Why Capitalism Evolves Into Marxist Dialectical Materialism

Why Capitalism Evolves Into Marxist Dialectical Materialism

A video on Gary C. Gibson's theory of why global capitalism concentrating wealth and power evolves into becoming Marx's dialectical material solution for global corporate/communist totalitarianism naturally.

Plastic Haiti; Floating Banks and Continents

The way the islands roll and tear the time
of plastic crust and contents of prayer
brings collision and crashes to trash the tapes
--measures of articles and moments without faith

For what else runs with the media of dread
and locks of hair arise with the dead
planets theories of abandoning lunar scapes
when progress of wind socks run far abroad

Faster Earthquakes restructure each shaken plastic fury
slower progress and geodesics lines plastered walls down
for all to their dream of pain and networks
bodies broken and government artfully buries the past

With remainders for the revisions unsaid
vectoring another way outward bound to 2050
with new dawns profitable and tomorrows gathered
shapes of response fade with three billion ahead

Those profits of structure that slough rising into being
artfully imply the usual way no one knows
screened from seeing the real world
it is the reduction of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem
confined to constructing knols
with cream puffs at Davos.

Obama Budget: Create Jobs for Taliban/Ax N.A.S.A. Moon Settlement?

President Obama rightly should invest in space science while cutting the military budget and Afghanistan expenses so far as needed. A few Air Force pilots can be shifted to fly for N.A.S.A. The post-shuttle lunar exploration and habitation mission should be fully funded if the non-A Team in government can get away from the blood investments abroad a little.

The moon is a place where an advanced space outpost can be innovated with a policy of frontier cache drops in a variety of innovative missions. A lunar campus should be an ongoing N.A.S.A. mission in order to construct a low-temperature super-conductor hydroponic research facility and high frontier post for travel beyond. For some reason the Federal government excels at throwing money away so the end result is nothing real. A lunar colony should at least outlast the nuclear plant melt-down pollutions and dysfunctional trade and energy policies.

The Obama administration and General McCrystal seem to want to have President Karzai of Afghanistan hire Taliban to decrease antipathy between beligerants while possibly cutting the N.A.S.A. budget. Fundamentally, in the big picture, the Taliban seem to have the advantage in that prioritization rather than the people of the United States.

Most people believe that Al Qaeda attacks on America must go through just one layer of Federal defense to make successful attacks. Good flight screening into the U.S.A. would have kept out the underpants suicide bomber, besides which as a former Muslim Student Association University president in London he should have been on some kind of federal no-fly list permanently without special underpants sniffing dogs giving him the once over before flight.

Many people believe that Al Qaeda attacks just need to be the federal governments defensive line to have free roaming into the homeland secondary and that perhaps the rich just don't give a darn but just want to spend money--lots of it. The federal Mexican border defense is never better comparatively than the worst N.F.L. defensive line out there.

N.A.S.A. investments are for science, give intelligent people jobs and is a lot better place to borrow money from the Chinese from so the federal government can spend it and the people can repay the principle and taxes for the interest. Chinese engineers will steal the data anyway, yet in Afghanistan just giving jobs to the Taliban so they can merge with the Karzai administration, warlords and poppy growers returns nothing. The counter-terrorist mission in Iraq requires that the people own the oil in an issue of private shares per citizen, while in Iraq the U.S.A. needs to build new hydroponic and moisture capture technology, irrigation canals and so forth--perhaps sealed.

The foreign war in the third world budget of the U.S.A. could be cut with more innovative leadership rater than through just buying allegiance for a while--although bribery is the logical federal way. When the creative majority becomes a decadent, repressive minority it does not follow that the post-majority era will usher in intelligent reforms. The Obama administration must do much better than the Bush II administration at building up N.A.S.A., space science and a functional way for the future to merge into an intelligent direction rather than a retarded, deadly dimension of draught, dust, death, wars, famine and pervasive and a heritage of mass social desperation because of cutting the scientific research and development budget. Wars engender more wars while science produces more science. One can know what kind of a tree something is by the fruit it produces obviously. The investment in N.A.S.A. has a far better social return than does dubiously enacted policies of defending against foreign terrorism.

