|
 |
|
| |
 |
Re: AFFLUENCE IS UNSUSTAINABLE! (7-28 issue of Time magazine)
|
|
 |
| |
History does, indeed, repeat itself, for those who fail to learn from it, or ignore it altogether.
In the late 20's people's jobs were beginning to be cut (to "protect earnings", just like today ...), and wages were at a standstill, while inflation grew rapidly.
What little disposable income people did have began to go into the stock market, as they naturally wanted to grow that money, and the money masters told them that investment was the magic pill.
Soon, more people were investing in companies than they were buying their products and services, so the companies were unable to meet their commitments to investors, or remain in the black.
Thus, the market crashed.
Much of this can be said of today's economic picture. How many people have you read about (or do you know ...) that have been laid off in the past week/month/year?
Those are people with little or no income, until they can "bounce back".
The problem is that the people at the top have forgotten that their wealth is not solely based upon their work alone, no matter how valuable they feel they are.
When you downsize, you save money immediately, sure, but you put added pressure on your employees, have less people doing the same amount of work. What executives in their ivory towers fail to realize (or perhaps they do ...) is that these layoffs send a very strong message to those who remain, not only about their value, but also the true nature of the company for which they work.
Productivity and quality are both sacrificed in the long term, for some amount of short-term gain.
This is all transpiring because the people at the top have bitten off more than they could chew, and they've gotten greedy, putting their personal interests over the interests of the companies for which they, themselves, also work.
Western affluence is also based upon the blood, sweat, and tears of the majority of the people on this planet, though we choose not to speak about that aspect of our system (It's not "civilized" ...).
If you study the history of U$ interventionism since WW II, you will quickly see that all of its "just wars" have been nothing more than a brutal enforcement of true economic policy, by Governments that are either intimately connected to the industries that benefit, or have been co-opted by them.
This mistreatment of the outside world has built a strong and very negative sentiment towards the West, especially the United States.
Regardless of who may have really been responsible for "the events of September eleventh", it has become clear that this policy of violence and racism has to end, before legitimate "terrorists" reacting against this do come out to play, and America (and its allies ...)pays the price for its misdeeds. There must be a time of reconciliation, of healing.
Lastly, our affluence is based upon environmental destruction, and the imbalanced allocation of resources.
Industry has caused the bulk of the damage, but refuses to pay the price, by ignoring measures such as the Kyoto Protocol, which are designed to ease the strain we have put on our environment.
Corrupt, self-interested governments have ignored calls for the development (or just implementation, since they do exist ...) of alternative energy sources on a national and international level, since most of them are intimately connected to the energy sector, or supported by it.
A report released Mon, July 22 states that 85% of the glaciers in Alaska are melting at an alarming rate. The North and South Pole ice caps are breaking apart and floating away.
Increased atmospheric moisture, increased UV radiation effect, and altered patterns of heating patterns, are all playing havoc with our weather systems.
Flooding and drought are widespread, bringing about disease and pests alike. Record temperatures are being set daily in many countries, and the sun stings a lot more than it did five years ago.
Plus, we only have a finite set of resources to work with, and we're wasting them, instead of seriously discussing how to best put them to use.
This earth is all we have (we haven't been to Mars yet ...) and we're destroying it. Once it's gone, so are we. No issue should take precedence over this. We are all at risk, moreso than from any "terrorist" act.
This material free-for-all feudal system must give way to something greater. We must stop destroying the things we need to live, in the name of things we do not, just to satisfy the material needs of the minority.
We must recognize the hypocrisy of our "leaders" for what it is, and work to counter it with reason and truth. We are not led by the best and brightest, and in most cases, their views are ignored.
We must understand that all of our divisions, all of our "enemies" have been engineered for us, to keep us from looking at who is truly responsible for our sorry state of affairs.
We must acknowledge that we all share this rock, floating through a universe that noone understands. We must learn to live together in peace, and build a society that meets the needs of all earth's citizens, and work towards true advancement, not solely material growth.
We must honour the values we claim to hold dear, then ignore in the real world, and build a system that benefits the majority, instead of working in the interests of the minority alone.
We must build a society that meets its challenges and problems head-on, instead of forever reacting to the symptoms of them, working to mask them, or ignoring them altogether.
We must aspire to a greater purpose.
Otherwise, what's the point ... ?
Any ideas on how these things may be accomplished? |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
Re: AFFLUENCE IS UNSUSTAINABLE! (7-28 issue of Time magazine)
|
|
|
| |
>> Any ideas on how these things may be accomplished?
They cannot be accomplished. It's time to move on to something else; apply your intelligence to work that can be done.
In the global sense all that will work is what has always worked; Darwinism and Malthusianism.
If you can't get a global agenda to fit them perfectly, it will fail as miserably as communism.
Environmentalism is doomed; and if that means we are doomed, so be it.
MALTHUS: Living populations (from bacteria to humans) grow exponentially, while resources that support them (food, shelter)remain static or AT BEST grow linearly. Therefore there will be periodic excesses of population that cannot be supported, producing competition for resources (wars).
Of course in the 1700's Malthus didn't know about birth control; but that doesn't make a difference to most of the human population.
DARWIN: You already know, he tells us how the selection of the excess population to be exterminated can have a slight bias.
To get people involved in these causes you must find a way to make involvement in their self-interest. Not long term, not for their kids, but in their short term self-interest.
That is astonishingly difficult to do. The general public's self-interest runs to money, entertainment and sex. As a result most of your causes are unsupportable unless you can find a way to link them to a big motivator.
You would be better off trying to make a few million and then use that money to support candidates you will have close access to, or to run for office yourself.
Probably making a few million is easier than getting any of these causes off the ground; you are talking about multi-billion dollar efforts.
In the meantime, nobody will pay attention until the problem interferes with their life, and therefore crosses the horizon into their short term self interest. In the 2000 election nobody was running on accounting reform; you can bet your 401K it will be an issue in the next election.
There are two variables to control here: The average time horizon of the average citizen; and the impact of the problem.
Good luck on trying to educate people and make them see further into the future; organizations have collectively wasted trillions trying to do that with less than stellar success.
You might be able to engineer the problem so it has greater impact on the population; if nothing else oppose any measures intended to alleviate that pressure. For example, no pollution control is better than controls that appears to work on the surface but just pushes the problem into the future. Hold out for real reform and oppose band aids; the greater pollution will motivate more people instead of letting them sleep and think something is being done.
Besides that the best we can do is hope the problem is still soluble when people wake up.
And like I said, if you can't figure out how to make a profit working on these causes, devote your intelligence to something else that does make a profit, and use that profit to support what you believe in and communicate to the public.
>> We must aspire to a greater purpose. Otherwise, what's the point ... ?
I disagree, who says there has to be a point? What point in life does a deer have, or a chimpanzee or dolphin? What makes you think humans are so much better they have to have a point? We can see further ahead, granted, and we can set goals and dreams for ourselves, but human society does NOT have to serve any larger purpose whatsoever. The only "point" of society is to provide the framework for individuals to operate in; and that framework is exactly what they ask for from the tribe. In the USA that is to protect the weak from the strong -- Protection against theft, fraud, assault, murder, enslavement and repression, protection from privilege brought by wealth or political power.
Open a paper and you will see we don't deliver on that request very well at all. Nor does any other country. Perhaps when we do we can move on to larger issues like the environment and world government.
But for now I would be happy if society did a decent job of protecting the weak from the strong and rich, or at least made the strong and rich play fair.
TC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: AFFLUENCE IS UNSUSTAINABLE! (7-28 issue of Time magazine)
|
|
|
| |
>> Countries with a well-educated population tend toward zero net population growth. If world population could be trimmed back to remain around a few billion "educated" inhabitants, most of the problems we face would be quite manageable.
I think that's true.
>> Unfortunately, a world of well-educated masses cannot easily be exploited for their labors or resources by the powerful.
That's just a different world, it doesn't make it an unworkable world. I saw an article once, by a science fiction writer whose name I don't recall, talking about the decline of the age of retirement over the last century or so. If the progression continues linearly, the age of retirement (in the USA) will be zero in a hundred years: Meaning retirement at birth.
More specifically, it would mean nobody ever has to work for a living anymore; life would be spent in study, leisure, artistic expression including making music and movies and books for others. And some will spend their time in -ugh- worship.
That seems possible to me. I see no reason we couldn't have sustainable renewable energy from the sun and geophysical processes (wind, tides, geothermal, hydrodynamic) that powered AI robots that did any necessary physical labor like collecting trash or building houses or farming crops or stitching together Nikes.
I'm coining a name right now, PAI, for Practical Artificial Intelligence, to represent that non-conscious AI capable of real world jobs like building a house or cleaning out the attic.
Anyway it seems possible, it would be great for it to be worldwide, and if people weren't worried about losing their jobs at the factory I think environmentalism would have a real chance.
I also think it will take more than a few hundred years to get there. I know it is possible to take a newborn baby out of the African bush or South American backwoods and raise her to be a California valley girl acing her SAT, it's been done. The native intelligence is there in all populations.
But the politics are nearly intractable; just like in the middle east right now. I think those conflicts are fights to the death; and won't be resolved until one side is completely destroyed or subjugated.
It happened for Germany and Japan after WWII, but they had to be totally and irrevocably beaten before they rebuilt and became our friends and allies, and it took almost three generations (60 years).
Global politics is measured in generations; and we haven't begun to address the poverty, sickness and ignorance in most of the world, and probably won't for several generations to come.
Oh well. I hope the problems don't overwhelm them before they get to the worldwide retirement at birth scenario! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: AFFLUENCE IS UNSUSTAINABLE! (7-28 issue of Time magazine)
|
|
|
| |
TC,
Overall, I tend to agree with you. It is physically possible, given tech-advances, to feed, cloth, house, and entertain 6-10 billion earthlings indefinitely, employing sustainable solar and similar methods.
The only doubt I have is how to entertain the 10,000 or so "extremely-power-addicted" folk, who will want to own and operate their private fleets of 767's, just because "they can", etc, etc.
When robotically-directed labor becomes so cheap and prevalent that no one has to "work", per se, to afford its benefits, there will need to be some sort of governing system, to keep the most power-hungry from "sucking the grid dry", so to speak. This still implies some sort of currency or "credits" that must be doled out, and we need a "fair rationale" for that allocation scheme.
Cheers! ____tony b____ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: The power hungry.
|
|
|
| |
>> This still implies some sort of currency or "credits" that must be doled out, and we need a "fair rationale" for that allocation scheme.
Hm. I didn't intend to imply communism. I don't believe any system will work unless it is grounded in competition, free choice and the same lazy-ass work-shirking human nature we know all too well.
In fact, I think human nature is bound to make any Keynesian system fail. Russian Communism was Keynesian economics (so was the USA up until Reagan, who was influenced by Margaret Thatcher in Britain, who was strongly influenced by Milton Friedman, the famous free-market economist).
Keynes promoted from-the-top control of the economy; that the only way to make it "efficient" was for the government to control pricing and industry, like airlines, steel, railroads, car manufacturing, coal mining, etc. Keynes believed competition was by definition a waste of resources and talent.
Why have two companies trying to undercut each other when the government can simply set a fair price for their goods? Then they can concentrate on other areas besides squabbling over markets; they can even cooperate. Two oxen pulling together moves the cart down the road; two oxen pulling in even slightly different directions will soon pull the cart apart.
It was a wildly popular idea amongst people in power; the squandering of trillions of dollars, millions of lives and decades of progress can be traced directly to Keynes theories.
Obviously he isn't just charismatic -- Keynes theories sound right, they are mathematically complete and technically correct, he was insightful. And his idea that government intervention in the economy was absolutely necessary to prevent recession, depression, and human suffering was very appealing to the power hungry and beneficent rulers alike.
BUT IT DOESN'T WORK. Keynes failed to take human nature into account. Friedman started with human nature, but his hands off, free market approach was not nearly as appealing to leaders.
Pure communism fails because people have no incentives to work at all, much less work harder, and people are naturally energy efficient (lazy).
Keynesian economics fails it eliminates competition, which is the prime motivator in companies for cutting costs, improving products, lowering prices and generally pleasing customers.
Deregulation of long-distance has made it cheap; deregulation of airlines has made air travel cheap; and on and on.
>> How to entertain the "extremely-power-addicted"?
They will exist, and they will accumulate power and materials, but the excesses of a million or so will be nothing compared to the six billion on the planet.
The problem is not how to prevent them from playing; the problem is forcing them to play fair with their fellow humans and competitors.
The problem is preventing Gates from trying to squash Linux or the open source community; the problem is keeping him focused on making his product superior and preventing him from using his money and influence to squash the competition through lawsuits and threats to their potential customers.
The problem in the economy is the problem in life. I don't want to prevent people from getting richer than Gates, I want to prevent them from abusing that power.
I want policies that promote people getting richer than Gates! But I want them to do it by providing the rest of us with unbelievably good products; whether they are computers, books or movies, buildings, robots, cars or carpets.
Actors, for example, deserve their $20M per picture salaries. Tom Hanks can make a well written but emotionally dismal movie take off; his name can sell $80M worth of tickets an equally good but unknown actor could never sell.
The problem is in the abuse of power. The day they try to use their money to prevent fair competition, in any way, I want them financially punished by percentage of net worth; if they are repeat offenders the fines should escalate until their money is gone.
The day they use their positions as officers to try to sneak shareholder money into their own pockets, they should be arrested.
The role of government is not in determining the fair pricing or regulating sandwich size and content on airlines (something they did, in the 70's). It is in simply protecting the weak from the strong.
And good AI might help us toward this ideal.
It is possible to "retire at birth" but still have a competitive economy, to still have the rich and the poor. It would just be raising the level of what "poor" means, say to today's average retired person's income.
A small apartment, TV with cable, decent food, clothing, education, entertainment, healthcare and transportation would be the base for all.
Many people would be content with that; perhaps even half. But I think most of us would go on to work and strive for something more, to buy the products others produce, to invent and produce products others want so we could get bigger houses, nicer cars, better entertainment.
If government with the assistance of AI does a great job of protecting the weak from the strong and keeps competition restricted to the arena of pleasing consumers, making it nearly impossible to profit via crime, fraud or abuse of corporate or political power, then I think that is the closest we will get to Utopia.
Tony C. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: The power hungry.
|
|
|
| |
>> Keynes was writing about a world where countries were competing with each other on a global scale.
Keynes was an economist; he may have been writing IN such a world, but not about it. He believed his paradigms applied to even the smallest markets. Perhaps, as you suggest, his writing was uninformed of outside influences to a market. I certainly think the fatal flaw in his math is failing to take account of an influence, namely "worker enthusiasm".
>> Governments mostly get in the way of this type of system. The people running the governments don't want to give up the power of their nationalist system.
Government gets in the way of most systems. The role of government is to accomplish collectively what the vast majority of its citizens agree must be accomplished, but cannot be done individually. On the domestic front this includes pursuing murderers and thieves and punishing fraud and deception. On the international front it includes defense against hostile takeover and terrorism. That's it; the government has no business in most of its current roles.
>> The world Keynes wrote his doctrine for no longer exists. We need new thinking for a new world that operates on a global scale in spite of efforts to stop it.
We don't need new thinking; there is plenty of valid, tested old thinking we should adopt as a starting point. Darwinism, for example; and the free market theories of Friedman.
For both their basic theories have been extended and refined by study and experiment and further observation they could not possibly have accomplished in their own lifetimes; but that is the hallmark of good science. Their initial insights remain largely intact.
What works on a global scale, despite any effort to stop it, is self-interest. If we want a system to work we must make it profitable to the individual in SOME WAY. We must come to grips with the basic, short-sighted, mostly selfish and self-interested human being.
