It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Environmentalism is the new Socialism

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Hey all, well I have been doing a lot of reading lately and I have come to the conclusion that environmentalism is, in a sense, the new socialism that is on the rise.

As most educated people know, socialism does not work. It is responsible for the tremendous size and the ineptness of the U.S. government, it was government control of the money supply that led to the Great Depression, and every major mass-murderer of the 20th century came from socialism: Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao Zedong, Kim Il Jong, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Mihn, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, etc...the only places where Marxism is still considered are in third world countries, Western universities, and certain people in American government.

Unfortunately for them, despite that they refuse to accept that socialism just doesn't work, the vast number of people the world over acknowledge that is doesn't, so, in order for them to gain power and to enact socialist policies, and hopefully to lead to their "One World Government," as they want, they must figure out a way to bring socialism back.

How? Well, the only way to do something like this would be to make the public think it is necessary to hand the government the power to enact socialist policies. How does one do this? Through fear.

Enter environmentalism. Environmentalism is a religion for many; it is simply the religion for the "non-religious" people; most people who are environmentalists are not religious in the traditional sense. Thus, without realizing it, environmentalism rises up to take conventional religion's place.

Environmentalism in a sense really is a traditional religion; it is almost an exact copy of Christianity. You have the time of peace and harmony, akin to Adam and Eve, when humans lived in harmony with nature, running aorund naked and eating fruits (this is a fantasy), there is the eating of the fruit, which in environmentalism is when humans started manipulating nature for their own benefit and developing technology, and of course there is the coming "judgement day," in which all humans will die from an ice age, floods, hurricanes, etc...yada yada from our sins against the Earth, akin to conventional religion's doomsday scenarios, like Christianity's Revelations.

Now note, not all people who care about the environment are hard environmentalists and not all people who believe global warming is a problem hate industry, but many do, and those that do are in positions of power.

Environmentalism in general abhors industry and technology and civilization. To an environmentalist, industry is the enemy.

Unfortunately, many environmental organizations exist that are essentially useless but are very powerful and they will do anything in their power to remain in power.

What is the rampant fearmongering from environmentalism nowadays? Global Warming. Now, the problem with global warming is two-fold: for one, environmental science is not double-blind, meaning the experiments are not conducted in a manner that prevents bias. In double-blind experiments, one group biased one way conducts an experiment and is supposed to remain unbiased, but then another group, biased the other way, is also given the experiment to conduct, and try to remain unbiased. Neither group is told of the other one's performing the research. Then the results from both groups are given to a group of people consisting of experts from both viewpoints who review the data and come to a conclusion.

This is not standard practice in environmental science, thus resulting in heavily biased research from both oil companies and environmental organizations.

Thus, one cannot trust the information of global warming proponents and skeptics, especially since there are big groups interested in both ways (environmental organizations who want to remain in power and oil companies).

The other thing with global warming, which I think is a big one, is that the tactics many are calling for to stop global warming, WILL NOT WORK.

Enter the socialistc connection. To an environmentalist, the only way to stop global warming is to hamstring industry; to introduce government regulation to reduce carbon emissions.

The thing that is neat is, many socialists and environmentalists are very connected, especially in government. Most Democrats believe global warming is a big threat, and Democrats tend to be environmentalists and socialists oftentimes. However, as of late, many Republicans believe it is a threat, as well.

The thing is, REGARDLESS of whether global warming is a problem or whether it is bogus, or whther it is happening but will help humanity, ONE CANNOT SOLVE IT THROUGH GOVERNMENT REGULATION. This was witnessed with the Soviet Union.

No other great industrial nation such as the Soviet Union, so claimed to care about its environment and the care of its people, and to have failed so miserably at it, then the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was a socilialist nation. All their industry was highly regulated by the government.

Which should mean that all politicians claiming that Washington should introduce government regulation to cap greenhouse gas emissions in industry are, essentially, dead wrong.

The way to solve this problem would be to free up the energy industry---in other words, to give capitalism and industry the freedom that environmentalists so hate with a passion.