The U.S. counter-terrorism mission seems to get less out of its substantial budget than should be the case. Better, more intelligent paradigms for defense against terrorism have been mentioned--conventional military engagements do little to keep terrorist off scheduled flights to the U.S. Terrorists don't actually need substantial terrorist training bases or numbers abroad to send occasional infiltrators with weapons into Arizona, Texas or Nome quite possibly. The spook show and a better screening method for all foreign arrivals is perhaps a better approach than war on the century old Taliban organization phenomena in the Tribal area of Pakistan.

By flunking N.A.S.A. and U.S. investment in scientific research and applications of technology the administration and the Congress accomplish Al Qaeda'a mission of inflicting financial damage upon the United States. The U.S. Government can become the worst financial enemy of the people of the United States if they are perennially daft.

Obama's 'Jobless Economic Recovery' Program At Least Creates Jobs for Taliban/edited version of prior post

The prior post on the don't ask don't tell' policy I wrote required some changes so I just made a new one instead of replacing the prior version that still exists...

Will President Obama's plan to end 'don't ask, don't tell' in the U.S. military lead to the establishment of gay NCO Clubs in Afghanistan and Iraq? Will own-gender sex oriented soldiers demand equal military housing as good as that of married hetero families while strait single soldiers get small shared rooms and barracks?

President Obama said that he would be strict with President Karzai such that corruption would be chastised. That’s a good policy that has coincided with the economic recovery program in the United States. President Obama and general McCrystal have created a jobs for Taliban program in Afghanistan that will erode the ‘jobless recovery phenomena’ in the United States through reverse osmosis.

I mean to examine this issue respectfully and with sensitivity in order that my internet account won't be deleted. On many web sites anything politically offensive will be deleted--and the homos find the abbreviation of the lengthier term to be offensive. The issue is serious for the United States and may cost the President control of Congress in November 2010. There are those that would censor free speech on the topic for technical reasons--the Roemer homosexual leadership of Hitler's Storm Troopers was equally vigorous in securing the deletion of opposition to Nazi rhetoric. I do not consider the President a Nazi nor perhaps his militant gay-rights advocates that write on occasion of their hate of heterosexuals. The Roman Republic and Empire experienced equal or worse challenges of depravities in the leadership policy of their day--narrow is the gate that leads to political salvation and few there are that stay on the straight and narrow.

President Obama could use some education on the difference between civil rights and civil wrongs so far as his State of the Union speech goes. His intention to seek the repeal of the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy in the military is simply wrong-headed. Never having served in the military he evidently has no concern about the value of peace and harmony amidst ranks. No heterosexual soldier needs to have his tranquility disturbed in any way by brothers in arms who are homos and proud of it. It is sufficient to be a soldier without raising the point that anyone has a cannibal-like sexual attitude in sexual appetites. The enemy is supposed to be over the horizon rather than in the next foxhole; soldiers need to be concerned with the conduct of the enemy rather than of themselves. They must be free from superfluous myopia and have the ability to discern adverse movement upon the horizon or even close in. Existentially, mortal threats need to be reduced rather than increased. Some do not comprehend why people are foes of sin rather than lovers of it.

The President spent about 20 minutes in a kind of coming-out State of the Union speech to let us know the he has much sympathy for own-gender-for-sex-preferring soldiers that must repress their love for fellow soldiers or at least their preference for sex with their own genre, from fellow soldiers. Yet that is the point of don't ask, don't tell' and don't make the homo issue a sort of ponderous, needless hell; for no one is to be concerned about homosexual activity while in the military. In theory soldiers should be as devoted as monks to their celibate duty of killing or capturing the enemy. Some fall short of the perfection of celibacy in service I suppose, yet they are not given commendations for that.

