From: Erik Moeller (flagg@oberberg-online.de)
Date: Wed May 14 1997 - 15:48:55 MDT
Perry E. Metzger wrote:
(The terminology used in the subject tells more than the rest of this
mail.)
> > > > 1) Media propaganda.
> >
> > > WHose? The Cuban Government jams all US radio and television boradcasts,
> > > to the point of occasionally interfering in the southern Florida
> > > broadcast market area. Cubans get a banana version of the BBC: 3
> > > channels of government propaganda.
> >
> > I do not only see TV and radio as media, but also people. Trained
> > demagogues who are supposed to infiltrate Cuba.
> Well, you know, trained demagogues are out in force all over the world
> defending Cuba -- take you, for example. And yet, we don't see people
> fleeing the west for the socialist paradise.
Sure. I get money from these evil communists dwelling everywhere for
correcting gross mistakes made by Libertarians like you. The communist
world conspiracy is coming your way. Time to defend your property.
> > Such operations have always taken place, not only in Cuba, but in
> > other countries, too. When you see big demonstrations in the Tv,
> > like in Bosnia, Bulgaria etc., this can only be the effect of media
> > propaganda.
> You know, its amazing how close that assessment is to the one that
> Richard Nixon gave for anti-Vietnam war protests. "Outside
> Agitators". No one on their own could *possibly* dislike someone like
> Slobodan Milosovich -- after all, he's the friend of the workers,
> right?
Yes. The war in Bosnia was a product of western capitalist countries,
designed to change power structures in that region and to push arms
industry.
> I bet the wall fell in East Germany because of those darn trained
> "outside agitators" too, just like with the student protests in the
> '60s in the U.S.
The wall in Germany fell because of massive media propaganda. Kohl
himself admitted this afterwards and said it would not have been
possible without western media. Of course hundreds of thousands of
unemployed people in East Germany would prefer socialism now.
> > This little Cuba is, besides North Korea, one of the last socialist
> > regimes which doesn't privatize itself too much. The effects on the
> > people living there are bad, and maybe free markets would make the
> > standard of living better for many of them (making Cuba what it was
> > under Batista, the brothel and casino of the US)
> Yeah. Right now, its so much better with it being the brothel and
> casino of the European countries that send tourists.
That's simply not the case. Many tourists are disappointed after their
travel to Cuba because there was no single prostitute. Even in Havana
you will find hardly more prostitutes than in Berlin or Cologne.
> > -- but if Cuba was a free market country and isolated the way it is
> > now, you can be sure that it would be much worse there than in North
> > Korea.
> Dunno. South Africa managed to do pretty well even when it was under
> sanctions. Of course, Cuba isn't *really* isolated -- the government
> is free to buy anything it likes from Canada, Europe, and South
> America. Sanctions there are astoundingly porous -- Americans can even
> go there pretty freely if you travel through Mexico or Canada.
A good economy is not only characterized by its growth or size, but also
by the distribution of wealth and the inequality. That's what
Libertarians always forget. And that's why people like you might mean
the end of this planet.
> > When you claim that they spread propaganda, you must prove it. It has
> > been proven for US media millions of times (see media during Vietnam &
> > Gulf War, presidential elections etc.)
> Walter Cronkite's painful declaration on the evening news that the war
> in Vietnam wasn't a good thing must be a collective hallucination of
> the proletariat, eh?
I can't remember any politician who said that war is a good thing. Most
of them just said it was necessary. Words are just words, and deeds are
deeds. The US aggression against Vietnam and other communist countries
was simply wrong (although a war can never be justified).
> > And the media in the US aren't owned by gov't. Why do they support
> > it?
> Maybe they have this weird idea that its better to be in a free
> country where they can print what they like?
<very big evil grin>
Maybe you should ask the guys at a-albionic research how free western
media are.
> > I am no communist. I wouldn't want to live in Cuba, North Korea or even
> > China. I already said that my "dream-economy" is that of Japan,
> > partially because of state intervention, partially because of a kind of
> > "politics of consent".
> I see you know at least as much about Japan as you do about most other
> things.
You bore me. Your mental abilities seem to be limited to insults and
rant.
> > Big enterprise leaders there have realized that operating the way US
> > leaders do would lead their country back to the Middle Age.
> Strange that the U.S. isn't back in the middle ages. I guess we just
> have a shortage of cathedrals and hand illuminated manuscripts
> standing between us and economic chaos.
With 15 % poor people, low education standard, a rich power elite,
propaganda by TV religions and enterprise advertising, growing
inequality and a hardly existant welfare system, the US are one of the
saddest examples for free markets ins world history and will remind
anyone with a little bit of brain capacity of the Middle
Ages.
Erik Moeller
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:26 MST