Human rights violations in North Korea

not telepathy, telepathy between him and the so called 'well respected organisations' has become possible because these have been founded by him and other tycoons at the request by the CIA and FBI as a part of some kind of extra taxation levied off the rich rich in the West.

 

If anything today's modern society for most has allowed the least competition for resources in recorded History.

As far as any member posting that in the past Human's did not compete for resources....that is just false.

AboveAlpha

 

Are you Freakin' kidding me!!???

Like the CIA and FBI don't have enough to do as it is! LOL!!!

OH MAN!!! LOL!!! You got be laughing on this one!!

AboveAlpha

 

its like having 'vested interest' in a lotery, but this lotery is of no interest any longer, the World is moving on soon.

the more US economy grows. the poorer the World gets, with Americans getting poorer too.

he did not do that.

Russia did not buy anything of that sort from the US, not to mention that Russia has never been in need of any technologies in that field. Russia is using the Soviet technologies which are the best to date.

 

I know exactly what he meant and that is a tyranny of the masses based on authoritarianism and state terror in order to coerce dissident proletariat's and the bourgeoisie to cooperate through force.

 

i have already told you the CIA and FBI is that proof.

 

Can you provide evidence that Murdoch or "other tycoons" founded Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders, Freedom Watch etc? And if so can you provide evidence that they did so at the behest of the CIA and FBI? You are just making nonsense up out of whole cloth because you have no argument.

- - - Updated - - -

Their existence is that proof? WTF?

 

OK...you need to recall a few things.

Just a few weeks ago before the Olympics....Putin let go of a certain former Russian Oil Billionaire who Putin had his company confiscated and had the guy thrown in Prison and just to mention Putin also released those Girls from the Russian Band P#$$% RIOT as well.

As far as the WORLD is concerned....the WORLD is not moving anywhere as since U.S. Workers are ranked #1 in the WORLD in Productivity....more Toyota's are made in the United States than in JAPAN....thus Japan is IMPORTING TOYOTA'S! LOL!!!

The United States being the Worlds Largest Economy by FAR....3 Times larger than #2 China....and over 8 Times larger than #8 Russia....as well the United States is BY FAR the Worlds Largest Manufacturer....Worlds Largest Producer of Food....Worlds #1 Investment Nation by other Countries...and a whole LOT of other #1's.

The WORLD is NOT moving on....THEY ARE TRYING TO MOVE IN.

Take the time to look into Russian Oil Drilling of Siberia.

AboveAlpha

 

the minorty here of course - gays, immigrants and Arab sheikhs, huh?

not Communist parties but those who finance them, for making a business go bust is another weapon used by the FBI against those who dare stand up to.

aha, its like with the Politkovskaya affair for example: first the CIA hired her to badmouth Russians then it killed her in order to blame us Russians for this.

there's a huge differance between today Russia and then USSR, are you blind to see?

are so stupid to think those leave any evidence?

 

You haven't a friggin' clue.

 

Yes gays and legal immigrants would be protected minorities, the U.S. is a nation based on immigration.

Really can you provide an example of which business was made to go bust by the FBI for supporting a Communist party? And what kind of business would support a communist party in the first place? Maybe a cooperative but I still doubt it as Communists would support the expropriation of the cooperatives means of production by the state as well.

Um no actually that has nothing to do with the empirical analysis of the numerous quantifiable variable sets which I just listed. Reading comprehension is fundamental.

And your assertion that Anna Politkovskaya was either hired by or murdered by the CIA is conspiratorial nonsensical gibberish based on nothing. The evidence all points to her being killed by the FSB.

I see the differences but both are/were authoritarian regimes and you clearly support both.

So your assertions are based on nothing, just as I thought.

 

As usual, you selectively cherry-pick and cite quotations out of context in a futile attempt to make a set of redundant points. As for the archaelogical and anthropological evidence, I point you to the work of people like Richard Lee and Gordon Childe. As I correctly stated, evidence comes from archaelogical findings about patterns of human behaviour worldwide until only about 5,000 years ago, and from anthropological studies of societies in different parts of the world which remained organized along similar lines until the 19th and earlier part of the 20th century. The anthropologist Richard Lee has summarized the findings:

"Before the rise of the state and the entrenchment of social inequality, people lived for millennia in small-scale kin-based social groups, in which the core institutions of economic life included collective or common ownership of land and resources, generalized resiprocity in the distribution of food, and relatively egalitarian political relations." (R. Lee, 'Reflections on Primitive Communism', in T. Ingold, D. Riches and J. Woodburn (eds), 'Hunters and Gatherers', vol. 1, Oxford, 198.

