Some years ago the Global Commons Institute http://www.gci.org.uk/ issued
a warning that the world was on an unsustainable course and called for
Contraction and Convergence.   Much less use of fossil fuels, and very
slight improvement in third world living standards linked to a big drop in
developed world living standards.

No one paid any attention and now the Chlorine in the Ozone layer put
there by CFCs, and Methane coming out of melting bog in Siberia make
probable a mass extinction of Life on Earth. (Go live in a space colony).

The necessity now is to collapse the Global Economy so there is no demand
for fossil fuels, to reduce the human population to what Earth can
sustain, and to see that your country can feed its own population.

The mad dogs in Europe are turning their own farmland into housing and
factories, and poisoning the oceans.  They need to be stopped.

Disconnect trade and concentrate on finding a balance of local autonomy.
Do that without tourism - tourists will bring the new diseases that global
overpopulation cause.   Look up what countries escaped the lethal 'flu
back around 1920.  Beware of Airplane delivered Ibola.  A ship carrying it
probably will not arrive at its destination.

Do not export scrap metal.  Prepare to rework it yourselves for
necessities.

Limit your family to what you can feed directly, and fully educate.

Disaster is being caused by the internal contradiction in Capitalism
postponed and compounded by inflation, and soon to be further compounded
by the internal contradiction in Marxism no Academic has yet realised.
Marx should have seen the possibilities in the Dialectical Synthesis of
Marx and Malthus for himself. Overpopulation made higher Communism
impossible, we are back on the road to primitive Communism as the systems
collapse.

Enjoy Life,

Ilyan





On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 08:22:59 -0000, Amanda Sives <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> The View from Europe
> By David Jessop
>
> “Whosoever desires constant success must change his conduct with the  
> times":  so wrote Niccolo Machiavelli in his discourses in 1513. This  
> message from the past is one that the Caribbean would do well to heed if  
> it is to chart a course, through the rapidly changing currents of global  
> influence and power.
>
> Two different developments in the last two weeks demonstrate how far  
> relationships are changing and the need to adapt.
>
> The first of these relates to the region’s long standing engagement with  
> Europe.
>
> Since 2006 Europe has been negotiating bi-regional association  
> agreements with Central American and Andean nations. These wide ranging  
> agreements contain detailed provisions for free trade that will provide  
> Peru, Colombia and the nations of Central America after a transition  
> period much the same level of access to Europe that the Caribbean has  
> enjoyed for many years. Renewed negotiations with Mercosur, although  
> difficult, are also expected soon.
>
> While there are real concerns about what this may mean for Caribbean  
> products like rum, rice and sugar that have hard-fought-for arrangements  
> with Europe, or for newer opportunities in the services sector, more  
> significant is the longer term change of attitude in Europe towards the  
> Caribbean and the ACP.
>
> On February 17 an exchange took place in Brussels between officials from  
> the European Commission and Ambassadors from the ACP. At this and in  
> other meetings Ambassadors noted a distinct change in tone and attitude.  
> EC negotiators, they observed, had ceased to have any historic  
> perspective or interest in the Caribbean relationship and spoke about  
> existing arrangements with the region on a basis that at the very least  
> suggested a disinterest in the complex history of the Europe/Caribbean  
> relationship.
>
> ACP Ambassadors cite as an example the brusque acknowledgement by EC  
> officials that Europe will accelerate liberalisation for Latin nations  
> beyond what was agreed recently in Geneva in the context of the  
> resolution of the banana dispute.
>
> How this came about will likely be the subject of future debate.  
> However, it seems that while the EC and Latin American nations were  
> negotiating a deal on tropical and preference products in the Doha Round  
> that the ACP might accept, the EC was also agreeing a less than public  
> side deal. This was to accelerate access in the context of it  
> bi-regional negotiations with Central America and other Latin American  
> nations for products of economic significance to the Caribbean and to  
> others in the ACP.
>
> The objective was to sweeten the deal in Geneva and to ensure that  
> Europe had something tangible to deliver when Spain as President of the  
> European Union hosts an EU Latin American and Caribbean summit in Madrid  
> in May; although quite how this will play at a preceding mini -summit  
> with the Caribbean remains to be seen.
>
> The EC’s line appears to mark the beginning of a new phase in relations  
> between a Europe of twenty seven nations and the region in which the  
> unique interests and concerns of the Caribbean are being progressively  
> set aside in the short to medium term in favour of an improved  
> relationship with Latin America.
>
> The second development has been the emergence of a grouping for Latin  
> America and the Caribbean which unlike the Organisation of American  
> States (OAS) does not include the United States and Canada.
>
> At a summit in Cancun attended by most Caribbean Heads as of Government,  
> the Rio Group (all of Latin America plus Belize, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica  
> and Suriname) agreed to accept as members Antigua, the Bahamas,  
> Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, St Lucia, St Kitts, St Vincent and Trinidad  
> and to establish a new broader body provisionally renamed the Community  
> of Latin American and Caribbean States.
>
> Much still has to be decided about the new grouping and its role, but it  
> is expected that the working group that includes Mexico, Brazil, Chile,  
> Jamaica, the Dominican Republic and Venezuela will present  
> recommendations to the next summit in 2011 in Venezuela for final  
> agreement in 2012 in Chile.
> The new organisation is unlikely to be like the many institutions that  
> already exist across the hemisphere such as Mercosur, the Association of  
> Caribbean States, Caricom or ALBA. Rather the suggestion is that it will  
> be a co-ordinatory body without a permanent secretariat where the host  
> government for the next meeting acts between summits to prepare joint  
> positions for Latin America and the Caribbean on significant issues on  
> which they might take a joint position.
>
> Although views differ as to the extent the body should be about  
> integration and development, a more probable longer term role is that  
> envisaged by Brazil’s President, Lula Da Silva, who suggested that the  
> new association could play a role in developing a unified approach to  
> key global and hemispheric decisions including the composition of the UN  
> Security Council, unchanged since World War II, or on climate change  
> where the hemisphere south of Rio Grande has distinct objectives.
>
> As the new grouping has already shown it will also take a stand on  
> issues of importance to Latin America. At the first meeting it endorsed  
> resolutions on a diverse range of subjects including the US embargo on  
> Cuba, Haiti, climate change, migration and the Falkland Islands.
>
> How you regard the significance of this seems to depend on where you are  
> sitting. If it is somewhere in North America the inclination is to see  
> the new grouping as the outcome of a new power play between Mexico,  
> Brazil or Venezuela that that aims to enhance their hemispheric position  
> vis a vis each other, but if it is in Latin American capitals the  
> construct is about developing an alternative pole in the Americas.
>
> How Caribbean governments regard the role of the new Association is,  
> however, far from certain. Some suggest that its value is in defining a  
> broader geo-political place for the region in the world while others are  
> less certain.
>
> As a first action, voting with Latin America to  observe ‘Argentina’s  
> legitimate rights’ in respect of the Falkland Islands could be read in a  
> number of ways. Although it will infuriate London and perhaps establish  
> leverage in respect of issues on which the UK has not been helpful, it  
> would also seem to be at odds with the region’s previously stated  
> position on territorial integrity and raise doubts about the status of  
> Latin American territorial claims to the region.
>
> The point of all of which is to suggest that old relationships are dying  
> but as new ones emerge there is a need to adapt and find in new and well  
> considered ways how best to have the region’s interests recognised.
>
> David Jessop is the Director of the Caribbean Council and can be  
> contacted at [log in to unmask]
> Previous columns can be found at www.caribbean-council.org
> February 26th, 2010