Comments on: Justin Raimondo

By: NLP Editor

NLP Editor — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 07:57:32 +0000

Could you recommend any specific resources, books, or other blogs on this specific NLP topic?

By: Patrick

Patrick — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 22:14:11 +0000

Wow … you liberals have a religious fanaticism about global warming. No diseenting opinons allowed, eh? You’re blind devotion and tunnel vision on the issue rivals 9/11 truthers.

Liked the interview but I believe Scott is too dismissive about the chances of a NWO. We’re at a point with the power of global government where our nation was with the power of the federal government around the 1830’s. It seemed like the Feds would be ineffective and not a threat but within no time, you have a leviathan breathing down your neck. Hopefully, we won’t replay that scenario with a NWO.

By: Claus-Erik Hamle

Claus-Erik Hamle — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 10:28:00 +0000

According to former Trident missile engineer Bob Aldridge-www.plrc.org-the Pentagon´s strategy for Nuclear War is a co-ordinated First Strike attack on Russian and Chinese submarines and missile silos, command centres, bomber bases, etc. According to Bob Aldridge the US Navy can track and destroy all enemy submarines simultaneously. Please see the article by Keir Lieber and Daryl Press, “The Rise of US Nuclear Primacy”, in the 2006 March/April issue of Foreign Affairs. According to former Trident missile engineer Bob Aldridge the US aims to achieve a disarming, unanswerable first-strike capability. The Russians may have no choice but Launch On Warning.

By: Alex

Alex — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 22:28:05 +0000

Ry:
I get annoyed with folks who want to turn conservation into a taxes issue. The reason behind a carbon “tax” is that this is an idea to try to level the cost playing field.
Low polluting energy alternatives have their issues, like higher cost to implement or a lack of infrastructure that will be costly. To implement a carbon fee structure is to admit that putting pollutants in the air is costly to all of us in some way, shape or form (increased health/breathing issues for example). By adding in a monetary cost to these energy sources, forces the energy community to rethink their bottom line and their choice of energy sources. It is not an excuse to find ways to tax you. It is trying to use market forces to give a monetary value to something that is affecting our society, that is not being reflected in the bottom line of the companies that are responsible for the pollution.
I hope you could at least admit that a carbon market place is better than a straight tax on pollution or waiting until the air/climate is beyond help.

By: lance

lance — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 21:10:21 +0000

For a model of a decentralized system of social organization see this picture.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_CD0JETuihEE/SRitMQdRsDI/AAAAAAAAD3M/Nw5TuVeywQQ/s1600-h/neuron-galaxy.jpg
It is a picture of brain cells, and a model of the universe. Some have called this the architecture of intelligence. Resiliant and adaptive mushroom mycelium and of course, the internet also share this organizational model. The disintegration of centralized power will be followed with by something, perhaps we have now the tools to build an adaptive, communicating decentralized social organization in which disparate parts draw strength from and contribute to the knowledge of the whole .

By: IP Khalifah

IP Khalifah — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:45:31 +0000

Q: What’s behind Obama’s X Inauguration?
A: few old extreme CroCk$ citi books on WxEbay

Amuslim, Waiting for NOT sold changes!