Systems fail when they try to change the human. Sure, people can be altruistic for a time and charitable and kind. We can incorporate that into a system, even try to quantify what work we can get for free from a human over the course of a year.
For example, in the Open Source community I have heard that typically a project can get an average of one hour a week from participants. Often this translates into a lump of four or five hours on a weekend, once a month or so. Even that disappears if people aren't "rewarded" by communication and a sense of progress.
Still you can't have a system like the communists envisioned; in which everybody works for the system 24x7x52.
It is possible to construct workable and admirable systems centered around the selfish motive; we have a myriad of existence proofs: Any surviving species on the planet. Evolution is completely centered in selfish motives, even if like Richard Dawkins you reduce the selfishness to the genes instead of the organism. Yet evolution produces complex and efficient machines and creatures.
If I could make one wish it would be for the literally millions of people that have concern for the environment and sorry state of society to wake up and realize that selfish behavior in humans is UNAVOIDABLE. Utopian visions cornered on an appeal to the group dynamic, counting on charity and ignoring selfishness are doomed to failure. It may take decades, but they are doomed.
They may in fact struggle along forever, like animal rights activism, stuck in a limbo defined by the 1% charitable support they get, which keeps them limping along, and the 99% don't give a shit attitude that prevents them from converting the masses.
Utopian visions CAN be centered on self-interest, and if the millions of people that really cared about the larger issues would realize this and focus their thinking on mechanisms that do NOT rely on people seeing the bigger picture and sacrificing to save the planet, they would be a hundred times more effective.
And to address THEIR self-interest, let me say they would be more satisfied with their efforts and happier to be making a real difference, instead of frustrated by the lack of vision of the masses and resigned to a miserable fate for the planet and our fellow living beings.
Tony C. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: The power hungry.
|
|
|
| |
TC,
Perhaps my point was missed. I was not aguing for a top-down allocation scheme, per se.
Rather, I try to envision a world in which (say) energy is essentially free, and robot labor is essentially free.
Everyone can have "as much of it" as they desire. Those satisfied with a modest existence are just fine... but can there be such a thing when "too many" others will want to test the "limits of acquisition"?
You suggest that government and AI could work to ensure that everyone "plays fair", but what can it mean to "play fair" in such an environment? More to the point, how is "fairness" to be measured?
The incredible self-supporting system of solar/robot/AI power seem, paradoxically, to offer both a "way out of scarcity", and yet a "rapid onset of scarcity".
Suppose I begin to build a Dyson Sphere or "Ringworld" around the sun, out around the asteroid belt. It is only using "energy and material that is being wasted anyway". But I can amass such power there that, if (say) world government saw it a threat and wanted to place limits on me, I might have the power to easily refocus my quadrillion mirror reflectors, and simply vaporize the earth. End of threat.
Where are the limits to be placed on "fair acquisition", such to PRECLUDE way-huge power-shifted scarcity scenarios?
Cheers! ____tony b____ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: The power hungry.
|
|
|
| |
OK. The limits are in motivations.
I don't necessarily believe in "as much as you want."
Nothing is "free", even if it is common enough to be distributed essentially free, like air, today, or sunlight or ocean water. Even clean drinking water in my area (south Texas) is essentially free; one can sink a well and have all they want.
So imagine Solar/robot/AI as a "natural" resource like these. But about ten years ago one poor bastard down here wanted to establish a catfish farm, and sunk a well to provide 10,000 gallons per hour. It was perfectly legal and on his own land, but the courts quickly enjoined him and passed retroactive laws to stop it. Successfully.
So it isn't exactly free, after all.
The same thing with Solar/Robot/AI. AI will monitor usage and if anybody starts using way past their limits, or if the AI suspects foul play is afoot, the issue will be referred to a vote of sorts; or some sort of jury system. Say it selects a thousand people to review the usage and determine if it should be allowed to continue.
If the impact is great, like a Ringworld, then the AI knows to query a larger number; perhaps even the entire population. We have rules, such as a constitution, that determine what percentage of people at each level of query must vote "Aye" for such large projects.
In other words we should engineer the system for freedom still restrained by society. The answer is NO, you cannot put a strain on the aquifer likely to affect others.
As long as your usage falls within three standard deviations of the norm, I see no reason to ding you. Beyond that your usage is in the top 1%, and even then it might be allowed, but subject to review by both AI and your fellow humans, that own the resources you are consuming.
Together we in south Texas OWN the Edwards Aquifer, at least morally. The water is plentiful enough that few restrictions are necessary (and I think there are more rules about its usage than are necessary). But just because typical usage does not exceed the cost of tracking typical usage, and therefore the most sensible course is to treat the water as if it is free, does not mean that the whole of the aquifer has no value!
So if something comes along that does threaten the whole of the aquifer, it threatens to create a situation in which we individuals will have to start paying for something we get for free, or going without. That makes it in my self-interest to vote down such abuses of power, abuses of land ownership, super-sucker-wells, toxic industry over our recharge zone or whatever.
The same issues will apply to any scenario in which one individual tries to be super acquisitive with the free resources available to them. Being free doesn't make them worthless, in sufficient quantity the person is using more than their 'fair share' and we need to see if that is warranted, benign, and something we all agree with. For the 1% a review by a few dozen might be sufficient; for the 0.1% perhaps more, for the 0.01% of the top perhaps even more.
I'll even suggest the math formula: Excess usage should be approved by sufficient people to account for the absorption of that excess to within a single standard deviation of a normal level. So if you are using 100 times the average, perhaps it takes 1000 people to approve that.
On a different point, don't forget that land and water may still be in limited supply, even colonizing other planets. We don't all get to live on a bluff overlooking a sea shore with a view of a pristine forest to the horizon out the back. We still compete for the resources in limited supply.
Tony C. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: The power hungry.
|
|
|
| |
TC,
I like your "usage approval" formula, given that the N necessary people are selected with sufficient randomness (so you can't "pack" the ballot box.)
The logistics of managing it (via an AI that a sufficiently large majority "trusts" as acting fairly) will be daunting.
For individual "big projects", the need (and application) of it will be obvious.
The "metering", in general, will (perhaps) be very difficult. With the issue of the aquifer, officials can perfom a "random inspection", and determine the rate at which water is being extracted.
If individuals are allowed to build/control their own "mini-factories", comprised of mini-robotics to produce various wares (you get them in kit form, mail order), then robots beget robots before long, and tracing of "ownership" an issue. Thus, application of "fault" an issue, when things get out of hand.
If you (or even I) become unaware of how many robo-servants my "system" has produced, and their particular locations, then it is difficult to even estimate the amount of energy or resources they are engaging.
Perhaps this is because I see (ideally?) such a future of "plentiful energy and robotic labor" to be a force wielded by individuals, rather than by a few "powerful industrialists" who might "sedate us with wonderful toys" while they go about their super empire building.
If even 20% of us decide to try and take the Bill-Gates route, the logistics of fairness may have everyone spending all their free time voting!
I'm not trying to be pessimistic, only to point out that there is a great deal needing to be worked out, if this future is to transpire.
Cheers! ____tony b____ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: The power hungry.
|
|
|
| |
Don't forget the systemic effects, though, meaning we have AI.
One of the benefits of being a modern CEO (if you do it right) is only having to deal with exceptional situations. The grit is handled beneath you and the only things that come to your attention are the things that truly cannot be done at a lower level.
We will all be CEO's like that. The AI's will handle routine crap; even if they are not conscious, and they will handle it the way we will handle it. Even without getting into direct-brain interfaces I think it will be possible for a non-conscious AI to spend time with you; ask some questions, and learn to respond as you do, and also learn when it is appropriate to ask you to respond as well.
Just like a CEO -- "Don't bother me with that, you know how I feel," or "I hate that phrase 'your needs' in advertising copy, and you tell that to anybody that asks me to approve such copy."
So no, I don't think voting will get out of hand. The system AI will query your personal AI, and it will respond for you intelligently at the level you have authorized for it, and only refer things to you that you are glad it did. If you think it is referring BS you TELL it, it gets smarter, and you get happier.
What we are talking about is not an extension of the current world where things are *hard* to keep track of. The core principle here is we have EFFECTIVE, REAL AI. Silicon intelligence (even non-conscious) will have zero problem keeping track of and monitoring billions of variables and measurements and only bringing to your attention those REQUIRING your attention.
Also, the voting will be (must be) kept to a level corresponding to maybe a third of your 'social dues' time; say an hour a week. Think of it as a responsibility like jury duty (and the AI's know whether you are really sick or in crisis, so it is less escapable).
In truth I don't think there will be any Bill Gates in this world; in the sense of industrial giants.
I do think there will be some Tom Clancy's and some Julia Roberts' and Robin Williams' and such; these people have unique talents I doubt will be replaceable with AI. Even if AI can write great novels or act with virtual characters, I think a talent might emerge for DIRECTING an AI in writing or acting that would produce stars.
Perhaps some adjustment of "intellectual property rights" would be in order, or a better enforcing of the patent laws. Basically you aren't supposed to be able to patent something if it would be obvious to someone skilled in the art.
If that were enforced and AI were prevalent, Bill would have very little purchase on his current foothold. "White room" reproduction of his current IP assets might take an AI a week; producing something better and more secure might take it another week. But whatever it produced would be "obvious to one skilled in the art", because those skilled in the art are now AIs that could do the same!
So nobody would own the Windows monopoly. Or most monopolies. Existing assets and industrial plants would lose their importance.
What would gain prominence would be ART, which is to say, imagination and expression that captures some essence that truly appeals to people. I've read that in real life Meg Ryan is a bit of a bitch; but she strikes a perfect note in romantic comedies that appeals to me.
Stephen King's imagination and writing entertain me enormously. I find the script writers of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel to be extremely clever and I like over 80% of their shows.
Art will be where it's at, the new currency. Some artists will undoubtedly make the equivalent of millions of today's dollars; and others that appeal far less will make far less, and still others that make lesser decisions in support of the art will make even less.
But art will be it. The economy is based upon energy, materials, and intellectual activity (including engineering, programming, and paper pushing).
Two and a half of those disappear: If energy is not an issue, and materials are not an issue, and routine intellectual activity is not an issue, all that is left is art.
People will be judged based on their art; their creativity; their appeal to others. Those that have none of these will be the "poor." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: The power hungry.
|
|
|
| |
>> I am still a bit uncomfortable with the fuzziness of how AI will track/manage all of it.
Yes, but when "routine thought" is free, it's usage will explode to meet it's requirement.
The best analogy I can offer is "routine arithmetic". Once machines could add, subtract multiply and divide 'for free' without the aid of humans the usage of it exploded. Your computer is performing billions of arithmetic operations per second, or at least hundreds of millions of them.
Right now, a human brain costs a minimum of $5.25 an hour, just to take my order for barbecue or process my application for a new website name.
I suspect AI will cost, when it comes, about the same as this computer I am working on. So figure about $750 per year; or about $2 per 24 hour day at current equipment and energy costs. Call it 10 cents an hour.
Those costs will decline with the advent of AI, because we won't be paying $5.25 an hour for assembly line workers (not just at Dell but at board manufacturers, case manuf; chip manuf; steel manuf; miners, etc). We also won't be paying $15 an hour for bookkeepers or $25 an hour for tax accountants. We won't be paying $50 an hour for repair technicians when something breaks down, either, or $20 an hour for truckers to move crap across the country.
Which means AI will cost much less than 10c per hour, but even at that the effect on society will be dramatic. The cost of barbecue will plummet!
In fact the typical barbecue place could be run by a single proprietor (or none) and still serve hundreds of people an hour, so the cost will approach the cost of materials -- Beef, sauce, etc.
These materials are cheaper too, because farmers and ranchers will use 10c an hour AI to manage their business.
This is one reason I believe, that as AI becomes more sophisticated prices drop, and eventually drop to essentially 'free'. There is still competition for scarce resources, but only the scarcity is valued; not the work effort put into it. Shipping (and human transportation) become free, food and common materials (run of the mill furniture and clothing) become essentially free, standard housing becomes essentially free.
And behind all of it is free "routine thought" at a level a million times the current level; as if you had a million assistants with the mental power of the average person. Just as the computer can perform arithmetic a million times as fast as you, but remains your servant.
So I don't think it is out of bounds to imagine the AIs will keep track of every detail, process it and find the important patterns. They can notice things we could never track today; such as if you are eating more potassium bearing foods or if your headaches are correlated with ANY environmental influence or whether your pee contains less vitamin C today than is normal considering the expected amount versus the VitC containing foods you consumed yesterday and the day before, possibly indicating a minor infection worthy of an extra half a gram of Vitamin C today.
And so on. Millions of thoughtful questions, about you, every day. It can calculate based on your moods throughout the day what entertainment you will find most enjoyable this evening and have it queued up and waiting.
It's like the servant in the movie Gosford Park: "I know when they are hungry, and their food is prepared for them. I know when they are tired and their bed is turned down. I know it before they know it themselves."
It's like that, multiplied by a million. And if a hundred thousand of them are accountants and trackers, and another two hundred thousand are analysts looking for patterns, and another three hundred thousand minds are busy looking out for the bigger societal picture and how that affects Tony -- Do we care?
No more so than we care how much multiplication the computer is doing as we type.
TC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: The power hungry.
|
|
|
| |
TC,
> > I am still a bit uncomfortable with the fuzziness of how AI will track/manage all of it.
> Yes, but when "routine thought" is free, it's usage will explode to meet it's requirement.
I guess what I mean is not whether the AI will be able to handle it, calculation-wise.
Rather, whether humans-want-to-be-in-control-of-deciding-fairness means that we must
A. Humanly architect and maintain control over how the AI "decides fairness", or
B. Whether we will be forced to "give-up" understanding its rationale, and simply assume it is behaving fairly.
Whatever complex and evolved schemes it develops to maintain its given sense of "fairness constraints", I am sure it will find the processing power to execute that scheme.
The issue is, "who continues to determine the scheme, and its continued appropriateness?"
That is what I think of as the "hard part". I have heard too many people seem to shrug and offer "it will be WAY SMARTER than us, so no problem." I think this avoids the hard (and intellectually FUN) issue. The measures and dimensions of fairness do not simply drop out of thin air and enter the Super-AI. It must be seeded with some initial sense of directives or goals, if we expect it to be of service to us.
I have to wonder what those dimension/measures should be, and how to convey them to the nascent AI.
Cheers! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: The power hungry.
|
|
|
| |
>> The issue is, "who continues to determine the scheme, and its continued appropriateness?"
Ah. OK, I understand that.
>> That is what I think of as the "hard part". I have heard too many people seem to shrug and offer "it will be WAY SMARTER than us, so no problem." I think this avoids the hard (and intellectually FUN) issue.
I don't believe it will be way smarter than us; at least not to begin with. People thought that about computers too, to begin with.
Going strictly by what has been done thus far in AI, Consciousness is a much tougher problem than simple intelligence. We have already computer programs that are NOT conscious in any sense, yet parse spoken English and commands. (I think 'parse' conveys less consciousness than the word 'understand.')
It seems to me that with sufficient processing power, computers will be able to emulate the human sense of the real world, objects, and pattern recognition long before they are conscious. They will be able to emulate routine thinking, by which I mean practical real world problem solving, long before they are conscious.
In fact, although I have no objections to the possibility of machine consciousness, I feel it is a hard enough problem that it may never happen.
So the way I see it, there is at least a long period in which AIs are not conscious, are not smarter than us or more creative than us, but are capable of emulating human intelligence about a million times faster than humans. Just as computers today emulate human arithmetic about a million times faster than humans.
Just as computers today do arithmetic completely differently than humans yet come up with the same answers, AIs may 'think' differently yet recognize the same patterns and come to the same conclusions.
>> The measures and dimensions of fairness do not simply drop out of thin air and enter the Super-AI. It must be seeded with some initial sense of directives or goals, if we expect it to be of service to us.
