UNITE! Info #301en: 4/4 A reply to N. N. on "green" and quackery warfare
[Posted: 25.12.2007]
[Continued from part 3/4]
THREE REPLIES BY OTHERS TO THE ABOVE
[QUOTE:]
From:
Nikogda Nichevo <intangibles@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Date:
24 December 2007 19:24 [CET]
To:
marxist-leninist-list@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Rolf Martens <rolf.martens@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Subject:
[MLL] 1/3 Re: Year of global cooling - and of continued "green" and
quackery
warfare
Because of time and other constraints, I regret to inform everyone that I
am
not going to be responding to Rolf Martens' response, which is a serious
and
considered reply. But I am pleased to know that the outline I sent
previously
is garnering some scrutiny. The most useful thing I can do at this point
is to
offer some remarks about the underlying analytical framework of what I
have
presented. This may help further clarify matters for Rolf Martens and some
other readers.
Before the Soviet Union imploded there were four main contradictions
driving
both imperialism and the struggles for social and national liberation:
- the contradiction between proletariat and bourgeoisie
- the contradiction between imperialism and the struggles for social and
national liberation
- the intermonopoly and interimperialist contradictions within the
imperialist
camp
- the contradiction between the socialist camp and the camp of imperialism
With the implosion / disappearance of the Soviet bloc in 1989-91, the
movement
for revolution on the world scale itself was reversed from flow into ebb.
The
contradiction of the socialist camp with the camp of imperialism ceased to
play
the driving role it enjoyed before that point. The contradiction exists to
this
day. However, the socialist [perhaps more properly:
progressive-democratic]
camp has been very much redefined, revolution is not yet back in flow, and
therefore this contradiction cannot be said yet to have resumed its
previous
role as one of the drivers of world development.
The sustainability issue had long been manipulated, from a number of
directions
- first by capitalist ideologues a la Malthus, Ricardo and the
neo-Ricardians
of the 1798-1848 period, then by welfare economists and neoclassical
economists (Jevons, Walras, Menger, Marshall etc.) during the 1875-1890
****tion
of the 1873-1896 depression in the European and American economies, then
in a
big way after WW2 by the anti-Lysenko choristers of 1945-48, then yet
again by
Club of Rome/Bilderbergers etc. especially in the 1970s. Before the
disappearance of the USSR, the thrust of this line was that, without the
"discipline" of the market, all economics reduces to commands by
commissars,
hence the cancellation of human freedom, hence the unacceptability of any
attempt at sustainability that proposes to function outside the capitalist
Law
of Value.
From the moment the last drop of their poison finished Comrade Stalin, the
Khrushchevites sought accommodations with imperialism. The Khrushchevites
facilitated the launch of the entire fraudulent notion of a third way - in
economics as well as politics - between the revolution and socialism on
the one
hand and imperialist reaction on the other. In economics, this was the
line
unfolded under the tent of "market socialism", the neo-Keynesian /
crypto-Schumpeterian dogmas of Paul Baran & Paul M Sweezy in the U.S.
("barren
and sleazy"), the "underdevelopment" school of Gunder-Frank et al., etc.
As readily seen in the subsequent scattered and inconsistent responses
among
those who apply a dialectical and historical materialist worldview to
real-world contem****ary problems, this accommodation of, and abandonment
of
resistance to, anti-Leninist positions exercised a serious retarding
effect on
the development of a Marxian approach to environmental questions.
With the rise of Gorbachev after 1985, the TINA-blasters led by Thatcher
ratcheted up the "There Is No Alternative" chorus that, for the sake of
sustainability, any regulatory role of the modern state should be entirely
at
the discretion of the monopolies and not according to social needs (since,
according to Thatcher, "there is no such thing as 'Society' "). Under the
hoax
of dissenting from this view in words, Gorbachev's glasnost' and
perestroika
effectively aligned the Soviet Union with this view in deeds... leading to
end
of discussion!
Before the collapse of the Soviet bloc, the various efforts of capitalist
ideologues and imperialist ideologues to appropriate / misappropriate the
"sustainability" discourse were blocked by the revolutionary movement and
the
undertaking and expansion of various projects of socialist construction.
Indeed, the target of the entire population-bomb propaganda unleashed in a
big
way, i.e., not confined to the universities, at the end of the 1960s was
the
national liberation struggle and solidarity with national liberation
struggle.
