sudden switch to an unregulated land market would probably have ugly consequences. But allowing commercial organizations to replace peasant agriculture gradually would raise global food supply in the medium term.
   …
   The mark of a good politician is the ability to guide citizens away from populism.

   - http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20081001faessay87605-p0/paul-collier/the-politics-of-hunger.html
3. Z says:

   November 4, 2008 at 12:29 pm

   P.S. — did you read Kunstler’s latest post?

   Thanks for introducing me to this guy a while back. Despite him being an ethnic Jew, this guy truly gets it — his calls to relocalize and deglobalize, reign in the culture of American hyperconsumerism, respect the environment, and start respecting agriculture again is a ray of sunshine in an otherwise very dark America. Kunstler writes:

   “…the only way we can hope to become “energy independent” is to severely reform our car-dependent living arrangements and live more locally. Anybody who believes we’re going to run the interstate highways and WalMart on solar, wind, tar sands (which belong to Canada, by the way), oil shale, methane gas, algae-diesel, or used fry-max® is going to be disappointed. We’ll have to inhabit the terrain of North America differently — in traditional towns, villages, cities (scaled smaller, to a lower energy diet), as well as a productive agricultural landscape that will require more attention from live human beings (and maybe help from our friends, the animals).”

   I had a good chuckle though at the following comment to the post; if you really think about it many of Kunstler’s ideas are indeed deeply conservative because it is generally the left-wing in America and many other places that is for more ‘massification,’ centralization, multiculturalism, and globalization…

   “More cognitive dissonance from one of America’s foremost conservative commentators, James Howard Kunstler. Conservative? He’s economically conservative in his dislike for the government bailing out private businesses. He’s socially conservative in his attacks on baggy pants and “tattood barbarians.” He’s artistically conservative in his like for New Urbanism and traditional architecture and painting. He’s internationally conservative in his dislike of military interventions. He’s politically conservative in his dislike of centralized power and preference for localization.
   Wait?! He’s voting for Obama? Why would he vote for someone who agrees with him on nothing?”

   Posted by: Empedocles | November 03, 2008 at 09:59 AM
4. Prozium says:

   November 4, 2008 at 3:45 pm

   Yeah, I did.
5. Dan C. says:

   November 4, 2008 at 8:42 pm

   Wow, you’re back! We thought that you died or had quit the internet! It’s good that you’re back, anyways.

   As far as this election goes, I don’t live in the Yankee-Judea so I can’t this election, however if I did live there I would consider FB’s suggestion of writing in Herr Hitler.
6. notuswind says:

   November 5, 2008 at 12:24 am

   Prozium,

   I chose Baldwin between the two of them.

   “I will take some pleasure though in another general slaughter of worthless conservatives with the (R) brand next to their names. I’ve said for many years now that the destruction of the GOP and the conservative movement is the prerequisite for racialist change in America.”

   Intellectually I accept this analysis. However, I still can’t help but feel sad when I see Obama becoming the next American President.

   The “greatest generation” really f***ked this country when they decided to culturally dismantle it right after WWII.
7. Prozium says:

   November 5, 2008 at 3:34 pm

   I voted for Baldwin.
8. VanSpeyk says:

   November 5, 2008 at 6:11 pm

   Very good to see you again, Prozium (Fade )! I was wondering what you would vote. But if you had to vote in Alabama it wouldn’t really stand a chance of making a difference either way. If you lived in, let’s say, Pennsylvania or Flordia would you have voted differently or do you calculate that, even in a close contest, the chance of your vote being decisive is still neglible?

   One thing I knew for sure was that you would enjoy a conservative rout for the reason you specified above. I knew it, because I’ve come to think the same way; the GOP needs to become politically irrelevant so that a new party can emerge that will advance white interests. It has happened before in American politics right? A third party entering the scene and displacing one of the ‘Big Two’, I mean. It happened in England at the turn of the 20th century with Labour and I think in America with the whigs. Wasn’t slavery the issue that caused it?
9. Prozium says:

   November 5, 2008 at 6:48 pm

   The Republican Party rose out of the ashes of the Whigs, yes. And yes, opposition to slavery was the glue that held the new Northern sectional coalition together.