>> I have to wonder what those dimension/measures should be, and how to convey them to the nascent AI.
Fortunately, not all important problems have complex solutions; and I don't think this one does either.
The core goal of any AI should be fairness, or equality. This isn't hard to code, and in fact it must be coded for it to develop the most basic understanding of human systems.
Who goes next at a four-way stop? The person that has been stopped the longest; it's fair.
Why does a one-line queue for bank tellers better than a separate queue for each teller? Because it is more fair; nobody is penalized for choosing the line behind the guy with $200 in coins to be counted.
Why are people outraged by the corporate accounting scandals? Because they know the perpetrators are getting away with millions of dollars and might get a slap on the wrist, while we put lesser criminals in jail for life for stealing a few hundred dollars. The system is unfair and the corporate officers keep their millions and laugh at us while playing golf.
Even if an AI is smarter than us, it will be programmed with this basic sense of fairness in determining what is, er, fair.
But like I said, I don't think it will be smarter, and there will be a long time when they serve us without consciousness. So these systems will be designed.
But they won't be programmed like current systems are programmed. The AIs will understand us and have sufficient real world knowledge that they can program computers. Programmers will be non-existent; most applications will be non-existent; we will speak to the computers and they will remember what we tell them; do what we ask them to do.
For some applications like animation, where the human has a specific image in mind for a character or something, there will be interactive feedback -- "No, slightly blonder, a smaller nose, and make her eye twinkle when we catch her at a certain angle..."
In other words, the human directs the development and gets what he wants; the AI interprets that just like a director's assistants now do, and breaks the work into pieces for experts and gets it done and presents it to the human in real time.
The same goes for designing the whole system. Just like a human the AI learns from examples; just like a human it can summarize the rules and exceptions it has gathered and present them to the human for review. Just like a human the AI can understand when the human says "No, that's not quite it. Illegal search is more like..."
And just like a human, questions by the AI to clarify a point can provoke discussion among the humans to clarify the point.
Do the descendants of slaves deserve compensation? It is a difficult question and well meaning people disagree completely for very logical, non-racist reasons.
There are hundreds of such questions, and AIs will have to refer situations that boil down to such questions to human interpretation.
If instead they are much smarter than us, then they will solve such questions by bringing to bear our own decisions; finding core values and rules we didn't know we were operating under.
But they will be human values because most of what we "feel" is right and wrong is rooted in fairness and equal treatment. There is also an element of practicality; a point of vanishing return in determining fairness, in that worrying every nit becomes tiresome. When a man defrauds a woman of money and she hasn't kept good track of it, we might say "Let's call it $10,000 and be done with this. Give her $10,000 or go to jail."
The AI can learn this just as well, to produce decisions we find emotionally satisfying.
And finally, if it is smarter than us, it will be able to explain the rationale for its decisions in terms we can understand. An intelligence that cannot explain its reasoning is NOT smarter than a human, it is stupider than one and we should unplug it.
TC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: The power hungry.
|
|
|
| |
TC,
Bravo! That was an excellent response (evidenced, at least, by the fact that I can find no place to "attack" it!)
When I suggested "smarter than us", I was not necessarily intending "conscious", but you answered for both cases to my satisfaction.
To extend your viewpoint, I consider how "public-cameras" are thriving in certain cities in order to reduce the incidence of crime. I tend to view them with a bit of alarm, because I tend to imagine how easily they might be "abused by authority". Humans have too great a tendency to apply their individual biases, perhaps scrutinizing the activities of someone based upon skin color or "type of hat", and then judge that "probably cause" exists, in an uneven and unfair manner.
I would be far more comfortable with an independent AI being the only one allowed to apply "initial viewing" via these cameras, "trained" to recognize "probable cause" based upon far more objective and uniform criteria. If the "human handlers" see fit to try and bias the criteria (turbaned heads warrant closer inspection) then at the very least, such "directives" will be visible, thus debateable and if unwarranted, rejectable.
Sounds good to me!
Cheers! ____tony b____ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: The power hungry.
|
|
|
| |
>> Humans have too great a tendency to apply their individual biases, perhaps scrutinizing the activities of someone based upon skin color or "type of hat" ... I would be far more comfortable with an independent AI ... "trained" to recognize "probable cause" based upon far more objective and uniform criteria. If the "human handlers" see fit to try and bias the criteria (turbaned heads warrant closer inspection) then at the very least, such "directives" will be visible, thus debateable and if unwarranted, rejectable.
This is a good example of where AI will come into its own.
The reason for such prejudices against skin color, gang clothing, turbans, etc is simply a runaway reaction in the human mind.
It is a survival trait for humans to form such patterns and prejudices. In my area violent crime is predominately perpetrated by Hispanics. Partially because the population is predominately Hispanic! Also because the Hispanics are generally poorer, and poverty is a contributing factor of crime.
But the brain doesn't care much about the reasons; it locks on the result: If you are in a place where crime is possible, it is natural to be more wary of Hispanics than whites; especially Hispanics dressed for the south side street.
That's true no matter what color you are; all minds generalize and will form a pattern to protect itself from danger.
Being mostly rational, however, the person that sees themself as Hispanic will develop a better, more specific pattern in which particular traits, mannerisms, speech and dress trigger the fear reaction. Not just the apppearance of being Hispanic.
The non-Hispanic has something more obvious to latch onto, and we can be lazy.
But lazy is ALSO a survival trait; we are lazy because during our evolution "good enough" is good enough; we don't have time to think every decision through in detail.
If turning tail and running from a strange sound in the woods might save your life; you don't have to wait around and figure out the details. Likewise avoiding confrontation with a member from another tribe based upon skin color or hair ornaments. He might be perfectly friendly, but if making a friend is not worth risking your life, you aren't going to find out.
But an AI will have more time and better memory, so it is less likely to be prejudiced without good reason.
There can be good reason! In the USA right now you are more likely to catch terrorists if you concentrate on Arabs and middle easterners. Yes, some terrorists like Padilla do not fit the profile, but 99% of terrorists ARE Arab and middle eastern. The ORGANIZATIONS are prejudiced and very wary of infiltration. It is not prejudice on our part to take advantage of the mathematics of THEIR prejudice to bring them down.
So, in the event a person or AI has insufficient resources to watch everybody and research everybody, it makes sense to concentrate on those most likely to be terrorists:
Middle Eastern men 18-40, black men 18-40, other men 18-40, ME women 18-30, women 18-30, etc.
An AI may be able to find patterns and sort this even further based on dress, haircut, whether the man appears bodily shaven (which could mean a body builder or a suicider preparing himself for Allah), and so on.
But the point is there is a valid mathematical reason to target middle easterners, and for the AI to ignore that would be illogical.
Likewise, if I were robbed at gunpoint by a six foot Swedish blond man, regardless of my own color, if I told the police and their suspects included Hispanics, Chinese, Middle Easterners, red and brown haired whites and short people I would be upset.
Of course prioritization is unnecessary if we get to the point where the AI has the processing power to know everybody and watch and follow everybody; then prejudice is a moot point. The guys with turbans are being watched precisely as closely as the CEO of Ford Motor or Joe Smith from burbs.
It is all part of the million-mind resource behind every one of us: A few hundred of those minds are cops that have their eye on us.
TC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
REAL OPTIONS
|
|
|
| |
As I didn't post with my full address, I didn't realize there was a discussion on this. I found your discussions very thought-provoking, but wanted to answer to your response to me.
>> Any ideas on how these things may be accomplished?
"They cannot be accomplished. It's time to move on to something else; apply your intelligence to work that can be done."
So you're just outright stating that change is not an option? Where would we be if everyone shared that defeatist attitude? What if a scientist said "Well, there's never been a cure for cancer. Let's forget it"?
Actually, I understand what you're saying. But I think that we must also propose new options for change, because fixing a few areas will have a top-down effect on all the rest.
"In the global sense all that will work is what has always worked; Darwinism and Malthusianism."
These things have not "worked", they have only been accepted. Wars do not happen just because of a shortage of resources. So long as the people who profit directly from conflict are the only ones allowed to determine and enforce foreign policy and "broker peace", yes, there will be war.
So long as we are led (owned?) by men who are the most corrupted and connected, and brag about their ability to "think the unthinkable", instead of the best and the brightest, we will all be in harm's way.
"If you can't get a global agenda to fit them perfectly, it will fail as miserably as communism."
First of all, we have never seen a true Communist society. We have seen party dictatorships claiming Communism, but never true implementation of Communist doctrine. They didn't simply fail, either, they succumbed to long and dirty campaigns by Capitalist nations.
The system that Globalists are attempting to create is not feasible or sustainable. You can't allow corrupt men to design and implement a system full of loopholes and double-standards and expect positive results.
If we are going to define and implement a global system (and really, we have one already, it's just being ... ammended to suit interests), then shouldn't it be one that addresses the very serious problems facing all of us on this floating rock?
"Environmentalism is doomed; and if that means we are doomed, so be it."
Why? We haven't even tried to develop "clean" ways of living. It hasn't been an option, since the Controllers maintain their seperation from the rest of this feudal society through rampant over-consumption of products whose production and use destroys.
To give up and just say "Fu*k It" isn't really a great option.
"MALTHUS: Living populations (from bacteria to humans) grow exponentially, while resources that support them (food, shelter)remain static or AT BEST grow linearly. Therefore there will be periodic excesses of population that cannot be supported, producing competition for resources (wars)."
And knowing that, why should we not work to solve that problem? In this "modern" age (what a strange term, since all ages are modern in the present ...), we have the resources, intelligence, manpower, and technology to do anything we set our minds to. Are we to admit defeat in this instance?
How do you explain the severe increase in human violence in the past few centuries, espscially now, at a time when we can control food production like never before in history?
"Of course in the 1700's Malthus didn't know about birth control; but that doesn't make a difference to most of the human population."
But it could. We could make adjustments in the way we live, and the ways in which we allocate resources.
One of our biggest problems is racism, this belief that gets handed down that some are better than others. Even the President makes funny faces on the toilet (not to mention TV ...) from time to time. He's human (I think ...), and as such, as fallable as any of us.
"DARWIN: You already know, he tells us how the selection of the excess population to be exterminated can have a slight bias."
The concept of depopulation is reprehensible.
"To get people involved in these causes you must find a way to make involvement in their self-interest. Not long term, not for their kids, but in their short term self-interest."
I agree, and many people are now acknowledging that this is an information war, and working towards making strides as such. I think if the majority knew how the minority puts them at risk and threatens their "interests", people would get involved.
This is supported by the rapid growth in the "Anti-Globalization Movement" (a misnomer) by people who understand the effects policies such as GATS will have on their lives.
The failing environment poses a massive threat to their self-interest, and so does this "War On Terror".
I would also dispute the fact that most people are purely selfish, when all the facts are known. I think most act as they do because they really don't have a clue about the reality of the world around them. This is not entirely their fault. It has to do with how busy they are kept, and the lack of factual information presented by the mainstream, corporately-owned media (which I work in ...).
"That is astonishingly difficult to do. The general public's self-interest runs to money, entertainment and sex. As a result most of your causes are unsupportable unless you can find a way to link them to a big motivator."
But the biggest reason for apathy is the manipulation of information. People don't have access to the facts about the real world, outside the little lives they are so focused upon. It's not so much self-interest, as it is conditioning and the limiting of options.
They believe that they can trust those who are entirely untrustworthy to protect their interests. They are taught this.
They also feel that it is hopeless, because all of the machinations of society are broken, everyone is corrupt, and that they are powerless.
They, just like the "leaders", have forgotten that without the support and conformity of the People, the "leadership" is powerless.
"You would be better off trying to make a few million and then use that money to support candidates you will have close access to, or to run for office yourself."
I am working on screenplays in the hopes they will sell, and I don't really dream of being rich, so money isn't that great of a motivator for me. I live quite modestly, but I am happy, and I appreciate all that I do have. I can cook, so I eat like a king, and I have a home, albeit not a mansion, but that is good enough.
Beyond that, chasing the unachievable dream of material happiness seems a little pointless. I'm enjoying my life, but I am tired of knowing what goes into supporting this society, mainly in the interests of a tiny (and I would suggest not exactly sane ...) minority.
I do keep in contact with several elected representatives, but they not only ignore, but scoff at my views, because they are the problem, and I understand that they perceive what I represent to be a threat.
Some have asked me to run for office, and I may consider it, but not in the forseeable future.
I do not think it is as cut-and-dried a process as it appears.
"Probably making a few million is easier than getting any of these causes off the ground; you are talking about multi-billion dollar efforts."
I haven't found it that easy to "make a million".
What I'm trying to point out is that the multi-billion dollar efforts that we, as a society, do make a priority involve killing and destruction, instead of building a better way of life, or making any real improvements. It's not that the money isn't there, it's that our priorities are so bizarre.
The causes are off the ground, but they are not allowed to become national debates, because they would threaten the interests of the elite (for lack of a better term).
It's not that people don't want these things, it's that they're not allowed to consider them, because the people that own us fear what they may lose.
"In the meantime, nobody will pay attention until the problem interferes with their life, and therefore crosses the horizon into their short term self interest. In the 2000 election nobody was running on accounting reform; you can bet your 401K it will be an issue in the next election."
The Root of all this, the rampant corruption and hypocrisy of the people who "lead", is beginning to have unmistakable effect on our collective interests.
The movement which wishes to address these problems is growing every day, and that number represents only a tiny fraction of the people who recognize these problems and want them addressed.
"There are two variables to control here: The average time horizon of the average citizen; and the impact of the problem."
Please explain. I am drawing conflicting conclusions from this statement, and I'd rather address what you actually mean.
"Good luck on trying to educate people and make them see further into the future; organizations have collectively wasted trillions trying to do that with less than stellar success."
A lot of those organizations had direct connections to the people who are at the root of the problem. That they failed was no accident.
I am talking about putting things into the mental environment that have been noticably absent in the past; new ideas, new and better options, and the FACTS.
"You might be able to engineer the problem so it has greater impact on the population; if nothing else oppose any measures intended to alleviate that pressure. For example, no pollution control is better than controls that appears to work on the surface but just pushes the problem into the future. Hold out for real reform and oppose band aids; the greater pollution will motivate more people instead of letting them sleep and think something is being done."
Like the investigations into the "intelligence failings" surrounding 9/11, instead of a deep and open probe into what really happened that day.
I am working to get that one killed, but I think it's out of our hands, because the truth would threaten to destroy our entire society.
** I am trying to propose real options, things that could be implemented to affect the change we need. Please see the points at the end of this post. **
"Besides that the best we can do is hope the problem is still soluble when people wake up."
I agree, but I think a few of the biggest problems, like our damaged environment and the corruption of power by violent interests, are really getting out of hand, pose a real threat, and need to be dealt with.
This society loves to mask the symptoms, instead of dealing with its problems. If we continue in this way, we are lost.
If we continue to placate and appease true evil (not the "evil" defined by Bu$h), it will only grow, until we cannot ignore it. By then, it may be too late.
"And like I said, if you can't figure out how to make a profit working on these causes, devote your intelligence to something else that does make a profit, and use that profit to support what you believe in and communicate to the public."
I hear you, and I don't think you mean that in a purely selfish way. I am hoping to sell my screenplays, and that the message and information presented in them will have some effect.
>> We must aspire to a greater purpose. Otherwise, what's the point ... ?
"I disagree, who says there has to be a point?"
I mean that if we are going to blow it all up anyway, or detroy all that we have, and have built, then why continue? Why not live as savages instead of going to work, and simply taking what we need to live? What's the impetus to be "civilized"?
After all, that is the example that has been set for us.
When I was in grade school, there was an implied belief that our system operates and grows in order to make advancements, in the hopes that we can build a better world, where no-one starves to death, no one kills for money, and our true potential isn't stifled, in the name of "business as usual".