With the collapse of the Soviet bloc, the targets of this propaganda
****fted as
it became a weapon of the interimperialist and intermonopoly struggles,
all of
which were vastly enhanced by the Soviet collapse. The entire discourse
developed at the United Nations, in the World Council on Economic
Development's
Our Common Future (also known as the Brundtland Re****t, chaired by former
Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland, but with the ever-wily
Willy
Brandt as its true ideopolitical godfather), was a discourse in the
service of
the interests of European monopolies, oligopolies and cartels contending
for
supremacy in Africa, Asia and eastern Europe against U.S. multinational
monopolies, oligopolies and cartels. After the Soviet collapse, the WCED's
1987
re****t became the prevailing discourse among all the forces, pro- or
anti-sustainable development.
The point about intermonopoly and interimperialist struggles is that they
are
organised in no small part by lining up the peoples as cheerleaders for
"their"
bourgeoisie or group of oligarchs against all others. There is no such
thing as
an ideological trend which attacks the peoples that is not also being
manipulated among the intermonopoly and interimperialist rivals. That is
what
always leaves the peoples a choice between more evil and less evil
options. And
that is why I have very little hope for "analyses" that reduce people's
choices
to "for" or "against" before they are themselves informed. Only when
people
break through this disinformation can they choose clearly between the path
that
leads to retrogression and the path that leads to renewal.
The other new feature of the sustainability discourse recycled since the
collapse of the Soviet bloc is the serious impoverishment of the
scientific
method that informs its asserted conclusions. The conduct of scientific
and
engineering research in our day has itself become the target of massive
disinformation. The reliability of the allegedly "scientific" expertise
that is
being mustered by the various camps participating in the "sustainability"
debates of today has to be established by the social movement itself, not
taken
at face value. In fact the most reliable data source for a truly useful
and
non-misleading investigation of environmental questions is the m*****
themselves; this is a burden the movement itself has to be prepared to
shoulder
if it is serious about discharging its actual social responsibility.
All these problems can be addressed and solved if the movement is built
with an
orientation to carry out renewal through to the end. Otherwise we are in
for
retrogression. Retrogression is far, far worse than the status quo, even
worse
than the status quo extrapolated 20-25 years into the future.
Regards, and revolutionary greetings for the new year to the readers on
this
list - a better world is possible
PS - a light moment:
George Galloway has recounted, as a little boy in Glasgow, running home to
tell
his Father excitedly: 'Dad, Dad, my teacher says "the sun will never set
on the
British Empire". '
'Aye, son', said his father : 'That's because God would never trust the
British
in the dark'.
[END OF QUOTE]
[QUOTE:]
From:
Waistline2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<Waistline2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Date:
24 December 2007 21:48 [CET]
To:
marxist-leninist-list@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
Re: [MLL] 1/3 Re: Year of global cooling - and of continued "green"and
quack...
The material below is excellent in my opinion.
[Quoting, last, a passage from my reply above beginning with: "The 'AIDS'
terror campaign has not been the only one in which that same trick has
been
used or at least been tried. ..."]
You have also convinced me that my lazy attitude toward the nuclear
regime is
unacceptable, when I already believed that it was the perfect energy
source to
sustain the emerging technological regime. I apologize for calling you a
spokesperson for the nuclear energy industry.
You are in fact a spokesperson for an energy regime that meets the
requirement
of the proletarian revolution and its goals.
You are correct on the issue of sustainability in my estimate. My last
argument
over this issue was several years ago. What is not sustainable is the
bourgeois mode of production. This sounds quaint and like a sound bit,
but it
is the truth. The idea that the earth is running out of oil or water or
toilet
paper is monstrous.
I personally believe that it is virtually impossible to convince any one
or a
mass of people about the nature of disease without actually curing them
of
their various diseases. How you arrived at your conclusion concerning the
nature of disease is mind boggling in the sense that I had to cure myself
and
undertake massive study spanning twenty years to discover the nature or
logic
of the body which I call metabolic. The body is spontaneous metabolic. The
problem is that very few people understand the metaphysical presumption
they
bring to the table when discussing disease or the living man.
What you refer to as "oxygen poor blood" as incubating the diseased state
I
call the "acid and alkaline" (or as it is called he pH balance) relations
of
the blood. A pretty good primer on this subject is Acid and Alkaline. It
took
me a couple of weeks to understand what you meant by "a shock" to the
system
in relations to the emergence of the disease state because I conceived at
"shock" as being an external event to the body of man. "Shock,"
apparently can
be external or internal or both at the same time.
In the mid 1990's I became involved in actually healing people and came
in
contact with a healer from Africa combating the poisoning called Ebola.
Thus,
I could grasp the earlier distinction made between "biological warfare"
and
chemical warfare. One hundred years from now the industrial epoch - the
epoch
of the bourgeoisie, will be identified as the years of metal and
chemical
poisoning of man.