Thus, this will not happen. The other reason is because many socialists see environmentalism as the way to instill fear into the public to get them to introduce government regulation to control industry, and in the long run introduce new laws that can create more control in society and give more power to the government.

We can see this with Al Gore and the rampant fearmongering in the media regarding global warming.

None of these people can acknowledge the fact that if global warming is a problem, the solution is not at all to hamstring industry, that such a thing will fail. The solution is to benefit the very thing they hate, capitalism and industry, so that it can adapt.

So why, if global warming is real (which I doubt it is, but let's say it is real and is a problem), do they suggest a method that will not work to solve it?

Because they want to bring about a socialist government and then lead to the NWO, in their fantasies.

cont'd




posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 09:05 PM
link   
It is through fear from global warming that these people can get the American people to hand over their freedoms to the government, allowing them to regulate industry. Unfortunately, not only will this not work the way they think it would (or claim it would), but it would stop civilization in its tracks in terms of advancement and would hamstring the economy.

It is the nature of civlization to advance; civilization advances through industry. It is impossible for it to advance withotu industry. In order for civilization to adapt to global warming, if it is a problem, industry must be strong so as to develop new technologies to reduce carbon emissions.

In a worst-case scenario, we would see a possible proposal to amend the Constitution to help the Earth.

This rampant fearmongering regarding global warming is at an all-time high because people are so skeptical of it, and because they are, the proponents of it are having a hard time recruiting the people they need to get such regulation passed in the long run, to give them more power.

If government really knew what it was talking about, however, it would not listen to the environmentalists who wanted to sign Kyoto or who want to hamstring industry, but rather would do the exact opposite and free up industry, which would lead to more technology to adapt to carbon emissions.

Regulation as it is prevents this: for example, it takes ten years to build a nuclear reactor. Why? Not because of the complexity of a reactor, but because of the regulation involved.

We can also see this in the difference between the U.S. and the Soviet Union and Communist China. The U.S. did not proclaim to care near as much about the environment as the Soviets did, but yet has taken far better care of the environment than the Soviets.

Environmentalists will say the U.S. is the largest outputter of CO2 worldwide. That is true. But what how the U.S. has taken far better care of its environment than nations such as the Soviet Union and China. The U.S. remains as one of the world leaders, if not the world leader, in developing and implementing new technolgoies to keep industry clean.

So what allows all of this? Capitalism. Why? Because it is the nature of capitalism that, in the long run, the market will stop industry from polluting, which is has.

Environmetnalists HATE this idea because they abhor industry and they abhor civilization, thus their solution is to destroy industry, not to promote it.

And socialists see this rampant belief that many people have as a way to gain power.

As such, we are seeing rampant fearmongering these days with regards to global warming, and we are seeing many pushes for government regulation in industry (soemthing that will not work, and that the government should have NO RIGHT whatsoever to do).

The only reason for this is because environmentalism is a way for socialism to rise back up. Many of the people involved in all this are hard believers in socialism and dream of a large, socialist, one-world government some day.

Why they believe this would work is beyond me, but many do, and we are seeing the rise of it through environmentalism, should environmentalism succeed in getting government regulation passed into our industry.

It almost happened with the Kyoto Protocol, but luckily Bush shot it down.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Very strong and valid points there. Wholly agree with it. I have recently talked among circles and believe that the "Green House Gas Emissions" will be allocated per country and they must not exceed their quota.. This is another bargaining tool to be used from country to country. Also sounds like another good reason for the US to cease trade agreements with China or to restrict their portion of emission to increase America's Industry Production. I think Australia will sell some of theirs to china. i am fearful of Australia and the US future together to be honest.
Hence, This is a tid bit of evidence that suggests your thoughts on Environmentalism are another control mechanism.. Replacing socialism or industrialisation. or both even
Great read. Thanks



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Bullhooey loose runny stinky bullhooey the whole damned post. You are merely projecting your fantasies onto environmentalists. There is not a valid argument in the whole thing.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by grover
Bullhooey loose runny stinky bullhooey the whole damned post. You are merely projecting your fantasies onto environmentalists. There is not a valid argument in the whole thing.