"What point in life does a deer have, or a chimpanzee or dolphin?"
They exist, and they live a life, and they fulfill their purpose in this universe, whatever that may be. We don't know. It's too big for our tiny minds.
"What makes you think humans are so much better they have to have a point?"
Because we have a consciousness, can differentiate between "right and wrong", negotiate complex problems, and communicate through this toll called language, which is all science is when you think about it.
"We can see further ahead, granted, and we can set goals and dreams for ourselves, but human society does NOT have to serve any larger purpose whatsoever."
No, of couse it doesn't need to. It also doesn't need to continue down the path to its own destruction. We can do anything we want. The future is not set in stone, and the power of the elite is not absolute, no matter how hard they want (and want us) to believe it.
"The only "point" of society is to provide the framework for individuals to operate in; and that framework is exactly what they ask for from the tribe. In the USA that is to protect the weak from the strong -- Protection against theft, fraud, assault, murder, enslavement and repression, protection from privilege brought by wealth or political power."
That's all I'm talking about. the rest will fall in line when we return to reason, and honour our social contracts, honour the promises our society is built upon.
"Open a paper and you will see we don't deliver on that request very well at all. Nor does any other country."
That happens for a very specific reason, and there are common players behind all of it. They go out of their way to ensure this.
"Perhaps when we do we can move on to larger issues like the environment and world government."
If we would balance power, honour "democracy", and allow left and right to balance each other, rather than allowing all the power to be given to one interest, while the other fights their power, then all of this would be resolved.
Under a balanced approach, the environment would be sound. We could live well, but do it in a sustainable manner.
I don't want a world government, since this cycle is sure to repeat. A United Nations, a cooperation that is not coopted by corrupt interests, sure, but not a one-world, tyrranical government.
This big di*k-waving contest we base our lives around has got to end.
"But for now I would be happy if society did a decent job of protecting the weak from the strong and rich, or at least made the strong and rich play fair."
Democratic Socialism? (Ignore your gut reaction, and think about it...)
I do not think we are as far removed as I had thought.
That's all I want. The "Anti-Capitalists" and "Anarchists", that's all they want. The labels they have been given (and claim) are more unifying agents than they are a definitive statement on thier beliefs.
Sure, there are extremes, but most people in this growing Movement only want what you conclude.
The rest is misconception. It is that problem right now, I believe, the one the Movement needs to work on, and then develop strategies and tactics for disseminating information on a wide scale.
This will not be an armed revolution. It is an information war, and the victory will be of truth over lies.
Any system that can only be maintained by employing the language of its opponents, is a fraud.
That, I think, we can realistically build upon.
Jordan Thornton
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
This is from a previous Kurzweil thread, entitled "World Repair".
They are ideas that myself and James Jaeger put together in correspondence.
I'd like to hear your thoughts.
1) CREATE A SEPARATION OF BUSINESS AND STATE - Let the businessmen run business, within the laws and public decency, subject to public controls, and harsh penalties. A conflict of interest is not something to be ignored.
The state should also not be sanctioning certain BIG business to the exclusion of medium and smaller businesses. A perfect example are the Federal Reserve Banks, which are government-sanctioned, quasi-private banking cartels acting against the public interest on at least seven counts.
2) REINSTATE CORPORATE CHARTERS - Make them earn the right to coexist with us. These laws were removed by corrupt politicians. If no penalty is harsh enough for them to behave, then put their right to exist on the line.
Insist that corporate charters better define the purpose of the corporation so as to minimize conflicts of interest and place more emphasis on "making good products" rather than just "making money."
3) REFORM CAMPAIGN FINANCES - Every politician jokes/talks about doing this. We must ensure that it does get done. Make campaigns adhere to a FINITE amount of tax-supported money, equal to all candidates. No private "donations". After all, politics is not about money ... right?
If people or entities want to give (excessive) sums to political parties, at least set up a BLIND POOL that they can contribute to. Altruistic donations should be unconditional. Isn't THAT the idea of true "giving"?
4) REFORM POLITICIANS' PAY - "Rich" does not mean "intelligent". Make pay reflective of performance, like any other job -- or actually connect politician's pay to their performance statistics. In any case, they should not be so disconnected from "real life" that they are completely mystified by it or are rewarded when they make anti-social blunders.
5) TAKE MONEY OUT OF THE LOBBY - Bribery is illegal, and it should be the same within the political arena. "Rich" also does not mean "important", regardless of what the architects of our system would have you believe.
When such bribery is extreme, we get actions like the government giving the broadcast spectrum to certain television interests/networks and in return these television interests/networks support the election and agenda of the bribing politicians. After all, the highest line-item in a politician's campaign budget is prime-time network broadcasting.
6) OPEN "TOWN HALL" CENTERS - A place for your elected officials to meet with the People before making decisions "on their behalf". These structures exist in all communities. They are schools, churches, and they stand empty a good portion of the week. Let's put them to better use.
And when politicians aren't meeting people in person, why can't they be posting and emailing real people on the Internet and in the Newsgroups? Let's see some shirts rolled up and actual WRITTEN DEBATE happening -- not ivory tower thinking and authoritarian speeches/books/TV talk-shows all the time. Words are cheap -- especially words floating through the air. Lastly, the voting booth should be open on the weekend, so as to maximize the time a voting option is exposed to the public. And what about instant registration. Certainly this is a possibility in an electronic age.
7) REDUCE DEFENSE SPENDING - We've been sold a line, by the same people who profit from this spending. If you'd stop making enemies, and attempt peace, demilitarization would be possible. Hold the people and banks that finance wars and the creation of military hardware accountable. Why should anyone, or any entity, get to hide behind the scenes and profit while young men and women are giving their lives?
8) TAKE AWAY GOVERNMENT'S BLANK CHECK - Put Government spending under public jurisdiction, the People, part of the budgetary process. Don't just hand them the keys and walk away. That's stupid.
As part of taking away the blank check, the Federal Reserve System needs to be brought back under Constitutional Law. (See THE CREATURE FROM JEKYL ISLAND by G. Edward Griffin at http://www.realityzone.com/creature.html.) Right now it is a private institution profiting off the system and providing the government, in essence, an infinite amount of fiat money. In the last analysis, the act of lending money for war or conflict should be outlawed by the United Nations, starting with the US. If the UN/US truly wants to promote world peace, then let them vote to outlaw the lending of money by all banks to all governments, so that conflict is not so "convenient" and profitable. War should be a cash-n-carry affair -- as the Framers of the US Constitution envisioned. http://grid.let.rug.nl/~usa/D/1776-1800/constitution/const.htm
Unless citizens are willing directly ante-up with the tax money to fight a particular war, the activity is not all that important. When banks lend money to a government for war, yet withhold such loans to other governments, hasn't the power to determine the outcome of conflicts been transferred from the CITIZENS to the BANKS?
9) GET OFF OIL - Most of the conflicts in the world are over this naturally-occurring sludge, including the ones in question. Alternatives exist, but are suppressed, because the people in power are also intimately connected to the oil industry, and under the control of its lobby. Oil creates the conditions which produce terrorism. The earth is beginning to reject us, because of the unchecked environmental destruction caused by oil. This is a threat to our security.
At the current rate of power consumption/demand, the world's population must focus its attention on generating energy from PLASMA FUSION as no other alternative energy source (with the exception of ZERO POINT ENERGY) will suffice. The burning of fossil fuels is causing a greenhouse effect and MUST cease immediately. If this gets much more serious, none of the other events on this list will matter.
10) MEDIA REFORM IS VITAL - Before any of the above can be tackled, media needs to be reformed, because the same forces controlling the above, also control the media.
Read a book called, IT'S THE MEDIA STUPID a book report at http://www.mecfilms.com/universe/articles/stupid.htm and see the Film Industry Reform Movement at http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM
11) ENCOURAGE EXPLORATION - In the same spirit colonists explored and settled the "New World" which later hosted the United States and gave fuller bloom to the principles of liberty and democracy, we need to explore and colonize the Solar System, starting with Mars, so that the human race is not doomed to the fate of stagnation on but one celestial body in an infinite universe. Read, CASE FOR MARS by Robert Zubrin available at http://www.marssociety.org.
12) SECURE THE WORLD FROM EXTINCTION-LEVEL CATASTROPHE - The very real threat of being impacted by a meteor (as evidenced yesterday with the discovery of 2002 T-Whatever), or long-period comet, MUST be addressed because if this one event happens, none of the other events on this list will matter in the slightest. Some night look at the Moon and realize that for every impact crater you see there, the Earth has already experienced about 2 to 3 times as many (due to its larger mass). If the comet that hit Jupiter had impacted with Earth, you, and every person you know, would be dead right now. There is evidence that the number of comets and/or asteroids that will be hitting the Earth may be increasing because of the Solar System's 18-million year bob in its path around the galactic nucleus. There are an estimated 2,500 earth-crossing asteroids. We have only located about 250 of them. One could hit us tomorrow.
The Earth has had several close calls in just the past 10 years -- one of them just last month. Did the mainstream media inform you of this as well as it should have, if at all? Out of the 17% that goes to national defense, veterans and foreign affairs, at least 5% must immediately be re-allocated to locating and handling extinction-level Earth-crossing asteroids and long-period comets. Spending money on frivolous foreign conflicts will not save humanity from a lethal and indifferent Universe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: World Repair
|
|
|
| |
I'll respond to this last thing first; and to the first thing later when I have time!
>> 1) CREATE A SEPARATION OF BUSINESS AND STATE - The state should not sanction certain BIG business to the exclusion of medium and smaller businesses.
I basically agree but probably think of the separation differently than you do. I believe in anti-trust laws, for example, because in my mind that is part of the government's job of protecting the weak (businesses) from the strong (businesses).
I also believe in minimum wage laws. Seeing how little you can get away with paying the desperate poor is a cost-cutting strategy that needs to be taken off the table. They are poorly implemented now, but I believe in them.
I might even believe in government subsidy of business. It is in our collective best interest, for example, to get away from fossil fuels and into solar energy, but the R&D hurdle may be too much for a profit-oriented business to overcome. I am not opposed to grants for R&D for companies that want to try, presuming they really use the grants for serious R&D (successful or not) and not for corporate jets.
The role of government is to perform those functions we ALL (95% of us) agree are in our collective interest; like law enforcement, trash collection, environmental disaster relief, defense against foreign aggression.
Sometimes it really is in our collective interest to hand money to farmers devastated by natural disaster like drought; because the alternative is to not have those farms and rely on imports and increase our cost for their goods in the long haul over the amount of money we use to bail them out now.
>> 2) REINSTATE CORPORATE CHARTERS - Make them earn the right to coexist with us. These laws were removed by corrupt politicians. If no penalty is harsh enough for them to behave, then put their right to exist on the line.
OK. But if you do not have a sliding scale of punishment; then laws will be broken with impunity and enforced with prejudice. IF the penalty for breaking any law from speeding to cheating a bit on the taxes to outright murder is always death, THEN everybody ends up dead or the system is corrupted to selectively prosecute.
So I don't mind if the penalty for severe crimes by a corporation is dissolution; but that has to be the top penalty.
>> Insist that corporate charters better define the purpose of the corporation so as to minimize conflicts of interest and place more emphasis on "making good products" rather than just "making money."
Bah. BS. I am in corporations and have been a director, they will find a way around it. Besides, making money is a perfectly acceptable goal of business, just as arresting criminals is a perfectly acceptable goal of a policeman.
Asking the corporation to be self-governing is stupid, it's like asking politicians to define campaign finance reform. Set laws and regulations that work so the corps best money-making efforts naturally include making safe products.
Besides, you forget that there is a role for low quality products in the market. My sister doesn't feed her children gourmet food, she uses generic brands because she can afford it and they are just as nutritious (maybe more so). I don't drive a $75,000 car even though I can afford it; I don't "get off" on cars or prestige and $25,000 buys excellent transportation for me. I have a top quality home video system, though, because that IS important to me.
Let consumers decide what they want. Some people are happier with inexpensive crap.
>> 3) REFORM CAMPAIGN FINANCES.
Yeah, OK.
>> If people or entities want to give (excessive) sums to political parties, at least set up a BLIND POOL that they can contribute to. Altruistic donations should be unconditional.
Good luck. Word travels, information wants to be free, and the candidates always know for certain who is behind the $100K donations. You can't stop it.
If you want to reform it; go for a longer term and prevent re-election. That might work a little, if a pol cannot be re-elected the only campaign he has to worry about is his first; and it would remove his incentive to please contributors -- Except for the cushy job he gets after leaving office.
>> 4) REFORM POLITICIANS' PAY. Make pay reflective of performance, like any other job.
OK, let's pay them $5 million a year. There are about 422 congressman, for example, which means they represent about 800,000 people each. About a quarter of a million households, on average. In the real world anybody leading that many people is fantastically paid.
Of course that kind of pay will attract the best and the brightest, I agree. It will also make them largely immune to any kind of bribe or influence, either during office or after they leave office. So I think it's a good idea.
I get paid more than a congressman does. Most of my work-friends are paid comparably. There is a disincentive for the smart and accomplished to enter politics and sacrifice their lifestyle and income earning years for the common good.
>> 5) TAKE MONEY OUT OF THE LOBBY - Bribery is illegal, and it should be the same within the political arena.
OK. But then you need a new definition of 'bribery', because it is ALREADY illegal and prosecuted, and lobbyists do a job that is perfectly legal under current law! You don't get to be the judge and jury of what is and is not bribery.
6) OPEN "TOWN HALL" CENTERS.
OK. You get the politicians to show up. Oh wait; if they wanted to do any such thing they could do it in a heartbeat. Or are you going to make them showing up part of the law too?
>> And when politicians aren't meeting people in person, why can't they be posting and emailing real people on the Internet and in the Newsgroups?
What you are talking about is basically unfair. A congressman represents a quarter of a million households. Why should his vote be influenced by the few hundred people he can communicate with directly?
That makes those people disproportionately represented, an elite deciding what he will do.
He is supposed to represent ALL of the people, not just those with the time, energy, luck and determination to communicate with him. Your scheme basically puts an inaccurate, non-representative running poll of a few hundred people in charge. Let's see, who has the resources to be in that poll -- The rich, the fanatics, the unemployed and those with ready access to technology.
No thanks.
>> 7) REDUCE DEFENSE SPENDING. - We've been sold a line, by the same people who profit from this spending. If you'd stop making enemies, and attempt peace, demilitarization would be possible.
BS, and no thank you. You are completely wrong; there is always evil in the world because there are always people willing to use violence and murder to get their way and what they want.
We have a great deal in the USA, it is a big prize, and defense spending is justified. Defense WASTE is not justified but you don't convince me the lion's share of the budget is waste.
>> 8) TAKE AWAY GOVERNMENT'S BLANK CHECK.
The gov doesn't HAVE a blank check, they have a budget that gets approved annually. Forget this and work on the pols that are supposed to be representing us.
>> Unless citizens are willing directly ante-up with the tax money to fight a particular war, the activity is not all that important.
BS again. Not everything can be put to a vote; even if the technology exists. The time it takes to be educated and make an intelligent vote instead of an emotional vote does NOT exist for all 200M adults.
I largely trust my accountant to know what he is doing. I don't have the time or inclination to understand every tax issue that arises; if he says to pay I pay.
To a large extent we have to trust politicians to get it right, understand issues and determine the best course of action, even if that includes war.
Sometimes generals must decide that some of their soldiers will die, that is a fact of life. Preserving life at all costs leads directly and quickly to slavery and subjugation, becuase life is easy to threaten. The only way to obtain or preserve freedom is to risk life and limb for it, and sometimes life and limb are lost.
You are just complaining about self-interested pols, again. Work on figuring that out.