The majority of Americans are not homosexual; President Obama in defending civil rights of own-gender-for-sex preferers simultaneously inflicts civil wrong upon the strait majority that must shower sleep, breakfast and perhaps fight amongst all in uniform and should be free of infrastructure same-sex issues.

A U.S. military all gayed up will not be one with increasing social stability. One considers the situation of butch sergeants with young recruits and the potential problems fraternization could create.

President Obama may want next to liberate women for embedding with male soldiers completely to prevent their inferior status of female segregation from male soldiers and to reduce discretionary spending on segregated showers for men and women. Soldiers can be trusted to maintain military respect for their showering brothers and sisters of the opposite sex at all times.

The most irritating aspect of the Presidential coming-out policy is that no one really cares if a soldier is a pervert on his or her own time if they aren't breaking any federal, state or local laws. The military is sworn to defend the U.S. Constitution and obey their officers (even if the officers are secretly homosexuals eyeballing them with admiration and ideas), yet the military itself is supposed to be an ineffable arm of political power through other means designed to fell evil oppressors of human liberty. Individual citizen-soldiers have as much right to be free from the gleaming, bloodshot eyes of lecherous perverts in uniform gazing upon the ranks as a kind of Playgirl utopia as the aforementioned own-gender sex preferers have to co-mingle under their own flag with those of other-gender opinion. 

Heterosexuals naturally find it offensive to allow homosexuals close in, while homosexuals consider it hate, sometimes, to keep them at arms length with words and fists or whatever else is necessary. That military isn't designed to be a home for lovers, but a phenomenal tool of victory over evil. Soldiers could be given extra rations of Saltpeter, or have some sort of chemical castration while they wear the uniform so no one need be concerned about horny soldiers of superior rank leveraging inferior ranking soldiers. The prospect of a butch non-commissioned officer cadre is not very appealing to parents of young potential recruits I would guess--President Obama seems to want to break something that presently is not wrong with the military.

The cost to the taxpayers to get a soldier to enlist for duty in Afghanistan or Iraq already is about $25,000 for a private E-1. If strait youth are required to serve with the gay and proud crowd it is possible their numbers will decrease and the costs for filling enlistment quotas will rise--or at least not drop in the post-war draw down. I will definitely not recommend that anyone enlist in the U.S. military. After the issue is concluded those thinking of signing on will have a better idea if the Navy will be a gay butch love boat or not. It would be better if the President spent time on learning about ecological economics from the Daly/Farley textbook so he actually would have a clue what zero-growth economics is.

Probably the negative PR value of making the U.S. military a reputedly homosexual, butch aggressor force will bring more Al Qa'eda Muslims to be inspired to join the offensive Many Americans will not like the concept of a butch military oppressor force reinforcing homosexual elite globalists running the U.S. Government into debt and wage slavery, if that's the way it is.

State of the Union 2010: Civil Rights/Civil Wrongs--U.S. Military NCO Gay Bars in Iraq?

Will President Obama's plan to end 'don't ask, don't tell' in the U.S. military lead to the establishment of gay NCO Clubs in Afghanistan and Iraq?

I mean to examine this issue respectfully and with sensitivity in order that my account won't be deleted. Though the issue is serious for the United States and may cost the President control of Congress in November 2010 there are those that would censor free speech on the topic for technical reasons--the Roemer homosexual leadership of Hitler's Storm Troopers were equally vigorous in securing the deletion of opposition to Nazi rhetoric. I do not consider the President a Nazi nor perhaps his militant gay rights advocates that right on occasion that they hate heterosexuals. The Roman Republic and Empire experienced challenges and depravities in their leadership policy in their day--narrow is the gate that leads to political salvation and few there be that stay on the straight and narrow.