Did you have something valid you wanted to say? I am sure we would like to hear it



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 09:24 PM
link   
What part is a fantasy? I admit I did get a bit wordy there, maybe repeating myself in some areas, but my main point is that whether global warming is real or not, we should leave industry alone and leave it to handle the problem and it will get handled as problems from GW occur.

Giving up freedoms for government regulation, when we have 100 years of very documented proof that government regulation never works the way it should, is stupid.

The only reason environmentalists promote government regulation is because they abhor industry, so they refuse to believe that capitalism is the answer to their problems. If given the choice of civilization advancing AND environmental problems being solved, OR destroying industry, they choose the latter.

As for socialists, they see it as a way to gain power, because socialism can be hidden under the guise of "protecting our planet."

So technically all this fearmongering over what to do about global warming is, for the most part, POINTLESS. The only thing we can do is give industry the strength to develop new technology and adapt.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 09:40 PM
link   
First off socialism to one degree or the other has worked... look at the Scandinavian countries for a good example of a socialism that does. Hitler and the Nazi's despite the word socialist in their name were capitalists and there was nothing socialist about their economies... Same is true of Mussolini, indeed he is the one who described fascism as the marriage of corporation and state. It was no control of the money supply that led to the great depression, look it up. As for mass murderers Lenin, Stalin and Mao were Marxists. Most of the ideas behind western forms of socialism were rooted in Marx yes, but were primarily developed by the Fabian Society in Great Britain at the end of the 19th and early 20th centuries and later evolved into the labor party. Saddam Hussein was no socialist either. get your facts straight.

There are no such fantasies in the environmental movement that i know of. Environmentalist come in all stripes, including conservative ones and Christians, it is no religion though there are loons and extremists in every group. The key thing is concern for the environment. Environmentalist do not hate industry, rampant polluters yes, but not industry in general. We feel that you can have industry and environmental regulations... you want to see what being allowed to do what you want looks like go into southern West Virginia and look at those mountains whose tops have been sheered off to get at the coal and look at all the pollution caused as a result and the drop in the quality of life for the natives around there. It is really bad. Or that town in Wyoming that has a strip mine pit that has been filled in with ground water and that water, thanks to the acids used in the process is so acidic birds that land in it die. Lovely place to live. That is the type of industry we environmentalists are opposed to. We do not abhor technology or civilization. Give me a bloody break. Who told you that Rush Limbraugh?

Your post is so full of ignorant statements it simply is not funny. You go believe whatever your little mind wants.



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   
The Great Depression was caused by the fault of the Federal Reserve, a government agency to regulate the control of the money supply.

And no you cannot have government regulation and industry, that is a myth. Many people believe capitalism overall, with some gov't regulation, is the way to do it, but this is a myth.

For example, it is a myth that it was because of government regulation that the working conditions for the laborers in industry improved. It is also a myth that the conditions for foods and drugs were cleaned up because of regulation.

You create government regulation and you mess up the industry's ability to adapt. Of course I am against the mountains being messed up to dig for coal, but don't you wonder why they continue to use these methods instead of developing new ones? It's because it is so highly regulated, the industry cannot adapt. It is stuck using the same methods over and over again.

And yes I am fully aware that not all people who care about the environment are wackjobs, but the ones in power are.

And no socialism does not work, and your definition of fascism is wrong. Fascism is socialism with rampant nationalism. Hitler, the Nazis, and Mussolini were the FARTHEST thing from capitalists. Capitalism believes in the rights of the individual, the free market. In capitalism, the ONLY thing the government is to do is to handle international affairs and to make sure everyone has equal opportunity to make something of themselves. Otherwise, everything else is left up to the market.

Socialism is the opposite. Socialism believes in everyone being equal in the end, not in everyone starting out equal and it being up to the individual to make something of themselves in the end. Socialism believes in the state's rights.

What do you think "Nazi" stood for? It's German for "National Socialist." And Germany was socialist. There was no private industry. Wages, prices, employment, careers, etc...were all controlled strictly by the State, in a very organized fashion. And yes, Saddam was a Socialist as well.