 

Again what possible context can justify a call for the destruction of democracy in favor of an authoritarian regime based on state terror? What context can justify the call for the eradication of those they saw as racially inferior, what context can justify their pro-slavery stances?

Again I point you no further than to pre-Columbian Native Americans who still lived in hunter gatherer societies and were still competing with other tribes over resources, going to war with one another, and enslaving their war captives. And again even within these "small scale kin based social groups" there remained a hierarchical organization with chieftains and the like, not to mention that while they may have acted communally within their own given group that does not mean they would not have come into conflict with other groups, this can be seen in modern tribal cultures in Borneo and the rain forests of South America.

Furthermore; one must differentiate between the high mobility hunter gatherers and the more sedentary hunter gather types:

Wealth and Inequality in Hunter-Gatherer Societies

As detailed in the introductory paper for this CA Forum (Bowles, Smith, and Borgerhoff Mulder; see also Borgerhoff Mulder et al. 2009), we define wealth as any attribute of the individual that contributes to a flow of valued goods or services. This broad definition is subdivided into wealth classes (embodied, material, and relational wealth) each encompassing various wealth types (such as hunting success, household goods, or sharing partnerships), as detailed below.

Our collective judgment, based on many combined years of field research plus the published ethnographic corpus, is that in most foraging societies, variation in material wealth has less effect on well-being than does variation in other forms of wealth, such as health or social connections. This generalization is more likely to hold for mobile low-density foragers (which constitute the great majority of ethnographically described foraging societies—see Tables 1 and ​and2)2) than for sedentary high-density foragers. There are at least three reasons for this. First, high mobility reduces the possibility or profitability of investment in land or fixed facilities (e.g., weirs, permanent houses). Accordingly, land ownership among high-mobility groups is overwhelmingly communal and cannot be transmitted to individuals or kin groups (Table 2). Second, reduced mobility depends on dense and predictable resource patches (e.g., salmon streams), and access to these patches is often controlled by kin groups or other subsets of the population; if variation in patch productivity is great enough, those who control the richest patches can exchange access to them for economic and political services (Boone 1992; Smith and Choi 2007). When resource abundance is less concentrated, access is harder to control; individuals can therefore resist any moves towards institutionalized inequality, including “voting with their feet” to relocate elsewhere if necessary. Finally, mobility makes it harder to accumulate material property. Moveable material property, such as tools, clothing, and valuables, is generally treated as individual property and is often transmitted to descendant kin (Table 2). In most foraging societies, however, such property can usually be manufactured by any adult of the appropriate gender, or obtained fairly readily; exceptions include items involving highly specialized manufacture or obtained through limited trade contacts, as well as wealth and prestige goods in some sedentary and less egalitarian societies.

Most adults in hunter-gatherer societies actively contribute to food production and processing, as well as tool manufacture and maintenance. In addition, child care and provisioning is generally a parental duty. Most of these forms of labor require considerable strength and stamina, visual acuity, and other aspects of good health. As a result, we expect somatic wealth to be of prime importance to success and well-being. On the other hand, those who suffer periodically from suboptimal somatic endowments can usually rely on aid from others in the form of food-sharing, assistance with child care, and protection in disputes. This social insurance is normative and widely available, but some evidence suggests that the quality of such aid will vary according to the “relational wealth” (reputation, size and quality of the social network) of the needy individual or household (Gurven, et al. 2000; Wiessner 2002; Nolin 200.

Knowledge presents some special difficulties. Information needed to successfully harvest resources and process them into food or other goods is widely available (on a gender-specific basis), though some exceptions apply, particularly in more sedentary foraging societies (e.g., manufacture of complex watercraft). Knowledge concerning ritual practices and trading partnerships, however, is often more differentially distributed. Commonly, certain individuals have esoteric knowledge held to be useful in curing illness, combating sorcery, or predicting weather and availability of game. Although relatively few hunter-gatherer societies have well-defined social strata or politico-religious offices (Table 2), our impression is that the great majority do recognize important differences in specialized realms of knowledge, differences which may have status correlates and yet coexist with normative and de facto egalitarianism in other forms of wealth (e.g., Bird and Bliege Bird 2009).