>> 9) GET OFF OIL.
OK. But realize no work will be done on that unless it is individually profitable; so consider gov grants to researchers to make it happen.
>> 10) MEDIA REFORM IS VITAL.
No it isn't. The media is fine, it is tuned to what people find interesting. Forcing the media to cover what people do not find interesting is stupid; it will lead to less participation, not more.
>> 11) ENCOURAGE EXPLORATION.
Even if the citizens that are paying for this "encouragment" largely don't want it?
A Mars mission would cost billions at a minimum; hundreds of billions if NASA does it. Who pays for it? Taxpayers. What if 90% of them don't want to pay for it, and the remaining 10% don't want to cough up $3000 apiece?
People care about sex, money, and entertainment. Many are not entertained enough by the prospect of going to Mars, or colonizing the moon, to part with more than a few dollars.
>> 12) SECURE THE WORLD FROM EXTINCTION-LEVEL CATASTROPHE.
The threat isn't as real as you make it out to be; after all the last ELE we know about for sure was 65 million years ago, putting the prospect of one in ground noise. We are more likely to be extinctified by global warming or the loss of the ozone layer in the next 500 years.
I wouldn't devote any major effort to avoiding meteors; the money is more practically spent on other threats.
>> Spending money on frivolous foreign conflicts will not save humanity from a lethal and indifferent Universe.
How about non-frivolous foreign conflicts? Or do you intend to imply that all foreign conflicts are frivolous? If that is your intent, you have your head in the sand worse than Buchanan.
Most conflicts where we intervene will save SOME humanity from lethal and indifferent dictators. And when I compare the game theory payoff from such intervention to the payoff from looking for Earth orbit crossing asteroids, the foreign conflict intervention (FCI) comes out way, way ahead, even taking the 6 billion lives saved by the ELE effort into account. (ELE: 92 lives saved vs FCI: 1,000 lives saved at minimum).
-------------
Basically none of this has changed my mind. Your arguments for change largely ignore the practicality of making something happen in the real world.
And you are inconsistent; demanding we as a group plump for the goals you find important (most of these points) without regard to whether even a majority of people would vote for them, while proposing that war should essentially be put to a popular vote (I suspect because it is the most likely to be voted down).
In short you are increasing the role of government to a point I find intrusive, and it is to push a particular philosophical agenda you have that most of the population doesn't share, making you a wannabe dictator that "knows what's best" for the rest of us.
This is precisely NOT the role I want government to play. The separation you spoke of first can occur; but it should occur by defining very closely the ROLE of government. In general that role is to defend the weak from the strong; which has only a little to do with the monetary goals of corporations and therefore would provide a natural separation.
I'll answer the rest tomorrow, I have to go back to work! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
We disagree COMPLETELY.
|
|
|
| |
Well that is a lot to answer.
>>>> They cannot be accomplished. It's time to move on to something else; apply your intelligence to work that can be done.
>> So you're just outright stating that change is not an option?
I didnt say change is not an option. I say you cant jump to the moon, and you infer it is impossible to get to the moon.
>> Where would we be if everyone shared that defeatist attitude? What if a scientist said "Well, there's never been a cure for cancer. Let's forget it"?
Curing cancer is easy compared to your goals. And because most adults over 40 seem to know somebody that died of it, research toward a cure seems likely to get a large vote. I dont know anybody that has died of Global Warming. I think it is a real threat, but I also realize it is barely on the publics radar.
>> I think that we must also propose new options for change, because fixing a few areas will have a top-down effect on all the rest.
Of course they MIGHT, but you ignore the fact that fixing them at the top is IMPOSSIBLE! So I disagree, proposing new options for change is a completely pointless exercise, because making a major change to people or policy is absolutely impossible without a corresponding major motivator. Like FEAR, perhaps. So your energy is completely wasted.
The only change that consistently works is change from the bottom up. We cannot TELL people to not hate blacks or gays, we have to grow a new generation of children in an integrated society where those hatreds are weakened, and another generation after that where they are weakened more. Those hatreds still exist, but they are much, much weaker in high schools today than they were in 1950. In another 50 years I expect them to be so low as to call the problem solved.
>>>> In the global sense all that will work is what has always worked; Darwinism and Malthusianism.
>> These things have not "worked", they have only been accepted.
No, you are wrong. Even the collapse of Enron, WorldCom etc are Darwinism in action. These companies adopted "mutations" in accounting policy that proved to be anti-survival strategies and as a result they have died (or are dying).
But more importantly, Darwinism has produced countless species that profited from their environment, and continues to do so. These are not "just accepted", they are valid, scientific rules that explain outcomes astonishingly well.
>> Wars do not happen just because of a shortage of resources. So long as the people who profit directly from conflict are the only ones allowed to determine and enforce foreign policy and "broker peace", yes, there will be war.
I didnt say "just", and wars do happen over resources. The fact that people profit from conflict indicates they want resources they dont have. Yes, wars can happen over religious or moral outrage, but most wars happen because too many people are going after too little land, money, industry or natural resources.
Hitler wanted to take over the world. Wiping out Jews was secondary; if he had stayed in his own country and done that I doubt we would have interfered or attacked.
All of the big wars have been started over land or some other resource, havent they? Even the Gulf War Saddam wanted Kuwait, for its oil and seaports.
The terrorists want Israel to disappear. They want dominance over the population and all the land on the planet; in the name of their religion; in Islamism infidels that own land have stolen it from Muslims, infidels are not human and must be destroyed. That includes us.
>>>> "If you can't get a global agenda to fit them perfectly, it will fail as miserably as communism.
>> First of all, we have never seen a true Communist society. We have seen party dictatorships claiming Communism, but never true implementation of Communist doctrine. They didn't simply fail, either, they succumbed to long and dirty campaigns by Capitalist nations.
I agree we have never seen one; but disagree about "long and dirty campaigns". Give me a break. We havent seen true communism because it succumbs to internal pressures. Pure communism fails because the very formula is flawed: "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." It means working harder doesnt get you ahead, and if you dont work at all you still get what you need.
There is no incentive to work! Which explains why they immediately resort to threats and fear, but even that just means the work is unenthusiastic and the minimum the people (now slaves of the state) can get away with. It explains why they immediately resort to corruption, because a real personal profit is impossible, prohibited by the state, and the only road to individual profit is looting the resources. Stealing from the state.
They collapsed under their own weight and are clearly inferior to free market systems. After all they railed against us with long and dirty campaigns too. Technically, having a much freer society, we should have been easier to undermine, spy on, and ultimately destroy.
Yet they died, not us, because the very basis of Communism doesnt hold water; because it doesnt conform to human psychology, while the root of capitalism does conform to human psychology.
>> The system that Globalists are attempting to create is not feasible or sustainable.
Wrong. If it isnt sustainable then it will die, as soon as it runs out of resources. But it is feasible; it is simply an extension of the system in place in the USA, with a few mods, which is not just feasible and sustainable but robust.
>> You can't allow corrupt men to design and implement a system full of loopholes and double-standards and expect positive results.
No, you are wrong. I can and do expect such a thing; but our timelines differ. Loopholes and double standards are "unfair". By definition, they benefit some over others. So eventually the offended party finds a way to either close the loophole or make the loophole a non-point.
Look at the stock market. It becomes progressively more fair. As criminals learn to game the system they eventually get slapped down and new rules are imposed. Weve just had a wave of such new rules passed, and Bush will sign the bill. EVEN THOUGH it contains provisions and language written by Democrats he and Republicans dislike and campaigned against, EVEN THOUGH it prohibits actions he and Cheney took advantage of to line their pockets when they were CEOs, he will sign it.
Not because it is in OUR best interest, but because it is in HIS. If he vetoes it the Democrats will use that to paint Republicans as soft on corporate crime, and this is an election year in Congress, and if he loses the House as well as the Senate he is screwed. And if he doesnt do something and the market continues to sink he is screwed for re-election in two years. So in their own self-interest, Bush and Cheney will cheerfully pack their friends, fellow CEO's and big campaign contributors off to prison.
This wont make the market perfect, but it makes it a little MORE FAIR. Just like hundreds of rules and laws passed since the 1920s, and especially after the crash of 29 which produced a whole host of rules that still protect investors far better today than they were protected before 29, making far more difficult to game the system.
Any system that has loopholes will have competitors that lose because of them; and if enough attention is drawn to the loopholes they will be closed. And no, another one doesnt automatically open up. People try to game the system, but the game gets harder and harder.
This is Darwinism. Viruses and bacteria try to "game" your biological system and make a profit by using it to reproduce in. Your system closes the loopholes they find and you remain healthy.
Sometimes the virus wins; like AIDS does, but AIDS is illustrative: Most victims dont die of AIDS, they die of opportunistic infections and cancers their immune system can no longer fight off. Which tells you the average person without AIDS deals with hundreds of such cancers and infections every year without even knowing it; and they remain healthy.
>> If we are going to define and implement a global system then shouldn't it be one that addresses the very serious problems facing all of us on this floating rock?
Only if we all agree on what constitutes a "very serious problem." Should it address problems that only 1% of the population feel is very serious? If so, we pretty much need to wipe out all non-Muslims, they constitute something over 10% of the population, and they want us wiped out.
People that share even one of your concerns are a microscopic minority in the world population. I happen to share a few of your concerns, but why should your agenda, or mine, top the list?
>>>> Environmentalism is doomed; and if that means we are doomed, so be it.
>> Why? We haven't even tried to develop "clean" ways of living. To give up and just say "Fu*k It" isn't really a great option.
Well, it is an even dumber option to work toward something that is impossible. Environmentalism will not be embraced until it affects people directly. They have to perceive some loss of some thing. You perceive it, others do too. But the average person does not; and until you can put together a swing vote of maybe 10% of voters (or even 1% in a very close election) you are not going to have an influence over decisions.
Politicians operate in their SELF INTEREST, even the very noble are reluctant to risk their office (or intended office) on something NOBODY CARES ABOUT.
Environmentalism has fairly wide support, but I dont think it has the litmus power of issues like abortion or taxes or health care that can become the only issue a voter cares about.
If you want to support it, find ways to bring it to the forefront of peoples minds and make it a litmus issue. I personally dont think that is possible until something drastic and fearful happens.
>> How do you explain the severe increase in human violence in the past few centuries, especially now, at a time when we can control food production like never before in history?
I explain it with the information revolution; which started with the printing press, and with gunpowder, which ended the middle-ages era of armored knights (Knights were getting shot through with iron balls from arquebusses, which made them an ineffective force.)
There are two extremes in the state of man; slavery and freedom. If you keep people uneducated and fearful of force, you can keep them in slavery.
Education is the key to eventual freedom; superior force accelerates the process.
Today we still have warlords and dictators that keep their populace in fear by force. But as those people learn that better lives are possible they find ways to escape, adopt them, and the power of the dictator melts away. Everybody dies, eventually, including Saddam. Television, print, and radio undermine his power, and his replacement will have less power than he does.
The violence in the world today is largely a result of people in positions of privilege trying to hang on to their power and privilege while their subjects try to achieve a better life they know is possible, because they have been watching Friends and Frasier on TV for gods sake, or listening to smuggled radios or reading smuggled magazines and books.
These are fights over resources. The oppressed are trying to take resources from the oppressor. Sometimes the good win, sometimes the bad win.
>> One of our biggest problems is racism.
Racism is disappearing in the USA. Hopefully through the mixing of races in offspring. Children ARE growing up with fewer racist ideas, and in the next several generations I think it might be no more prevalent than, say, avowed paganism.
>>>> DARWIN: You already know, he tells us how the selection of the excess population to be exterminated can have a slight bias.
>> The concept of depopulation is reprehensible.
Oh, GOD! Reprehensible?! You are completely out of touch with reality; depopulation is a FACT. We DIE. We over-propagate ourselves, we fight, and we DIE.
There are 350 million people in the USA with an average life span of 78 years; that means 1 out of 78 will die this year, about 4.5 million, about 12 thousand a day. Some for stupid reasons, and BTW, IQ is positively correlated with life span, so it is a survival factor and puts a slight pressure on the population to eliminate stupidity.
Darwin isnt condemning people; he is simply saying the self evident. Traits that increase the probability of non-reproduction BY DEFINITION are less reproduced in the long run. They are selected against. The excess population must be exterminated (by nature) and this biases the selection, within the population, of who must die.
>> They also feel that it is hopeless, because all of the machinations of society are broken, everyone is corrupt, and that they are powerless.
I dont think so. Perhaps you feel that way. Most people I know think the system is flawed but not broken; that everyone is a little corrupt but not horribly so. They certainly are not "hopeless."
>>>> You would be better off trying to make a few million and then use that money to support candidates you will have close access to, or to run for office yourself.
>> I am working on screenplays in the hopes they will sell. [] I do keep in contact with several elected representatives, but they not only ignore, but scoff at my views, because they are the problem, and I understand that they perceive what I represent to be a threat.
Sorry, no they dont. They correctly perceive what you represent to be a fringe interest and no threat at all; they ignore and scoff at your views because it costs them nothing to do so. Not enough people really care enough about your concerns to change their vote, and that is the key to the politician.
If you were a member of a block of voters he cared about he would give you some platitudes. If you REPRESENTED a block of voters he cared about, he would have a discussion with you. If you were capable of helping fund his campaign in any significant way, he might be swayed by you.
What I am trying to pound into you is that he operates in HIS SELF INTEREST; and the only way for you to get anything done is to sell it to him on that basis.
SCREENWRITING is a similar exercise. I know something about this. It is possible for unknowns to sell screenplays and get them made into movies, it happens every single year. But always for the same reason They are great stories and entertaining. I would venture to say they can be among the best, because they had to be good to overcome the hurdle of anonymity.
If your screenplays are heavy-handed lectures about your concerns, they wont sell. They wont appeal to the guy that has to put up $20M to make the picture. He wants a hugely entertaining story, not a lesson in atmospheric science.
You can get some messages in under the radar, perhaps, and educate some people, but I suggest you watch some of the directors cuts on DVDs. Anything that isnt story, they cut, even when THEY love it. Id bet movies about asteroid collisions have done more for looking for real asteroids than any lecture on the subject. Id bet "Contact" with Jodi Foster did more for SETI than any lectures.
Sure it was unrealistic, but the story got people emotionally involved with the character.
>>>> Probably making a few million is easier than getting any of these causes off the ground; you are talking about multi-billion dollar efforts.
>> I haven't found it that easy to "make a million".
Then you wont find it easy to change something ten thousand times bigger than that. Concentrate on the easier problem of making a million, or concentrate on something even easier than that.
>> We as a society make a priority [of] killing and destruction instead of building a better way of life
Oh, please. Only in your view. 99.9% of people do not make any priority of killing or destruction; they make a priority of earning (or getting) money, being entertained, getting laid and finding a life partner to have children with. All innocuous, easily understandable goals.
If that causes the destruction of a tree or ten, involves killing chickens and cows and fish -- Well if you can't make the cost of that directly apparent to them in their lives, they won't do anything about it.
>> The causes are off the ground, but they are not allowed to become national debates, because they would threaten the interests of the elite (for lack of a better term).
Paranoid delusions. WAKE UP! Its a FREE COUNTRY! If anybody wanted to talk about this stuff, they would.
Look, you claim to be a writer. You can start a newsletter tomorrow. Write it up, send it out to a thousand people out of your local phone book, and tell them that after three monthly issues you will be asking for a subscription from them to cover costs of $15 per year. Oh, and you welcome debate from paid subscribers and hope to publish it.
They are all free to sign up, nobody will talk to them or to you to stop you. How many WILL sign up? Id wager ZERO, because nobody CARES enough to spend $15 to talk about it.
Want a lower cost alternative? Start a website, and send postcards to people with your web address on it. Or rent a billboard and say "TALK ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT! WWW.WHATEVER.COM."