Ordinary socialism believes in the government providing for everyone, but it doesn't believe in rampant nationalism.

For example, an American fascist would believe in American glory, the glory of the American empire, the great military strength of the American Empire, etc...America must be strong, all weak countries conquered, etc...but then they also believe in the rights of the State controlling the economy.

Standard socialists don't have any nationalism to them; they view patriotic people as brainwashed, oftentimes, and believe in the global government stuff.

And no, socialism does not work. In the areas it is used, if it works, it does not work nearly as well as a capitalist system would. Look at Britain and Canada. Because Britain became socialist, their economy has had stagnant growth compared to what it had when it was capitalist. Yes, it "works," but not near what it would if it was capitalist. Britain originally became socialist because of the belief that capitalism was making certain people rich, and others poor, so socialism was introduced, so the government could make it equal for everyone.

Did it work? Nope. Instead, it just took the money from the people who had worked hard to become wealthy and gave it to the new government leaders. It took lots of money from one group and handed it to another. The ordinary folk didn't get one thing.

Look at Central America. The capitalist nations, these are the ones becoming far wealthier. Cuba had a very good economy until Fidel Castro nationalized it.

And the world over, capitalist nations are the ones that enjoy the highest standard of living.

Look at China. It's economy is radically improving, thanks to capitalism.


[edit on 9-2-2007 by WheelsRCool]



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 10:17 PM
link   

You have voted grover for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


Well said Grover. People should really learn about what it is their arguing against, then the lies and myths would maybe stop being spread by ignorance.

What's so great about capitalism?....Wars, poverty, inequality, starving millions, slaving billions, no liberty, stifling of human creativity, dirty nasty cities, overpriced necessities, freedom for the few, slave wages for the many, homelessness... Yeah gotta love it...


But I guess that's all just due to Human nature, eh?



posted on Feb, 8 2007 @ 10:28 PM
link   
You really need to read up on such things. If you knew what you were saying, you'd know capitalism allows full freedom and creativity. Of course it has inequality. That's the point. That everyone have an equal opportunity to make something of themselves, instead of everyone just being given equal this and that (in plain words, lazy bums then living off the State).

Capitalism gives equality of opportunity. Socialism tries to give equality of outcome, which doesn't work. Never has, never will. There is no incentive to work hard, which causes the economy to fail. If you work your butt off and will still get the exact same amount as the guy who doesn't work hard at all, why work hard then? Remember, "the society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. But the society that puts freedom before equality will enjoy a great degree of both" --- Milton Friedman.

And no liberty? How so? Capitalism prevents large government. It is a FACT that one cannot have political freedom without economic freedom. The less economic freedom, the closer you get to a police state. The more economic freedom, the less powerful the government is.

Overpriced necessities? You do realize it is government regulation that causes inflation and overprices things? Whe Mussolini was in power, his fascist Italy experienced enormous inflation. It is the fault of the United States government that America continues to experience inflation.

Starving millions? So that is why a capitalist nation, like the United States, is able to employ a tiny percentage of its population to farming, yet can feed the world, yet a socialist nation like the Soviet Union, could employ a large portion of its population to farming, and still have people starve.

People starved in socialist China to.

Dirty nasty cities and slave wages are a myth as well. The market resolves these, as we have seen. What caused slave wages on the old railroads and mining of the early 20th century was (again) government regulation, which forbade foreign countries from being able to compete with the American companies, which then created monopolies because the American companies had no competition from the foreigners.

If you don't believe me regarding cities, go take a look at the cities of the socialist nations and compare them to those in capitalist nations. Stalingrad hasn't changed much since the 18th century, if any at all. Moscow had multiple families living in single apartments. In Beijing, China, the smog gets incredibly, incredibly thick.

And wars? Capitalism, if anything, prevents wars, because it ties countries together economically, and historically, nations aligned economically don't go to war with each other.

