Re: Why we must return to the land
- From: Petronius <standing@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 18:26:02 GMT
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 17:45:14 GMT, Stephen Horgan
<stephen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 14:09:04 GMT, John Gilbert
><john.gilbert2001@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 13:48:17 GMT, Stephen Horgan
>><stephen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 12:58:07 GMT, John GIlbert
>>><john.gilbert2001@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 22:24:36 GMT, Stephen Horgan
>>>><stephen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 19:31:12 +0100, Lieutenant Gruber <eins@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>We must return to the land, to a less materialistic, more rural, way
>>>>>>of living, because only such a way of living with its close and
>>>>>>intimate contact with Nature and with its often hard manual work
>>>>>>enables us to live in an authentic and human way.
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope, it condemns you to a short life
>>>>
>>>>Not so.
>>>>
>>>Live expectancy in the UK is currently the highest it has ever been.
>>>It is also vastly higher than any of the predominantly agrarian
>>>societies worldwide.
>>
>>Again, you don't seem to appreciate that self-sufficiency or
>>rediscovering our love for the soil and the countryside does not mean
>>that we have to abandon all our advances in technology.
>>I might also add that we are not in the third world as are so many
>>agrarian societies.
>>
>If everyone is working on the land then who is there to maintain our
>technological infrastructure? You do know that Britain has been unable
>to grow enough food to feed its own population since the end of the
>19th century by the way. Of course intensive modern farming might help
>there, but that is an industrial low-manpower process.
>
>>>>>of back-breaking labour with the
>>>>>option of dying even earlier of starvation or disease. Modern life may
>>>>>have its faults but it does include more food than you can eat,
>>>>
>>>>Which is an unsustainable state of affairs and is indeed the cause of
>>>>many health problems, among them heart disease, obesity and goodness
>>>>knows how many types of cancer.
>>>>
>>>The alternative of going hungry and dying well before cancer or heart
>>>disease could develop is still rather less preferable.
>>
>>The idea that we could 'go hungry' is utterly ridiculous, only someone
>>with a personal 'interest' in tying us to a sedentary 'convenience'
>>and 'consumerist' society would ever spout such blatant lying
>>propaganda.
>>
>If we went from our current high-technology farming and the
>importation of foodstuffs to some sort of medieval high-manpower
>agriculture it is a certainty that food output would fall. Mugabe did
>much the same thing. His people 'went back to the land', displacing a
>modern industry with a rural idyll. They are starving in Zimbabwe.
As John said, we are not part of the turd world.
>>>>>decent
>>>>>medical care and time to do things other than grubbing in the dirt.
>>>>>Humanity's path is onward and upward, not backwards into a muddy
>>>>>ditch.
>>>>
>>>>Not so. Humanity's path must surely be to rediscover our reliance on
>>>>the soil whilst combining that with today's medicinal and
>>>>technological advances. You appear to be trying to tell us that
>>>>returning to the land requires us all to revert to the stone age.
>>>>
>>>Today's medicinal and technological advances are a function of the way
>>>our society is organised. For example, scientific advance did not
>>>really start in the west until the move from the countryside to the
>>>cities had begun in earnest. A mass return to the soil would lead to a
>>>collapse in science, technology and manufacturing. It also wouldn't
>>>support our population in terms of feeding them never mind anything
>>>else. It would also have to be done at gunpoint. I can only think of
>>>two societies that have tried this, in Cambodia under Pol Pot and in
>>>Afghanistan under the Taliban. Both were total disasters and both
>>>proved incapable of defending themselves from outside intervention.
>>>Effective military forces, and health and social care, need a modern
>>>technological base, not a high regard for rural craftsmanship.
>>
>>Yes, I think you've adequately revealed your 'agenda' eith the above.
>>The fact is that the jew is a creature of the city, he feels
>>uncomfortable and powerless in a rural environment due to the sparsity
>>of population.
>>The Jew has few opportunities there to lend money, sell junk and
>>otherwise predate upon the goyim, that is why the jews will always
>>resist calls for greater self-sufficiency for the host population with
>>all their might.
>>
>What is this drivel? I have never understood this mad obsession with
>the Jews from the far right. That theme might have had some traction
>in prewar central and eastern Europe but it never got anywhere in
>Britain then and now it's just ridiculous. That you are a racist
>doesn't mean that your plans are any less flawed and your inability to
>defend them is telling.
Since you are a Jew yourself, we can safely ignore this rant of yours.
"It is fear that first brought gods into the world."
.
- References:
- Why we must return to the land
- From: Lieutenant Gruber
- Why we must return to the land
- Prev by Date: Re: ALL WHO CONDEMN JEWS.
- Next by Date: Re: REPOST..... Iran and Hezbollah
- Previous by thread: Re: Why we must return to the land
- Next by thread: The problems of the West
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