President Obama could use some education on the difference between civil rights and civil wrongs so far as his State of the Union speech goes. His intention to seek the repeal of the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy in the millitary is simply wrong-headed; never having served in the military he evidently has no concern about the value of peace and harmony amidst the ranks. No heterosexual soldier needs to have his tranquility disturbed in any way by brothers in arms who are homos and proud of it. It is sufficient to be a soldier without raising the point that anyone has a cannibal-like sexual attitude in sexual appetites. The enemy is supposed to be over the horizon rather than in the next foxhole; soldiers need to be concerned with the conduct of the enemy rather than of themselves. They must be free from superfluous myopia and have the ability to discern adverse movement upon the horizon or even close in. Existentially, mortal threats need to be reduced rather than increased.

The President spent about 20 minutes in a kind of coming out State of the Union speech to let us know the he has much sympathy for homosexual soldiers that must repress their love for fellow soldiers or at least their own genre, from fellow soldiers. Yet that is the point of don't ask, don't tell' and don't make the homo issue some really kind of ponderous, needless hell; for no one is to be concerned about homosexual activity while in the military. In theory soldiers should be as devoted as monks to their celibate duty to kill and capture the enemy. Some fall short of the perfection of celibacy in service I suppose, yet they are not given commendations for that.

The majority of Americans are not homosexual; simultaneously inflicts a civil wrong upon the majority that must shower and sleep, breakfast and fight perhaps amongst all in uniform. A U.S. military all gayed up will not be one with a decrease of bizarre and trust issues. One shudders to consider the problem of butch sergeants with young recruits and the potential problems fraternization could create. Some with grenades might want to just pull the pin and hand it personally to their oppresors--and Muslim radicals might wish to jihad upon their homosexual company commander if the Army can even get Muslim radicals to enlist if President Obama defends their civil rights to do so well enough.

President Obama may want next to liberate women from embedding with soldiers completely to prevent the inferior status of female segregation from male soldiers and to reduce discretionary spending on segregated showers for men and women. Soldiers can be trusted to maintain military respect for their showering brothers and sisters of the opposite sex at all times.

The most irritating aspect of the President coming out policy is that no one really cares as it is if a soldier is a pervert on his or her own time if they aren't breaking any laws. The military is sworn to defend the U.S. Constitution, yet the military itself is supposed to be an ineffable arm of political power through other means designed to fell the evil oppressors of human liberty. Individual citizens has as much right to be free from the gleaming, bloodshot eyes of lecherous perverts in uniform gazing upon the ranks as a kind of Playgirl heaven utopia.

Heterosexuals naturally find it offensive to allow homosexuals close in, while homosexuals consider it hate, too often, to keep them at arms length with words and fists or whatever else is necessary. That military isn't designed to be a home for lovers, but a phenomenal tool of victory over evil. Soldiers could be given extra rations of Saltpeter, or have some sort of chemical castration while they were the uniform so no one need be concerned about horny soldiers of superior rank leveraging inferior ranking soldiers. The prospect of a butch non-commissioned officer cadre is not very appealing to parents of young potential recruits I would guess--President Obama seem to want to break something that is not wrong with the military presently for some reason.

The cost to the taxpayers to get a soldier to enlist for duty in Afghanistan or Iraq already is about $25,000 for a private E-1. If strait youth are required to serve with the gay and proud crown it is possible their numbers will decrease and the costs for filling enlistment quotas will rise--or at least not drop in the post-war draw down. I will definitely not recommend that anyone enlist in the U.S. military. After the issue is concluded those thinking of signing on will have a better idea if the Navy will be a gay butch hang-out or not. It would be better if the President spent time on learning about ecological economics from the Daly/Farley textbook so he actually would have a clue what zero-growth economics is.

Probably the negative PR value of making the U.S. military a reputedly homosexual, butch aggressor force will bring more Al Qa'eda muslims to be inspired to join the resistance. Probably Americans themselves will not like the concept of a butch military oppressor force reinforcing homosexual elite globalists running the U.S. Government into debt and wage slavery, if that's the way it is.