[edit on 9-2-2007 by WheelsRCool]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 06:21 PM
link   

The Great Depression was caused by the fault of the Federal Reserve, a government agency to regulate the control of the money supply.


yes it was caused by the federal reserve and NO NO NO it is not a gov't agency it is PRIVATELY owned by INTERNATIONAL bankers

and now to something more speculative but interesting

i think we are in for some natural but drastic earth changes as the result of some cyclical astronomical occurrences and that these coming changes will be used to "legitamize the seriousness" of the human caused global warming crowd

now i say yes pollution is a problem but and that is a fact but these are different things with a little in common

[edit on 24-2-2007 by cpdaman]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Oh ya, leave it up to the ones primarily responsible for the problem in the first place. Yes, wonderful idea. It's like giving the keys for a nuclear submarine to Homer Simpson. A recipe for disaster.

When it comes to responsible action, Capitalists/Libertarians could care less about their impact on anything or anyone. All they see is the green(as in money).

In a perfect world, we'd have equality of opportunity as well as insurance from unforeseen and uncontrollable circumstances. But who cares right? It's their own responsibility even if it wasn't their fault they got into that car accident. Insurance will pay it (hopefully) and if not? Tough luck. Well that is what you are proposing for the entire #ing planet buddy. And I thought Hitler and Stalin were callous evil bastards. You sir take the cake.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Numerous sources cite quality of living reports for all nations. Here is one from the UN (courtesy of the BBC) and socialist or progressive countries are very well represented.


Top 15 countries:
HDI rank 2002
Life expectancy (years) Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births) GDP per capita ($) Adult literacy (%)

1 Norway 78.5 4 29,918 99%*
2 Sweden 79.7 3 24,277 99%*
3 Canada 78.8 6 27,840 99%*
4 Belgium 78.4 6 27,178 99%*
5 Australia 78.9 6 25,693 99%*
6 United States 77 7 34,142 99%*
7 Iceland 79.2 4 29,581 99%*
8 Netherlands 78.1 5 25,657 99%*
9 Japan 81 4 26,755 99%*
10 Finland 77.6 4 24,996 99%*
11 Switzerland 78.9 3 28,789 99%*
12 France 78.6 4 24,223 99%*
13 UK 77.7 4 23,509 99%*
14 Denmark 76.2 6 27,627 99%*
15 Austria 78.1 4 26,765 99%*



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by WheelsRCool
every major mass-murderer of the 20th century came from socialism: Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao Zedong, Kim Il Jong, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Mihn, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, etc

Huh?

Who did Mussolini mass murder? Who did Lenin mass murder? When did hitler and huseein, both ultra nationalists, become actual leftist socialists?

Why is Fidel Castro on the list of mass murdered, but not Pinochet and the numerous other right0wing mass murdering dictators? Your list is complete bunk. Its too bad too, because the topic overall could've been interesting.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
When did hitler and huseein, both ultra nationalists, become actual leftist socialists?



They didn't: they were both Fascists, i.e., fanatical capitalistic rightwingers.

A British socialist once asked Hitler about the use of the word "Socialist" in the Nazi Party name. In typical rightwing fashion, Hitler replied "We don't socialize banks and industries; we socialize PEOPLE". This remains the neo-conservative agenda.

Also, notice the disinfo in the OP's comments about global warming. The global warming emergency is underway NOW, not 500 years from now. 100% of the scientists in reviewed journals understand this crisis. But in the mass media, 56% percent of non-scientists question the legitimacy of the findings. These doubts are purposely fostered on an unsuspecting public by the rightists.

But they will see the fruits of their actions as well. The arctic caps are melting as we speak...polar bears are drowning in record numbers because of the lack of ice at the poles, and the ice sheets in Anarctica are collapsing. In as little as 10 years, due to the ice sheet in Greenland, the entire east coast of the US could be under water...Katrina-era New Orleans to the millionth power. Yet the capitalistic rightwing would have us believe that everything's just hunky dory, don't listen to the big bad socialists.