Bear with me.
My mother was a nurse and we would read her books at children. Thus, I
possessed an interest in medicine and understanding of some of the actual
operations of the human body at an early age, and possess an absolute
hate of
drugs, except in life threatening cir***stances. Mother died of blood
acidity
that her body localized into to clusters called cancer. She simply
believed in
the bourgeois approach to medicine. This means I was forced to take her
to her
sessions of chemical injections (chemo-therapy) that sought to burn the
demons
out of her body.
Her death from quackery intensified my desire to study everything
including
books on genetics. My status as a high paid worker means I could spend
thousands on books and I did.
There is a point to my jumping.
Detoxifying man from the last 400 years of blood poisoning occupy the
center
of virtually everything I write, although it is not apparent lots of
times
because people cannot believe something that goes against their actual
living
process.
Detoxifying man of several thousand of years of wrong food is going to be
the
great struggle of the post communist world. In other words I studied -
(theoretical and practical), the impact of various foods on our bodily
processes and organs. Most of what we eat and call food is not food at
all. It
is virtually impossible to believe that wrong eating or what Engel's call
"eating everything eatable" created our specific line of history.
In other words I do not believe you can convince very many people on the
nature of disease and the absurdity of the viral theory of disease,
without
curing them and then they still tend to believe one has preformed magic
rather
than simple and elementary science. What you call "quackery warfare" was
not
invented by the bourgeoisie. Rather, the militant bourgeoisie inherited
this
line of reasoning.
Vaccinations today are no different from injecting people with mercury in
the
"Middle Ages" to drive out demons and placing leeches on the human body
to
suck out demon spirits called viruses today.
I asked myself this: "on what basis or what is the environment and
cir***stances of a society that allows itself to believe that disease is
called by demons spirits entering the body?" The answer I came up with is
that
society does not allow itself to believe in demon theory.. Rather this
demon
ideology is enforced on society by the ruling class.
Disease appears to bourgeois industrial man in the same relations as Marx
described the commodity form or "the fetish that attaches itself to
commodity
production." Social relations of/between people appear as material
relations
between things. The disease appears as precisely . . . the disease, the
villain, the enemy, which must be treated and stamped out at all cost,
rather
than as a symptom indicating metabolic imbalance. Most of our illness's
are
the results of outright poisoning with some of this poisoning being self
inflicted.
How did you arrive at your concept of disease? Hatred of the bourgeois
order?
Was this enough for a "leap of faith" outside bourgeois logic?
At any rate you have won a medal of Lenin for coining the term "Green
Warfare."
It is in fact green warfare and designed to lay waste to mankind and
widen
the metabolic breach.
I am at least a decade away from my Stalin medal. Not for anything
written
about the "new class" being formed in correspondence with the new
technological
regime - which I did not pioneer but absolutely see and believe, but
rather
raising Marx concept of the metabolic rift to a science embracing man
himself.
Opposing the ferocious campaign to continue poisoning man is the loftiest
of
goals. In perhaps a few years I will return to the art and science of
healing
the body and detoxifying it of 40 centuries of garbage. One of the only
land
animals to eat garbage other than man is the hog and we eat it. Meat is
not
the worse thing to eat.
I come from a people that have feasted on garbage for 50 solid years and
call
this garbage "soul food." And then wonder why they are sick. We did not
eat hog
intestines in celebration one hundred years ago. Consequently, we are
amongst
the sickest people in America. Millions are horribly sick and go to their
death
believing they are the unfortunate victims of demons. Millions sit in
church
each Sunday seeking miraculous relief from their disease and victory over
the
demons that seem to inflict them from nowhere.
Interestingly, when I dealt in healing and the use of various herbs my
best
customers who financed the business and allowed it to exist where
preachers
who would state, they did not now how to explain disease to their flock
without a mass rejection.
Bravo for you, even if we never agree on the time frame of the restoration
of
the bourgeois mode of production in the Soviet Union.
Peace
[END OF QUOTE]
[QUOTE:]
From:
steve houston <stevehouston3000@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Date:
24 December 2007 22:02 [CET]
To:
marxist-leninist-list@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
[MLL] Green and quackery warfare (cont)
This is meant for Comrade Martens
Could you provide some links or source material for your claims about
bacteria
and viruses? I checked your website to no avail but then I have a hard
time
navigating sites that aren't laid out for the complete "dummie".
Thanks for a wonderful exchange between yourself and N.N.!
[END OF QUOTE]
_____________________
Message posted by:
Rolf Martens
Malmö, Sweden
Phone and fax:
+46 - 40 - 124832;
rolf.martens@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