Did Pukka Sahibs of Jurisprudence Consider Homosexual Marriage Laws May Annul Prior Hetero Marriage Contracts?

The movement by homosexual elites to terminate marriage as a heterosexual contract in California and a handful of other states may have the unintended consequence of providing a legal basis for the annulment of all prior heterosexual marriages. When a contract is changed post hoc by one party the contract is broken or in default. When state governments change the definition of marriage from a heterosexual to a bisexual paradigm it implicitly corrupts and breaks the nature of the contract into which the people had been joined in matrimony. For there are many people that would not sign in to a bi-sexual paradigm for marriage.

With homocoupling marriages the institution of marriage changes from the historically heterosexual to the nuevo bisexual union. With divorces gay and hetero marriages will co-join serially transforming marriage into a functionally bisexual criterion that people have already opted out of it several nations after such a change. The least many married people will expect is that marriages before the change be given annulments or different designations as hetero-era marriages to differentiate them from the bi-sexual era marriage paradigm. People may want to know if one has opted into a bi-marriage era paradigm explicitly. Even with a transexualization evolution of the definition of marriage there will be many that would disagree politically with the change and those that support the break with the existing contractual parameters.

The Middle Class Is Obama's Core Support To Lose

President Obama will give his state of the Union address soon and is said to be prepared to provide trinkets to the middle class in order to persuade that largest group of voters that things are getting better. For those of us who are poor and out of work that is a non sequiter, yet it does provide the opportunity to comment upon why things are not getting better except the propaganda.

Fundamentally the rich have decided that their best future investment is in the populous nations abroad with more consumers and producers in China, India and elsewhere. Americans should just be pacified consumers in a tranquil herd purchasing imported products and working in financial relocated services, government and health industries that are not materially productive. The largest private employer in Texas is the restaurant 'industry' that produces something less than durable goods.

The United States after the cold war found itself in a global environment in which the corporate world could set about cherry picking to increase its wealth. The White House and Congress have not helped at all or even recognized the phenomena of corporatism that concentrates wealth and erodes national human development.

In Alaska the Governor's recent state of the Union address made it seem as if he had never read an Alaska history book--Mr. Parnell is unaware that the state got all of its land as a donation from the Federal Government, and the Federal Government has been the largest investor in the state since the Matanuska Colony of the 1930's. The Governor believes foreign oil corporations are like local small businesses and the federal government stands in their way of development by slowing offshore and onshore despoliation of natural resource extraction and pollution.

http://www.akhistorycourse.org/articles/article.php?artID=137

In 2006 more than 9 billion dollars were spent by the federal government in the state of Alaska according to one report.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2008-10-09-3142179466_x.htm

Alaska's state government is bought and paid for by big oil of course--global oil, and the lithium gap for electric vehicle batteries means that the Argentine's have cornered the world market leaving us to pursue hydrogen fuel cells or some other electric energy technology with a more renewable energy criteria--the President needs to get hot on that.

Some Alaskans may believe that the state capital should be moved to the city of Tok in order that they might arrive more quickly at Beaver Creek--it's mid-way between the inside passage hang out of whales and the fierce whale hunters of the North slope locale. Some say that Tok is too cold for an Alaskan State capital yet obviously with enough Arctic Sea oil spills, pollution of the air and chemical corrupting of the environment global warming will raise the temperatures warm enough to suit state bureaucrats.

It is my hope that President Obama is not so unaware of U.S. and current history that he fails to recognize the need for the U.S. Government to regulate the maximum size of corporations in order to prevent a de facto corporatist network state of totalitarian influence and the transition of the United States into a kind of pacified India-like colony of globalists with a more passive, tranquil attitude toward their iron law of wages 'natural rulers'. A Russian Imperial style 'table of ranks' will allow each worker to know their appropriate place in corporate and government worlds--and all will have the right to watch T.V.