Still, so few hits on the site. Hm.
The simple easy truth is that the media acts in its own self interest, there is no profit in this discussion so they dont have it.
>> It's not that people don't want these things, it's that they're not allowed to consider them, because the people that own us fear what they may lose.
COMPLETE BULLSHIT LYING. I have never once in my life been stopped from considering anything or discussing anything. The only laws I am aware of that prohibit completely free speech have to do with child pornography, saying derogatory things about others that are untrue (slander in speech, libel in print), and terrorist threats. All of which I rather agree with.
You presume because nobody WANTS to consider it, they must be not only repressed, but stupider than YOU. How freakin' egotistical can you be?
>>>> There are two variables to control here: The average time horizon of the average citizen; and the impact of the problem.
>> Please explain. I am drawing conflicting conclusions from this statement, and I'd rather address what you actually mean.
The further out people see, the more likely they are to be concerned about long term effects. That is to start. But if the problems they see out there do not have great impact on them, they will not devote time or money to solving them even if they see them.
So, for example, if Global Warming raises the temp by 5 degrees, melts the ice caps, exterminates thousands of species and puts Manhattan under water, but I REALLY DONT CARE about any of that and see it all as somebody elses problem, why should I do anything about it? You have to give me a reason it impacts ME, and then if I believe that Ill say OK, it is worth X dollars to me to prevent that. Because it will be worth SOMETHING if I think I am facing a real loss I care about.
First you have to get me to follow the argument and see out that far, second you have to convince me that what I now see has some impact on me, threatens a loss or presents an opportunity, and that makes it worth something to me in terms of time, money, or significant behavioral change.
>> A lot of those organizations had direct connections to the people who are at the root of the problem. That they failed was no accident.
More paranoid conspiracy delusions, just stupid.
>> I am talking about putting things into the mental environment that have been noticably absent in the past; new ideas, new and better options, and the FACTS.
No you arent. The facts and math dont support much of what you talk about, only your own rhetoric does. I disagree completely that facts are "noticeably absent" in the past, the past is full of them. You just dont like the conclusions drawn from them, so you claim they dont exist.
>> Like the investigations into the "intelligence failings" surrounding 9/11, instead of a deep and open probe into what really happened that day. I am working to get that one killed, but I think it's out of our hands, because the truth would threaten to destroy our entire society.
More paranoia and conspiracy theory. I wont waste time answering this.
>> ** I am trying to propose real options, things that could be implemented to affect the change we need. Please see the points at the end of this post. **
Already answered previously. Again, they are not real options OR things that can be implemented. Align yourself with human nature or face failure. There is no great conspiracy or secret cabal; there are normal idiots gaming politics and the markets trying to get money and power easily. They are human, they get caught. Look at Jim Traficant.
Nobody is "preventing" information from getting out, say whatever you want to as many people as you can afford to say it to; short of engaging in abuse of children, printing libel (but you CAN print any verifiable truth), or threatening assassinations or violence.
Solicit money if you want. Nobody will stop you or deny you license, nobody will stop anybody from supporting you in your cause. The only "conspiracy" is that the vast majority is comfortable enough to just not care.
>>>> Besides that the best we can do is hope the problem is still soluble when people wake up.
>> I agree, but I think a few of the biggest problems, like our damaged environment and the corruption of power by violent interests, are really getting out of hand, pose a real threat, and need to be dealt with.
You agree, BUT. Which means you dont agree for what you find important, only for what you find unimportant, which is hardly agreeing at all.
>> This society loves to mask the symptoms, instead of dealing with its problems. If we continue in this way, we are lost.
So be it. Something else will replace it, and hopefully that society learn from our mistakes.
>> I am hoping to sell my screenplays, and that the message and information presented in them will have some effect.
Not unless they are entertaining and compelling TO THE MASSES. (Not to just you). If you dont write a story that a producer thinks ten million people will pay $5 to see, you wont sell a screenplay.
People select entertainment out of self-interest too. Faced with a bleak and transparent lecture or an action adventure, which does the producer choose to back? Faced with a romantic comedy or a long diatribe about how the world is going to hell, which does he choose?
You already know the answer, and it is no conspiracy. Its just an agent, or producer, or director trying to make a profit by appealing to the public by creating two hours of fun fiction.
>> I mean that if we are going to blow it all up anyway, or destroy all that we have, and have built, then why continue? Why not live as savages instead of going to work, and simply taking what we need to live? What's the impetus to be "civilized"?
Your impetus is up to you. For me, I prefer to be civilized, I feel safer, I am definitely more comfortable, I get greater satisfaction out of life, family, food, entertainment and work. I love it. I have no desire to live without health care or to scrabble in the dirt or hunt in the field, I dont even like the outdoors except to look at from the comfort of a comfortable, temperature controlled car or building. I also like the rule of law and the presence of police and firemen. They arent perfect protection against crime, injustice and disaster, but are far better than a life of savages.
In short I support civilization, I say "Yay!" to civilization, because it is ass over teakettle and overwhelmingly in my self-interest.
>>>> What point in life does a deer have, or a chimpanzee or dolphin?
>> They exist, and they live a life, and they fulfill their purpose in this universe, whatever that may be. We don't know. It's too big for our tiny minds.
BULL. Their purpose in this universe is to reproduce. It isnt too big for our tiny minds at ALL; it is as simple as first grade arithmetic. You engage in religiosity and mysticism.
>>>> What makes you think humans are so much better they have to have a point?
>> Because we have a consciousness, can differentiate between "right and wrong", negotiate complex problems, and communicate.
So? That just gives us more ways to reproduce; instead of just physical reproduction we can reproduce our thoughts and convey feelings, through print, video, music, etc. It doesnt mean any of that has to have a POINT.
In other words, life has a purpose, but not a meaning. They are different things. The meaning is assigned by the individual. Its my life, and I get to decide what it means, if I'm free. And I do. The things I do in my life have meaning to me and that is all that matters; I dont care if they are meaningless to you. My life isn't yours to control.
When I die I will have made the universe a better place for others. It doesnt make a difference to me if the universe collapses at some point and all is destroyed. Movies and books end; that doesnt make them worthless for the time they existed. Life isnt worthless just because the death of the universe is inevitable. (Or if an asteroid ends it all for us tomorrow, for that matter).
Get past the idea that something must continue forever in order to be worth anything; or you will be stuck in the common religious framework that only eternal afterlife means ANYTHING.
Life is worth living; civilization is worth having. Even if it made zero progress from here, it would be worth having. Even if it gets destroyed, it was worth having while we had it.
>>>> Open a paper and you will see we don't deliver on that request very well at all. Nor does any other country.
>> That happens for a very specific reason, and there are common players behind all of it. They go out of their way to ensure this.
Ugh. More paranoia. Get OVER it and see the truth, you will be a more effective person if you stop blaming fantasies for the problems, recognize the real driver, and try to address the problems in a way that can be solved.
>> I don't want a world government, since this cycle is sure to repeat.
No it is NOT sure to repeat. Now who is saying that nothing can ever change?
>>>> But for now I would be happy if society did a decent job of protecting the weak from the strong and rich, or at least made the strong and rich play fair.
>> Democratic Socialism? (Ignore your gut reaction, and think about it...)
You presume my gut reaction. I dont have one. The right answer is a mix between Socialism and Capitalism, which the USA is engaged in right now. About half of the average income goes to socialist causes; welfare, social security, Medicare, taxes for road building, law enforcement, common defense, etc.
I think that is about the right mix. Any more and the pure socialist disincentive to work takes too much power (i.e. "Whats in it for me?"). I think it could be less; maybe 1/3 government and 2/3 personal, but that is nit-picking.
I do believe that as a society we should engage in some socialist activity; namely that part that reads "to each according to their needs." So yes, take care of the disabled and elderly, provide last resort healthcare, help people out of the cycle of poverty, etc.
>> I do not think we are as far removed as I had thought.
Geez, we are miles apart. Absolutely everything you complain about can be explained by simple self-interest, greed, and short-sightedness. There is absolute zero reason to suppose any conspiracy; "owners", "Controllers", or any of that crap. There is no evidence for any of it, and no need for any of it.
That fantasy is interfering with your LIFE. The only reason I bothered answering this is in the hope you can wake up, shed those fantasies, and become a more effective person by seeing the truth of the matter.
There is no media conspiracy, the media strives to give people what they will pay for. If that is titillating details about the intimate lives of movie stars, so be it. Tales of corporate or political corruption, so be that. Bloody nightly news of who got killed today and how, so be it. Explicit sex, so be that. Comedy, comedy, comedy, so be that. Almost any subject with sufficient interest to financially support a writer has an audience; from kinky sex to astrophysics.
If there were a market for these discussions a magazine, newsletter, or cable show would pop up to talk about it. And voila! They have! And eventually they reach their level of penetration which corresponds to the population that cares about the issue, and there they stop.
My wife contributes about $20 a year to help stop animal abuse. The letters they send her monthly include horrific pictures of mutilated animals, because that is what, on average, brings in the most money. It gets her $20.
But that organization, despite spending her $20 to try to get $21, is against the wall in terms of growth. They have reached a balancing point where they grow or shrink with the level of public interest in their issue. And they arent stupid, they try to grow the pie and get MORE people interested, but they have hit the wall there too. Very frustrating for them, I am sure.
Why does my wife contribute her $20? Because it is a trivial amount (to us) that makes her feel better, for one, but like I said people do have altruistic and charitable impulses.
You just cannot expect those feelings, which might drive a few hours worth of contribution a month, to dominate their waking lives. (For many that contribution already takes the form of church attendance and volunteerism.)
So no, I do not think we are close at all. I have perfectly reasonable explanations for why things are as they are, and I have described them here. They are truly self-evident. As a result, I have good expectations for what will work and what will not. As a result I can be more effective.
I waste very little time on fantasies and imaginings ENGINEERED to be mysterious and unverifiable; whether they take the form of religion or secret international corporate conspiracies.
I suggest you do the same.
Tony Castaldo |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: We disagree COMPLETELY.
|
|
|
| |
"I didnt say change is not an option. I say you cant jump to the moon, and you infer it is impossible to get to the moon."
I'm just saying that unless we start seriously talking about getting to the moon, we'll never get there.
"Curing cancer is easy compared to your goals. And because most adults over 40 seem to know somebody that died of it, research toward a cure seems likely to get a large vote."
In the meantime, why do we resist study on the causes of cancer, and the alarming rise in its incidence?
"I dont know anybody that has died of Global Warming."
Not that you can define as such. Hundreds of thousands have been displaced and killed by severe weather over the past few years, due to extreme and sudden changes in weather patterns.
"I think it is a real threat, but I also realize it is barely on the publics radar."
There are reasons for that. If it wasn't so scary, I would find it amusing to see the media forever talk around the issue, even when reporting multiple weather "phenomena", and segue into a story about how Alaska's glaciers are melting, the possibility of coral reef extinction, or Antarctic ice is breaking off and floating away.
The media, for the most part, shapes what is and isn't on the radar. The media is owned by the same corporations that produce much of the emissions responsible, so it doesn't become an issue. If we made it an issue, it would advance the call for a solution.
"Of course they MIGHT, but you ignore the fact that fixing them at the top is IMPOSSIBLE!"
Why do you think fixing our problems at the top is impossible? Frankly, I find that word offensive. Without the people at the bottom, the people at the top are nothing. We would do well to remember that.
"So I disagree, proposing new options for change is a completely pointless exercise, because making a major change to people or policy is absolutely impossible without a corresponding major motivator. Like FEAR, perhaps. So your energy is completely wasted."
If the truth about the dealings of the men at the top were to be divulged to the public, I think their major motivator would be outrage.
Fear may accompany that, as they also learn about the true modus operandi (in protecting their interests) of those same people, the damage it has done, and the danger it puts them all in.
"The only change that consistently works is change from the bottom up."
I agree, but it must then work its way up, or yes, it will be futile. I believe that that is happening, all over the world. Unfortunately, it does not get reported as the phenomenon it is, because it threatens certain ... interests.
And it must work its way up, because once the People wake up to the hypocrisy and utter disdain of their "leaders", they will demand it.
"We cannot TELL people to not hate blacks or gays, we have to grow a new generation of children in an integrated society where those hatreds are weakened, and another generation after that where they are weakened more."
Yes, but you can also educate. I know plenty of elderly people who do not hate minorities, but once held a racist view, because it was looked upon differently.
"Those hatreds still exist, but they are much, much weaker in high schools today than they were in 1950. In another 50 years I expect them to be so low as to call the problem solved."
Seeing the racism that flows from American "leaders", I think that battle just took a severe turn for the worse.
Let's hope it doesn't continue.
"No, you are wrong. Even the collapse of Enron, WorldCom etc are Darwinism in action. These companies adopted "mutations" in accounting policy that proved to be anti-survival strategies and as a result they have died (or are dying)."
I have been thinking about this lately. However, that does not take into account the executives that made millions by selling off stock (just as Cheney and Bush have done) just before the companies died.
There is a class of human beings who have bucked the Darwinian trend, and succeeded, not because they are hyper-intelligent or amazingly strong, but because they are surrounded by people who are paid to cover their asses.
"But more importantly, Darwinism has produced countless species that profited from their environment, and continues to do so. These are not "just accepted", they are valid, scientific rules that explain outcomes astonishingly well."
But it is still just a theory.
"I didnt say "just", and wars do happen over resources."
Oh, I do not disagree. Iraq is the world's #2 source for petroleum, and there is no evidence to support Bu$h's justifications for an invasion.
"The fact that people profit from conflict indicates they want resources they dont have."
Oh, yes indeed. They are also orchestrated by them for these reasons. This is not acceptable behaviour.
"Yes, wars can happen over religious or moral outrage, but most wars happen because too many people are going after too little land, money, industry or natural resources."
Again, I agree. I would also suggest that the outrage that causes wars is also orchestrated.
"Hitler wanted to take over the world. Wiping out Jews was secondary; if he had stayed in his own country and done that I doubt we would have interfered or attacked."
I know. How horrible is that?
"All of the big wars have been started over land or some other resource, havent they? Even the Gulf War Saddam wanted Kuwait, for its oil and seaports."
Then why not teach that, instead of teaching kids that war is honourbale, and done in the name of freedom ...
"The terrorists want Israel to disappear. They want dominance over the population and all the land on the planet; in the name of their religion; in Islamism infidels that own land have stolen it from Muslims, infidels are not human and must be destroyed. That includes us."
PROPOGANDA ... (and a touch of socially-acceptable racism)
"I agree we have never seen one; but disagree about "long and dirty campaigns"."
The Cold War? US interventionist policy?
"Pure communism fails because the very formula is flawed: "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."
I don't see the flaw in that. It respects the equality of human beings the way capitalists claim to.
"It means working harder doesnt get you ahead, and if you dont work at all you still get what you need."
Whoopie. Live your life and don't work so hard. Amazing as it is, many people would love to work less, and spend more time with their families.
"There is no incentive to work!"
Actually, work is a part of the social contract of the system. Under a true society, people will want to work, to do their part in building their society. Their personal needs can only be met if the system is healthy and strong.
If some choose not to work, they will be frowned upon, but they will not starve or freeze to death.
"Which explains why they immediately resort to threats and fear, but even that just means the work is unenthusiastic and the minimum the people (now slaves of the state) can get away with."
And how does this differ from our society? Economic opression is still opression. Whether the State kills someone, or they are left to freeze to death on the streets, the system has killed them.
And again, when "they" resorted to violence, they did not do it in a true communist nation, but a party dictatorship.
You really believe that American workers are "enthusiastic", and that you are not a slave to the State? Remember, you keep reminding me this is the real world.