Gimme a break.





posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by WheelsRCool
People starved in socialist China to.
Dirty nasty cities and slave wages are a myth as well. The market resolves these, as we have seen. What caused slave wages on the old railroads and mining of the early 20th century was (again) government regulation, which forbade foreign countries from being able to compete with the American companies, which then created monopolies because the American companies had no competition from the foreigners.
[edit on 9-2-2007 by WheelsRCool]


For the most part, people have said what i wanted to say (thanks gover, your a trooper man) but i thought id pick up on this one.

First, yes people starve in socialist china, but people also starve in capitalist indonesia, capitalist nicaragua, and capitalist USA.

If slave wages and nasty cities were a myth, what the hell was the 1890's all about? Ill tell you, it was about unregulated capitalism. No slave labour laws, no enviornmental protection laws, no child labour laws, no worker safety laws, and the highest profit levels ever seen. There was little to no governmental regulation of industry and capital in those days. Capitalism does not work for the people, it works OFF the people. it takes their labour and expropriates it for the capital accumulation process, and for the benifit of the few.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by WheelsRCool
Look at Central America. The capitalist nations, these are the ones becoming far wealthier. Cuba had a very good economy until Fidel Castro nationalized it.

And the world over, capitalist nations are the ones that enjoy the highest standard of living.

Look at China. It's economy is radically improving, thanks to capitalism.


[edit on 9-2-2007 by WheelsRCool]

more bull.

What your saying is that the cuban people were better off under batista than fidel?

Capitalist nations enjoy the highest standard of living? or the very few rich industry leaders enjoy the highest standard of living? Why not go to the philipines (now a capitalist state) and see how well their standard of living is, and how much its increased since the capitalist revolution.

Edit to add: Why exactly is it so terrible to believe that we as a species (a wasteful species) have to take care of the planet we live on and stop spending with careless abondon?

[edit on 2-3-2007 by InSpiteOf]



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Man does this capitalism - socialism false dichotomy ever get tiresome. Socialism was created by the capitalists as means to control and it works beautifully. The Bolshevik revolution was funded by wall street, and the USSR was supported by the west with lots of money and food, without which it wouldn't have lasted a decade.

The environmental movement is the next step in the globalist-socialist plan, and includes not just a war on industry, but on food production and water utilization as well. It's just part of the march toward total control. Here's a good resource.


www.angelfire.com...



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 05:42 PM
link   

In as little as 10 years, due to the ice sheet in Greenland, the entire east coast of the US could be under water...Katrina-era New Orleans to the millionth power. Yet the capitalistic rightwing would have us believe that everything's just hunky dory, don't listen to the big bad socialists.



should i listen to the big bad fear mongerer, sorry i had 2. u are telling me not to listen to the socialists but in reality the al gore's are not that much better, they manipulate the enviornmentalists to get them on there side, but in reality they are all about the benjamins. they act like they are fighting the good fight and they will act like they are doing something about it, but really those in power control both sides of the argument, they may make it look like they are doing something about it ( implementing stricter emissions codes) but then they will say well it was just so bad it is getting worse faster than we thought and despite our "so called actions" it was 2 little 2 late or something like that. WHY?




The environmental movement is the next step in the globalist-socialist plan, and includes not just a war on industry, but on food production and water utilization as well. It's just part of the march toward total control. Here's a good resource.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Wow, that's some whacko right-wing point of view you got their. Your post makes no sense what so ever. Global warming is backed up by an extremely high percentage(over 90%) of scientists on this planet, that have absolutely no agenda.

If we moved away from fossil fuels that cause greenhouse gasses and into renewable energy sources(wind, solar, bio-oil, etc.) where do you think all of that will come from? You think someones gonna just pull it out of their A--. All of these new energy sources will create new industy that this country needs and will probably lead to the next big growth in this country.

So that pretty much shoots down your entire attempt. By the way I take a capitalist approach and agree with the capitalist point of view but I do care about the environment and enough studies have been done to show the signifigant effects of greenhouse gasses. Again, any regulating of big oil would just lead to NEWER AND MORE INDUSTRY which would be good for capitalism.

Perhaps this is not the type of industry you will profit from?



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join