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 15:44:20 +0000

Global warming is not a liberal cause. It is a scientific fact. Scott and Justin, you both sound very well read in many areas, try reading more hard science materials (as ETC references) than the social/political soft sciences and you might not be so flipant about global warming. I remember the “new ice age” articles, and was confused when people started talking about warming. But if we were having a new ice age then it seems counter intuative that the world’s glaciers/ice caps are melting at a rate that written history hasn’t seen before. Climate change is the more appropriate name for what is happening. Under climate change, some parts of the world will be warmer, others cooler, some will get more rain, some will get less. Storm systems will likely be more dynamic and frequent. Climate, precipitation and growing patterns, and everything that goes along with that like fresh water and food sources will change along with the new patterns. These kinds of changes have ocurred before in written history. Anthropologists have evidence that indicates some ancient civilizations may have died off because of a change in climate. The difference is that we have a much larger population than the last time a change occurred and because the levels of CO2 are already so much higher than in recorded history, scientists believe we are going to have more drastic changes than we are used to.
The melting of the ice caps/glaciers will also result in elevated ocean levels, which means millions of people in coastal areas will be displaced. Many of the world’s major rivers have their sources in mountain glaciers (Amazon, Ganges, Yalu, Colorado). Smaller or fewer of these glaciers will result in many cities along these rivers to suffer from a lack of fresh water. Dams along these rivers that provide power to communities will cease to function consistently throughout the year. Not to mention the political (and probably military) strife that will result over lack of water resources and displaced people. We could wait for nature to react or we could try to do what we can to reduce the amount of change.
The main ways (and getting fastest results) that can alter this inevitability will be major volcanic activity or other natural catastrophies that will put dust/soot into the atmosphere (blocking out solar radiation), a drop in solar energy output, or a disruption of the ocean currents like the Gulf Stream (that help moderate and transfer heat around the globe) and cause a new ice age in Europe and spread. None of these are controlable by humans (unless your Dr. Evil).
Minor ways to change this (it will take longer to achieve results) is to reduce our emission of warming gases like CO2 (more efficency and more alternative energy sources), and find ways to reduce the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere (more plants). We could all try to do our part on an elective basis, but that has been the tactic for 20+ years, the CO2 has increased and warming has continued. If there could be a libertarian solution to a global issue like this (besides waiting until its so bad we are all forced by nature to react) I would like to hear it. Until then we will need the often wasteful forces of government along with the ineffective forces of business to work together to try to develop a solution while we still can maintain something that resembles our current climate.
CO2 is not the only warming gas. Methane is more altering than CO2, but unless you’re Fat Bastard, you are probably contributing less methane than CO2. We could reduce methane by doing a better job of feeding our animal food sources, or be really drastic and cut down on meat consumption.
If we do nothing we will still have a planet Earth, it just will look and behave differently than we are accustomed to. That’s not liberal it’s fact.

By: Steve in Los Angeles

Steve in Los Angeles — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:34:41 +0000

“plutocratic socialism”

The wealthy upper class– that class that actually owns a nation, in this case an empire– hiring the government, its treasury, and its military to protect and extend the wealth of the already wealthy upper class… would that be a lot like fascism?

By: Justin Raimondo | Antiwar Radio with Scott Horton and Charles Goyette

Justin Raimondo | Antiwar Radio with Scott Horton and Charles Goyette — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 23:06:15 +0000

[...] Listen to Radio Interview Here Share and Enjoy: [...]

By: David Spero

David Spero — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 21:15:22 +0000

“We can’t pay. We won’t pay” isn’t by the San Francisco Mime Troupe, as Justin said. It’s by Dario Fo, an Italian populist playwright. It’s pretty good stuff.

I wish he was right about global warming being a globalist plot. Unfortunately, it’s very real and would require changes at the personal, community, national and global levels to stop. Good luck with that,world. See this link
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/12/16-3

I appreciate what Justin said about the “It’s a crisis! We have to act now! No time to think!” strategies of the rulers. Actually, Naomi Klein laid that out completely in The Shock Doctrine.

But what I most wish is that people like J and S would get clear on the relationship between corporations and government. There’s no difference between “statist” approaches and corporatist approaches. Corporate capitalism has nothing to do with free markets or individual freedoms. Those are just slogans they use. Large corporations and the state are the same people – just different branches of the same organization. (Think tanks and much of academia are other branches). People move between branches all the time. We have to take them both on.

As Scott said, globalism is not really anything new. The U.S. military is already acting as the global military. Globalism would just be an attempt to get other countries’ taxpayers to share the costs. Americans don’t have to worry about losing our freedoms to global government. Our own government is taking them away plenty fast already.

But Justin is right that smaller is better. Maybe we need a Green / Libertarian alliance.