"It explains why they immediately resort to corruption, because a real personal profit is impossible, prohibited by the state, and the only road to individual profit is looting the resources. Stealing from the state."
No, under the party dictatorship, amassing personal profit was possible. If it wasn't possible, it would not happen.
And under a just and fair system, I would not mind responsible leaders living a bit better, a pat on the back for a job well done.
"They collapsed under their own weight and are clearly inferior to free market systems."
This statement is simply not true.
The only system collapsing under its own weight (minus an ugly campaign ...) is free market capitalism, because the "leaders" of both business and government have forgotten that any healthy system depends on a two-way exchange of ideas, freedoms, and interests.
"After all they railed against us with long and dirty campaigns too. Technically, having a much freer society, we should have been easier to undermine, spy on, and ultimately destroy."
But given the strength and expense (and ruthlessness) of the CIA, who learned from the Nazis, they were overpowered. Their leaders were also corrupt, as you mention, and no power is better at pleasing corrupt leaders than America.
"Yet they died, not us, because the very basis of Communism doesnt hold water; because it doesnt conform to human psychology, while the root of capitalism does conform to human psychology."
Psychology, or Psychopathy?
"Wrong. If it isnt sustainable then it will die, as soon as it runs out of resources."
Then it isn't sustainable. If they were attempting to create a system whereby resources were allocated equally and responsible, while solutions were worked on, I would have no problem.
"But it is feasible; it is simply an extension of the system in place in the USA, with a few mods, which is not just feasible and sustainable but robust."
You do live in the present, do you not? I don't want an American system forced upon the entire world. (Even though it really is already ...) It is neither feasible or sustainable. And aside from some material wealth, it is hardly robust, not anymore.
>> You can't allow corrupt men to design and implement a system full of loopholes and double-standards and expect positive results.
No, you are wrong. I can and do expect such a thing; but our timelines differ. Loopholes and double standards are "unfair". By definition, they benefit some over others. So eventually the offended party finds a way to either close the loophole or make the loophole a non-point."
The loopholes and double-standards allow the problems to get worse, and the people causing them to become ever-more powerful, and capable of creating more loopholes, double-standards, and alter the law. Along any timeline, this destroys any semblance of the original system, as is the case with the beautiful dream that was once America.
The problems are pretty dificult to make "non-points" of when they cause people to die needlessly.
"Look at the stock market. It becomes progressively more fair. As criminals learn to game the system they eventually get slapped down and new rules are imposed."
Ineffectual rules are imposed, because the criminals run the system. And gambling is never fair, and that's what the market is.
"Weve just had a wave of such new rules passed, and Bush will sign the bill. EVEN THOUGH it contains provisions and language written by Democrats he and Republicans dislike and campaigned against, EVEN THOUGH it prohibits actions he and Cheney took advantage of to line their pockets when they were CEOs," (and they are running the country!!!!!) "he will sign it."
Did CNN say that? It's a PR move. I think if the whole wording were to be examined, you would see it very differently. There are lots of pieces of paper, with oodles of signatures on them, and our world is still in utter chaos.
The current Administration is acting in direct violation of the most important pieces of paper in America.
"Not because it is in OUR best interest, but because it is in HIS. If he vetoes it the Democrats will use that to paint Republicans as soft on corporate crime, and this is an election year in Congress, and if he loses the House as well as the Senate he is screwed."
Don't be too sure. Both parties are sides of the same coin. Their disagreements are more for show than anything.
"And if he doesnt do something and the market continues to sink he is screwed for re-election in two years. So in their own self-interest, Bush and Cheney will cheerfully pack their friends, fellow CEO's and big campaign contributors off to prison."
I guess we'll see ...
If corporate execs are carted off to prison, I highly doubt they will prove to be loyal supporters of the party in power. If anything, I would imagine their imprisonment would profit those loyal contributors.
"This wont make the market perfect, but it makes it a little MORE FAIR. Just like hundreds of rules and laws passed since the 1920s, and especially after the crash of 29 which produced a whole host of rules that still protect investors far better today than they were protected before 29, making far more difficult to game the system."
I am not familiar with the laws passed. I do understand, however, that the circumstances leading up to what happened in the late 20's is frighteningly similar to what is taking place right now, as stated in my original post.
"Any system that has loopholes will have competitors that lose because of them; and if enough attention is drawn to the loopholes they will be closed. And no, another one doesnt automatically open up. People try to game the system, but the game gets harder and harder."
The real world, remember?
"This is Darwinism. Viruses and bacteria try to "game" your biological system and make a profit by using it to reproduce in. Your system closes the loopholes they find and you remain healthy."
The market is not a natural system. It is a man-made creation that can be destroyed or modified at any time.
I would liken our society to a virus moreso than the market, which is also based upon a theory.
"Sometimes the virus wins; like AIDS does, but AIDS"
Hearings are in the works to determine if AIDS was engineered, and whether or not it was spread through innoculations.
"Most victims dont die of AIDS, they die of opportunistic infections and cancers their immune system can no longer fight off. Which tells you the average person without AIDS deals with hundreds of such cancers and infections every year without even knowing it; and they remain healthy."
Just as in our society, we all live with the threat that at any point, all we have can be seized or lost, and we'd have nowhere to turn. Sometimes, opportunistic criminals steal the wealth and freedom of the people. Those unfortunate enough to be on the reciving end of this corruption feel its sting, and the rest live in the system without even knowing it, and remain "healthy".
>> If we are going to define and implement a global system then shouldn't it be one that addresses the very serious problems facing all of us on this floating rock?
"Only if we all agree on what constitutes a "very serious problem." Should it address problems that only 1% of the population feel is very serious?"
What people feel and what is true are two completely different things in our society. I would consider anything that threatened the health and well-being of the people of this planet to be a "very serious problem".
"If so, we pretty much need to wipe out all non-Muslims, they constitute something over 10% of the population, and they want us wiped out."
Again, PROPOGANDA ... and racism. This statement is not grounded in reality, and the information disseminated to justify it is a lie.
"People that share even one of your concerns are a microscopic minority in the world population. I happen to share a few of your concerns, but why should your agenda, or mine, top the list?"
Because my "agenda" will not kill people, and it will improve the lives of the majority on this planet. I realize that you don't receive much foreign news in your country, but all over the world, hundreds of thousands rally in the name of the things that I am advocating.
"Well, it is an even dumber option to work toward something that is impossible. Environmentalism will not be embraced until it affects people directly."
It IS affecting them directly! Their children have Asthma, their girls are hitting puberty at seven (because of bovine and other growth hormones), weather events are increasing in severity and number, dirty water is killing people, etc, etc, etc ...
"They have to perceive some loss of some thing. You perceive it, others do too. But the average person does not; and until you can put together a swing vote of maybe 10% of voters (or even 1% in a very close election) you are not going to have an influence over decisions."
The corporately-owned media does not ALLOW any public debate of this kind. And this is not a democracy, no matter what we've been taught. It's not the numbers, it's the number of dollars in the Lobby.
"Politicians operate in their SELF INTEREST, even the very noble are reluctant to risk their office (or intended office) on something NOBODY CARES ABOUT."
People care about this. They just aren't offered any serious solutions, because this debate is stifled, because of what the perceived risks are to industry, and industry runs the government.
"Environmentalism has fairly wide support, but I dont think it has the litmus power of issues like abortion or taxes or health care that can become the only issue a voter cares about."
And that is because it is a real issue, and not a meme propgated on people to polarize their minds, and steel them against all else.
"If you want to support it, find ways to bring it to the forefront of peoples minds and make it a litmus issue. I personally dont think that is possible until something drastic and fearful happens."
Allowing public debate on the issue, by a free press and not a corporately-owned and biased media would accomplish this. The stories are all their, but until they are connected and acknowledged, that's all they are to people, "stories".
One tactic of disinformation states, in a nutshell, that "If it isn't reported, it didn't happen". Everyone I talk to lets slip comments and looks that tell me they're concerned ... and frightened. But until the media or "experts" acknowledge the enormity of the problem, they will continue to worry alone, unsure of themselves, in a society wherein we do not speak to each other.
"I explain (the severe increase in violence in recent decades) with the information revolution; which started with the printing press, and with gunpowder, which ended the middle-ages era of armored knights (Knights were getting shot through with iron balls from arquebusses, which made them an ineffective force.)
The seizing of power by an elite came shortly before, with the advent of the stirrup. This invention allowed knights to mount up, and led to the heavily-armoured cavalry. Since this force could virtually overpower any other, and was expensive (what with horses, a year's worth of armour and its upkeep, squires, feed, etc ...) the wealthy began to seize land and resources from the poor.
It was at this point that power shifted from the strong and the clever, to the wealthy.
"There are two extremes in the state of man; slavery and freedom. If you keep people uneducated and fearful of force, you can keep them in slavery."
I would argue that this is reflected in a plaque somwhere in the White House. ;)
"Education is the key to eventual freedom; superior force accelerates the process."
Thus, the information war we are seeing now. And that depends on who wields the superior force.
"Today we still have warlords and dictators that keep their populace in fear by force. But as those people learn that better lives are possible they find ways to escape, adopt them, and the power of the dictator melts away."
That is what I can only hope will happen in our society.
"Everybody dies, eventually, including Saddam."
Saddam was a creation of the CIA, and he does not pose the threat Bu$h would like you to believe. That statement is based upon EVIDENCE. The UN says he is not creating weapons of mass destruction, nor would he have the means to deliver them long-range. The weapons inspectors were booted when it became known that the teams had been infiltrated by CIA. The UN confirms this.
"Television, print, and radio undermine his power, and his replacement will have less power than he does."
The media is a very powerful tool, and is, unfortunately, too easily trusted and manipulated.
"The violence in the world today is largely a result of people in positions of privilege trying to hang on to their power and privilege"
This is the case in our society.
"(...) while their subjects try to achieve a better life they know is possible, because they have been watching Friends and Frasier on TV for gods sake, or listening to smuggled radios or reading smuggled magazines and books."
Or listen to Pink Floyd, or read Orwell, or study Gandhi.
In this society, that progress is actually hindered becasue people would rather watch Friends.
"These are fights over resources. The oppressed are trying to take resources from the oppressor."
After the oppressor seized it from them, as is the case with the USA.
"Sometimes the good win, sometimes the bad win."
In war, nobody wins.
"Racism is disappearing in the USA."
Not really ... I lived there for seven years, and have never seen racism so blatant and extreme. Half of what comes out of the leaders' mouths since 9/11 is racism.
"Hopefully through the mixing of races in offspring. Children ARE growing up with fewer racist ideas, and in the next several generations I think it might be no more prevalent than, say, avowed paganism."
I hope that you are right about this.
"Oh, GOD! Reprehensible?! You are completely out of touch with reality; depopulation is a FACT. We DIE. We over-propagate ourselves, we fight, and we DIE."
But planned depopulation IS reprehensible. If we are prone to "over-propogate", then perhaps we should find a solution for that, besides killing each other.
"There are 350 million people in the USA with an average life span of 78 years; that means 1 out of 78 will die this year, about 4.5 million, about 12 thousand a day. Some for stupid reasons, and BTW, IQ is positively correlated with life span, so it is a survival factor and puts a slight pressure on the population to eliminate stupidity."
Please elaborate. Where does it state that intelligence is related to life span? Do you mean moreso than poverty, security, etc?
"Traits that increase the probability of non-reproduction BY DEFINITION are less reproduced in the long run."
In the natural world, under his theory, yes.
"The excess population must be exterminated (by nature) and this biases the selection, within the population, of who must die."
But we cause the destruction, and the Third World pays the price. This directly contradicts his theory, or perhaps it only applies to the natural world.
"Perhaps you feel that way. Most people I know think the system is flawed but not broken; that everyone is a little corrupt but not horribly so. They certainly are not "hopeless."
I don't believe it is hopeless, and that is why I am trying to affect change. If they feel it is only a little corrupt, then the media has done its job.
"Sorry, no they dont. They correctly perceive what you represent to be a fringe interest and no threat at all; they ignore and scoff at your views because it costs them nothing to do so. Not enough people really care enough about your concerns to change their vote, and that is the key to the politician."
I know. Apathy is rampant. Do not believe they do not fear what we represent, however. They place substantial value on disrupting and undermining what we do. It is only a fringe interest because the relative information does not make it into the media.
"What I am trying to pound into you is that he operates in HIS SELF INTEREST; and the only way for you to get anything done is to sell it to him on that basis."
I understand this. I have talked to several politicians about how the GATS and Globalization in general, threaten the power of the government.
And if this a universal truth, then we should either change the system, so that there are no conflicts of interest, or teach this starting in grade school, instead of filling kids' heads with silly talk about democracy, responsible government, and "For The People".
"If your screenplays are heavy-handed lectures about your concerns, they wont sell. They wont appeal to the guy that has to put up $20M to make the picture. He wants a hugely entertaining story, not a lesson in atmospheric science."
I agree. My scripts play out nothing like my posts here.
The best movies, the ones that win awards (or used to) are the ones where the weak overcome the tyrranical. Interesting, no?
"You can get some messages in under the radar, perhaps, and educate some people, but I suggest you watch some of the directors cuts on DVDs. Anything that isnt story, they cut, even when THEY love it."
And they cut the scene in T2 where she tries to smash the chip, and her son asserts his authority for the first time!!!!
"Id bet movies about asteroid collisions have done more for looking for real asteroids than any lecture on the subject. Id bet "Contact" with Jodi Foster did more for SETI than any lectures."
This is the effect I'm hoping for.
"Sure it was unrealistic, but the story got people emotionally involved with the character."
Exactly.
"Then you wont find it easy to change something ten thousand times bigger than that. Concentrate on the easier problem of making a million, or concentrate on something even easier than that."
Oh, this isn't all I do. I have a life. I'm at work right now.
"99.9% of people do not make any priority of killing or destruction;"
But the people who control their taxes do.
"(...) they make a priority of earning (or getting) money, being entertained, getting laid and finding a life partner to have children with. All innocuous, easily understandable goals."
And beyond that, they aren't allowed much else. This is the life they have been taught to lead. They do not see the reality that supports that life.
"If that causes the destruction of a tree or ten, involves killing chickens and cows and fish -- Well if you can't make the cost of that directly apparent to them in their lives, they won't do anything about it."
I'm not talking about this destruction as I am the human misery that results from our affluence, and the ways in which the elite (for lack of a better word) goes about providing our needs, while ensuring increased profits. The weight of our prosperity is great for the bulk of the world.
The media barely and rarely scratches the surface of this world.
"Paranoid delusions. WAKE UP! Its a FREE COUNTRY! If anybody wanted to talk about this stuff, they would."
Oh, they do, just not on any widely-viewed public forum, because they are owned by the people we oppose.
"Look, you claim to be a writer. You can start a newsletter tomorrow. Write it up, send it out to a thousand people out of your local phone book, and tell them that after three monthly issues you will be asking for a subscription from them to cover costs of $15 per year. Oh, and you welcome debate from paid subscribers and hope to publish it."
I post to independent media, as well as several other print publications of varying size and focus.
"They are all free to sign up, nobody will talk to them or to you to stop you. How many WILL sign up? Id wager ZERO, because nobody CARES enough to spend $15 to talk about it."
Ever read "AdBusters"?
"Want a lower cost alternative? Start a website, and send postcards to people with your web address on it. Or rent a billboard and say "TALK ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT! WWW.WHATEVER.COM."
Still, so few hits on the site. Hm."
Don't assume too much. There are popular sites like this all over the place. www.indymedia.org is steadily growing. It's not perfect, but the bugs are being worked out, as the format is new.
"The simple easy truth is that the media acts in its own self interest, there is no profit in this discussion so they dont have it."
Not only is there no profit, they fear a loss if they allow it. The people that own the media are the same people who own the offending corporations.