In sum, a primary constraint on material-wealth accumulation and inequality in hunter-gatherer societies is the degree of residential mobility, which in turn is heavily influenced by spatiotemporal resource variability (Cashdan 1992; Kelly 1995). Generalizations about wealth and inequality differ greatly depending on whether one focuses on the more mobile low-density foragers, or the smaller set of sedentary high-density foragers; the latter, after all, includes societies (e.g., Northwest Coast, Calusa) with slavery, hereditary nobility, stores of durable valuables, and other features strongly related to intergenerational wealth transmission.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2999363/

 

Here is the specific tribe that I was thinking of. the Yanomami of the Amazon, they still live under a hunter gatherer system and yet they have a hierarchy and though they live communally within their own sub groups these individual groups still compete with one another over resources:

Organization

The Yanomami do not recognize themselves as a united group, rather individuals associate with their politically autonomous village. Yanomami communities are grouped together because they have a similar cultural and linguistic background. Marriage, kinship, and militaristic coalitions interweave communities together. The Yanomami have common historical ties to Carib speakers who resided near the Orinoco river and moved to the highlands of Brazil and Venezuela, the location the Yanomami currently occupy.[2]

Mature men hold most political religious authority. A headman acts as the leader of each village, but no one leader presides over the whole of those classified as Yanomami. Headmen gain political power by demonstrating skill in settling disputes both within the village and with neighboring communities. A consensus of mature males is usually required for action that involves the community, but individuals are not required to take part.[3]

Domestic life, clothing and diet
Yanomami shabono

The Yanomami live in villages usually consisting of their children and extended families. Village sizes vary, but usually contain between 50 and 400 native people. In this largely communal system, the entire village lives under a common roof called the shabono. Shabonos have a characteristic oval shape, with open grounds in the center measuring an average of 100 yards (91 m). The shabono shelter constitutes the perimeter of the village, if it has not been fortified with palisades.

Under the roof, divisions exist marked only by support posts, partitioning individual houses and spaces. Shabonos are built from raw materials from the surrounding jungles, such as leaves, vines, plums and tree trunks. They are susceptible to heavy damage from rains, winds, and insect infestation. As a result, new shabonos are constructed every 4 to 6 years.

The Yanomami can be classified as foraging horticulturalists, depending heavily on rainforest resources; they use slash-and-burn horticulture, grow bananas, gather fruit, and hunt animals and fish. Yanomami frequently move to avoid areas that become overused, a practice known as shifting cultivation when the soil becomes exhausted.


Violence

In early anthropological studies the Yanomami culture was described as being permeated with violence. The Yanomami people have a history of acting violently not only towards other tribes, but towards one another.[14][15]

An influential ethnography by anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon described the Yanomami as living in "a state of chronic warfare".[4] Chagnon's account and similar descriptions of the Yanomami as aggressive and warlike sparked controversy in anthropology and an enormous interest in the Yanomami. The debate centered around the degree of violence in Yanomami society, the question of whether violence and warfare could be seen as an inherent part of Yanomami culture, or whether it was better explained as a response to specific historical situations. Writing in 1985 anthropologist Jacques Lizot, who had lived among the Yanomami for more than twenty years, stated:

"I would like my book to help revise the exaggerated representation that has been given of Yanomami violence. The Yanomami are warriors; they can be brutal and cruel, but they can also be delicate, sensitive, and loving. Violence is only sporadic; it never dominates social life for any length of time, and long peaceful moments can separate two explosions. When one is acquainted with the societies of the North American plains or the societies of the Chaco in South America, one cannot say that Yanomami culture is organized around warfare as Chagnon does"[16]

Anthropologists working in the ecologist tradition such as Marvin Harris, argued that a culture of violence had evolved among the Yanomami through competition resulting from a lack of nutritional resources in their territory.[17][18] However the 1995 study, "Yanomami Warfare" by R. Brian Ferguson, examined all documented cases of warfare among the Yanomami and concluded that:

"Although some Yanomami really have been engaged in intensive warfare and other kinds of bloody conflict, this violence is not an expression of Yanomami culture itself. It is, rather, a product of specific historical situations: The Yanomami make war not because Western culture is absent, but because it is present, and present in certain specific forms. All Yanomami warfare that we know about occurs within what Neil Whitehead and I call a "tribal zone", an extensive area beyond state administrative control, inhabited by nonstate people who must react to the far-flung effects of the state presence."[19]

Ferguson stresses the idea that contrary to Chagnon's description of the Yanomami as unaffected by Western culture, the Yanomami experienced the effects of colonization long before their territory became accessible to Westerners in the 1950s, and that they had acquired many influences and materials from Western culture through trade networks, much earlier.[14]

Violence is one of the leading causes of Yanomami death. Up to half of all of Yanomami males die violent deaths in the constant conflict between neighboring communities over local resources. Often these confrontations lead to the Yanomami leaving their villages in search of new ones.[12] Women are often victims of physical abuse and anger. Inter-village warfare is common, but does not too commonly affect women. When Yanomami tribes fight and raid nearby tribes, women are often raped, beaten, and brought back to the shabono to be adopted into the captor's community. Wives may be beaten frequently, so as to keep them docile and faithful to their husbands.[14] Sexual jealousy causes much of the violence.[13] Women are beaten with clubs, sticks, machetes, and other blunt or sharp objects. Burning with a branding stick occurs often, and symbolizes a male’s strength or dominance over his wife.[6]

Yanomami men have been known to kill children while raiding enemy villages.[20] Helena Valero, a Brazilian woman kidnapped by Yanomami warriors in the 1930s, witnessed a Karawetari raid on her tribe:

"They killed so many. I was weeping for fear and for pity but there was nothing I could do. They snatched the children from their mothers to kill them, while the others held the mothers tightly by the arms and wrists as they stood up in a line. All the women wept... The men began to kill the children; little ones, bigger ones, they killed many of them."[20]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanomami

 

For some reason some people forget that Humans are simply animals that evolved large brains.

AboveAlpha

 

You are confused. I'm specifically referring to the pre-neolithic period before the emergence of class. The evidence is as I stated.

 

The evidence is not as stated the hunter gatherer tribal cultures within pre-Columbian North America as well as the modern hunter gatherer tribal cultures within the Amazon lived/live much the same way as those pre-neolithic revolution hunter gatherer societies, they are a window into that time period.

 

...and on poofery too?

not exactly Communism, but Enron and Madoff did support certain parties and got pogromed and purged, respectively, for that.

any business - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savva_Timofeyevich_Morozov

what evidence? show me one.

regimes can't rule countries but for a month or two. Stalin and Putin ruled Russia for way too long to call theirs a 'regime' etc. but the US presidents on the other hand...

that Jewish expression points that you might hail from Brighton Beach, right?

 

rubbish. Humans have had brains from the very start as God created them, but that isn't what makes a Human different from an animal, it is conscience that makes humans God-like.

 

Yeah and it's Sentience that makes us act like ASS#@!&$!

Human's are i fact animals and Humans are listed along with Gorillas, Bonobos, Chimps and Orangutans as Great Apes.

Humans are APES....that is our classification.

AboveAlpha

 

Overt homophobia as well as support for genocidal dictators.

WTF are you blathering about? Enron perpetrated massive fraud and embezzlement and Madoff ran the largest Ponzi scheme in human history. Are you suggesting that they were framed because they supported "certain parties"? What parties were these exactly? Once again what companies were put out of business for supporting communist parties sport?

He was not the owner of the business, it would not be in a business owners interests to support a group which advocates the forced expropriation of said business by the state now would it?

Agents of special services are among organizers of Politkovskaya assassination. However someone protects them by disclosing secret materials of the criminal case by Sergei Sokolov, 6 April 2008

http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/40729.html

The Presidents of the United States are elected in free and fair elections.

An anti-Semite, supporter of genocidal dictators, and an overt homophobic, you are a true representative of the Russian people.

 

you are mistaken badly, someone's cheated you into believing bollocks.

 

Here is some data for the person still living in 1901.

Apes are Old World anthropoid mammals, more specifically a clade of tailless catarrhine primates, belonging to the biological superfamily Hominoidea. The apes are native to Africa and South-east Asia. Apes are the largest primates and the orangutan, an ape, is the largest living arboreal animal. Hominoids (except for humans) are traditionally forest dwellers, although chimpanzees may range into savanna, and the extinct australopithecines were likely also savanna inhabitants, inferred from their morphology. Humans inhabit almost every terrestrial habitat.
Hominoidea contains two families of living (extant) species:
Hylobatidae consists of four genera and sixteen species of gibbon, including the lar gibbon and the siamang. They are commonly referred to as lesser apes.
Hominidae consists of orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and humans.[1][2] Alternatively, the hominidae family are collectively described as the great apes

LINK....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape

Humans are APES.

AboveAlpha

 

nope, has nothing to do with anything else but resentment over pervertions of all sorts.

exactly.

have no idea.

yes he was - http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Морозов,_Савва_Тимофеевич

those of the CIA as i told you.

since when 'staged and false' means 'free and fair' huh?

no i'm not.

 

the article cited is nothing but a bigotry on the part of Multiculturalists.