Freedom of speech? Only if you can pay. (And even then, they will not air your spots.)
"COMPLETE BULLSHIT LYING."
I work in the media, and I think I know what I'm talking about. There has been substantial study on the subject.
"I have never once in my life been stopped from considering anything or discussing anything."
Perhaps that is because you do not discuss anything "controversial". Try publicly criticizing the government or the corporate world. Pepper spray and billy clubs ... (And no, the violence is very limited, especially given the reaction)
"The only laws I am aware of that prohibit completely free speech have to do with child pornography, saying derogatory things about others that are untrue (slander in speech, libel in print), and terrorist threats. All of which I rather agree with."
Again, you can't scold me about remembering that we live in the real world and talk like this.
"You presume because nobody WANTS to consider it, they must be not only repressed, but stupider than YOU."
I don't understand this. I get this a lot, as do other activists. I never called anybody stupid. Misinformed, yes, but one only has to take a critical look at the media, our educational system, and the truth about our prosperity to realize this.
"How freakin' egotistical can you be?"
You're the one calling me a bullshit liar.
"The further out people see, the more likely they are to be concerned about long term effects. That is to start."
Okay, and right now, they are so focussed on "making a million", or just working to prevent being laid off and pay their bills, that they don't have time to look. They are so inundated with the mainstream, that it is all they are able to see.
"But if the problems they see out there do not have great impact on them, they will not devote time or money to solving them even if they see them."
Let them see it, en masse, and we'll see.
"So, for example, if Global Warming raises the temp by 5 degrees, melts the ice caps, exterminates thousands of species and puts Manhattan under water, but I REALLY DONT CARE about any of that and see it all as somebody elses problem, why should I do anything about it?"
If Manhattan is under water, people will demand a solution.
"You have to give me a reason it impacts ME, and then if I believe that Ill say OK, it is worth X dollars to me to prevent that. Because it will be worth SOMETHING if I think I am facing a real loss I care about."
How about the loss of your freedoms? The War On Terror is a scam, based upon a lie. An investigation has not even been carried out, and it's been almost a year. This affects everyone, but nobody knows about it.
"First you have to get me to follow the argument and see out that far, second you have to convince me that what I now see has some impact on me, threatens a loss or presents an opportunity, and that makes it worth something to me in terms of time, money, or significant behavioral change."
That's where I feel actual outreach on the part of activists is vital. Us writing to each other provides the opportunity for too much misunderstanding, and always ends up sounding too confrontational. We would be much farther ahead if we could do this over coffee.
The televised media would also help.
>> A lot of those organizations had direct connections to the people who are at the root of the problem. That they failed was no accident.
More paranoid conspiracy delusions, just stupid."
Oh right, you're one of those "coincidence theorists". I'm at work, but I'll find some examples. This happens all the time.
"No you arent. The facts and math dont support much of what you talk about, only your own rhetoric does."
Prove it. The facts support everything you call rhetoric.
"I disagree completely that facts are "noticeably absent" (...) You just dont like the conclusions drawn from them, so you claim they dont exist."
What we see in the media is devoid of any real meat, and amounts to either propoganda, or PR. It has been quite amusing to watch the media downplay the market crash.
This is the field I work in. I think I know what I'm talking about. The network I work for stated that it would not air or print anything critical of the military state called Israel.
If you don't believe me, then provide examples. CNN and the networks are a joke.
>> Like the investigations into the "intelligence failings" surrounding 9/11, instead of a deep and open probe into what really happened that day. I am working to get that one killed, but I think it's out of our hands, because the truth would threaten to destroy our entire society.
More paranoia and conspiracy theory. I wont waste time answering this."
Your response is a tactic of disinformation, and I really wish you would, because I don't believe that you can.
Why was there no military response (interceptors or the automatic SAM defenses outside NYC and the Pentagon) to four simultaneous "hijackings" over US soil FOR OVER AN HOUR?
Want to trade insults? Fine, you're naive.
"Align yourself with human nature or face failure."
Hey, you don't like those ideas? That's fine. This whole thing is just getting off the ground. I'll look at your comments, and take it from there. I am always learning, from supporters and critics, and we, as a Movement, are always definging new strategies and tactics. If I have failed to adequately convey a message, then I will have to change. But don't tell me that change, serious change, is impossible.
"There is no great conspiracy or secret cabal;"
How do you know for sure? They'd be secret, right? :)
There are thousands of conspiracies being acted out every day, by thousands of different forces. A conspiracy is just a group of people meeting in secret, to determine and act upon a desired course of action, to a mutually-agreed-upon end.
This happens all the time. You'd be naive to believe otherwise ...
"there are normal idiots gaming politics and the markets trying to get money and power easily."
They are NOT just "normal idiots". They are powerful people from powerful families, who are famous for doing the same.
"They are human, they get caught."
And their connections and money save their asses.
"Look at Jim Traficant."
Ooooh. One example. Traficant was a staunch critic of domestic intelligence activity, and had been successful in changing perceptions in this area. He was also a critic of the relationship between the media and intelligence (and the media and corporations).
Not saying he's a saint, but he's far from the worst out there, and he was sacrificed.
"Nobody is "preventing" information from getting out, say whatever you want to as many people as you can afford to say it to; short of engaging in abuse of children, printing libel (but you CAN print any verifiable truth), or threatening assassinations or violence."
Come on. Who do you trust for news?
"You agree, BUT. Which means you dont agree for what you find important, only for what you find unimportant, which is hardly agreeing at all."
I agree with the statment you made. I was elaborating. Sor-ry.
"Not unless they are entertaining and compelling TO THE MASSES. (Not to just you). If you dont write a story that a producer thinks ten million people will pay $5 to see, you wont sell a screenplay."
i realize how this works. I'm not writing lectures. You'll hear from me some day.
"People select entertainment out of self-interest too. Faced with a bleak and transparent lecture or an action adventure, which does the producer choose to back? Faced with a romantic comedy or a long diatribe about how the world is going to hell, which does he choose?"
Okay, I get it. Incidentally, the numbers reported by the studios are down, while the numbers for independent fare is up.
"You already know the answer, and it is no conspiracy. Its just an agent, or producer, or director trying to make a profit by appealing to the public by creating two hours of fun fiction."
Look, I;m not some nut who thinks everything is a conspiracy, and Mulder has to save us. I resent the implication. Deal with me as an individual and not a stereotype, please.
I'll answer the rest later. Gotta go. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
We STILL disagree COMPLETELY.
|
|
|
| |
>> Unless we start seriously talking about getting to [my goals] we'll never get there.
People are free to talk about anything seriously, and the Supreme Court WILL uphold your right to do so. They just don't want to.
>> I would find it amusing to see the media forever talk around the issue, even when reporting multiple weather "phenomena", and segue into a story about how Alaska's glaciers are melting, the possibility of coral reef extinction, or Antarctic ice is breaking off and floating away.
I don't think anybody really cares about any of your three examples. They figure we will start building dikes if it gets bad enough. And frankly, building a ten foot dike around Manhattan wouldn't be that big a deal.
>> Why do you think fixing our problems at the top is impossible? Frankly, I find that word offensive.
Because I understand human nature, and from everything I read from you, you do not. The only way for a weak person (you or I) to have an effect on a problem from the top is to become a strong person at the top. TO START. That gives some decision making power and some opinion shaping power. But then the powers must be used to convince the people that vote for OTHER politicians. Which by definition is a grass roots movement, not a move from the top.
>> Without the people at the bottom, the people at the top are nothing.
No they aren't nothing, but they are vulnerable to the mass opinion of voters, I already agree with that. Which reinforces my stance: Unless and until you get the majority of the "people at the bottom" to care enough to say something, or at least vote with their purchases, you get nowhere.
The people at the top do what they want constrained by polls and their constant concern with what people think (along with a few dozen dummies in the mix like Traficant or Condit).
Asking people if they care about coral reef extinction is a loaded question and of course 95% will say "Oh I do, those poor coral reefs!"
Ask them what impact a coral reef has on their life, or if there is any connection between them and coral reefs, and they will say "Well, I guess if I was a scuba diver, I could look at them."
In other words they don't *really* care about coral reefs at all; they have a knee-jerk reaction to the word "extinction" and nothing else.
So I repeat: I disagree with you. Proposing new options for change is a completely pointless exercise, because making a major change to people or policy is absolutely impossible without a corresponding major motivator. Like FEAR, perhaps. So your energy is completely wasted.
>> If the truth about the dealings of the men at the top were to be divulged to the public, I think their major motivator would be outrage.
I see junk about their true motivators all the time, and nobody believes it because it cannot be proven.
On the rare occassions when sufficient smoking guns are there to prove corruption or self dealing, as in the recent corporate scandals (where the smoking guns are huge piles of money scammed out of the corporations), they are outraged and the politicians hustle to pass laws and put the thieves in prison.
Of course you dismiss them; nothing is good enough for you because you are a paranoid delusional.
>>>> "The only change that consistently works is change from the bottom up."
>> I agree, but it must then work its way up.
If it starts at the bottom it naturally works it's way up. If it doesn't, then it wasn't an issue enough people cared about.
>>>> "We cannot TELL people to not hate blacks or gays...
>> Yes, but you can also educate.
Only to a small extent. I too know elderly people and in private they still use the language of their time to refer to any non-white or non-hetero person.
The prejudices built into people as children are extremely difficult to overcome. I was lucky to grow up in a multi-racial environment.
>> Seeing the racism that flows from American "leaders", I think that battle just took a severe turn for the worse.
I don't think so. Clinton doesn't seem racist to me. But in any case, you are looking at generation minus two or three. The leaders of the country are OLD, in their fifties, sixties and seventies. They carry prejudices learned when they were adolescents in the 40's, 50's and 60's.
Depending upon their economic strata and geographic location, these attitudes vary a lot.
You need a perspective from outside your limited lifespan. In forty years the leaders will be predominately the current crop of high school students. I know many of them, and although they have dumb teen ideas for the most part racist, anti-gay and anti-feminist attitudes are present but far, far weaker than forty years AGO. Virtually none of them consider a female president even an improbability; where that idea would have been rejected out of hand by the majority of high-schoolers even in the sixties.
>> I have been thinking about this lately [corporate scandals]. However, that does not take into account the executives that made millions by selling off stock (just as Cheney and Bush have done) just before the companies died.
Again, wrong perspective. Individual humans do not matter. Social evolution is comparable to biological evolution; although social does happen faster. The principles are the same.
Anomalies appear; and even succeed, but if they don't reproduce they can die out.
So absolutely yes, people can make billions doing things counter to the good of the system. That does not mean the system isn't working. Evolution, social and biological, is a high waste system. Wasteful of lives and resources. But it can still progress.
I've just read something that says of the top 25 corporate scandals in the last ten years, the total "ripped off" in compensation by top executives has been $3.3 billion. That's enough to project the curve for all of it to maybe $7 billion. Even if it were $10B, that is a drop in the bucket on a national scale.
It is outrageous, but not a serious problem.
>> There is a class of human beings who have ... succeeded not because they are hyper-intelligent or amazingly strong, but because they are surrounded by people who are paid to cover their asses.
So?
>>>> "But more importantly, Darwinism...
>> But it is still just a theory.
Okay, if you don't believe in Darwinism, I can't talk to you. Nothing against you, but we have no common ground to form a foundation for discussion.
>> They [wars] are also orchestrated by them for [[profit]. This is not acceptable behaviour.
Yes it is, I accept it. In fact I encourage it, if I agree with the "profit". I think we [USA] should have deposed Saddam, taken over Iraq and the oil as spoils of war. Perhaps forced a democratic government on them friendly to the rest of the world.
I think the same about Afghanistan today. Screw these half measures; obliterate the warlords and any resistance to achieve complete abject surrender and run their country for them until they can do it themselves in a way we like.
It WORKS. It worked in Japan, it worked in Germany, and the world has profited from it.
>> I would also suggest that the outrage that causes wars is also orchestrated.
I doubt it. It is advertised, but I have been in numerous businesses, some fail and some don't. No amount of advertising will sell a dog product, I am convinced. I have been in a company that spent literally fifty million dollars to sell a product and fail miserably, selling less than a million dollars worth.
You think people are much more willingly manipulated than I see from my experience.
>>>> "All of the big wars have been started over land or some other resource, havent they?
>> Then why not teach that, instead of teaching kids that war is honourbale, and done in the name of freedom ...
I WAS taught that. Where do you think I got it? Malthus and Darwin. I heard about their work in school; I read their work; It makes great sense.
(Malthus' core idea makes great sense, the rest of his paper is largely opinion I do not agree with).
>>>> "The terrorists want Israel to disappear. They want dominance over the population and all the land on the planet; in the name of their religion; in Islamism infidels that own land have stolen it from Muslims, infidels are not human and must be destroyed. That includes us."
>> PROPOGANDA ... (and a touch of socially-acceptable racism)
Not propaganda at all, and not racist. I don't care what race they are, if their belief system demands my death I frown upon them. Islamism does exactly that. It is just a label like "Anti-Tonyism". I don't give a crap if it is a religion or a tea party; I tend to disagree with people that call for my painful death.
And I don't care if some Islamists are peaceful people. Fine; I don't want to fight them. But the majority of Islamists dislike or hate the USA.
>>>> "Pure communism fails because the very formula is flawed: "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."
>> I don't see the flaw in that. It respects the equality of human beings the way capitalists claim to.
Combined with answer below...
>>>> "It means working harder doesnt get you ahead, and if you dont work at all you still get what you need."
>> Whoopie. Live your life and don't work so hard. Amazing as it is, many people would love to work less, and spend more time with their families.
Combined with answer below...
>>>> "There is no incentive to work!"
>> Actually, work is a part of the social contract of the system. Under a true society, people will want to work, to do their part in building their society. Their personal needs can only be met if the system is healthy and strong.
AND THAT IS WHAT DOESN'T WORK. It is completely opposed to human nature!
Hardly a person in this country goes to work because it is their responsibility to American culture; they go to work because of their self interest -- They want to support their immediate family, get money to have food shelter and fun.
Almost NOBODY wants to "do their part to help build their society"; people are not that SELFLESS.
And invariably their "part" to build their society is miniscule and unsatisfying. Nobody wants to push paper all day to help advance "society". They push paper all day because they get paid to do it; and the fact that it helps advance society is incidental.
I'm surprised you claim to be a writer; you have absolutely no idea how the human mind really works and I cannot imagine how you can construct a properly motivated character.
>> You really believe that American workers are "enthusiastic", and that you are not a slave to the State? Remember, you keep reminding me this is the real world.
To an extent I do believe it. Only a few are thrilled to go to work every day, I agree, but virtually all of them will enthusiastically look for a job if they lose theirs; and when they do they consistently talk about a "good" job which does NOT mean "nothing to do" but something "interesting and engaging" to do.
My wife could quit work tomorrow, if she wanted to, without any great harm to us financially, but she thinks she makes a difference at the hospital (and I agree she does). She hates having to get up at 5 AM, but that's the job.
>>>> "They [Communists] collapsed under their own weight and are clearly inferior to free market systems."
>> This statement is simply not true.
Yes it is. I counter your unfounded assertion with my own.
>> The only system collapsing under its own weightis free market capitalism, because the "leaders" of both business and government have forgotten that any healthy system depends on a two-way exchange of ideas, freedoms, and interests.
No they haven't. The form of that exchange is VOTING, and I am absolutely sure pols are fixed on that and the opinion of the people they represent. But you don't like it because it doesn't let you just shout your way to power. You don't like it because you haven't found a way to influence the opinions of a million people so you can have a say. And the end result of this frustration is your current state of paranoia, concluding that "hidden forces" are keeping your agenda underwater.
The only hidden force is that people don't give a shit, and that isn't very well hidden.
>>>> ...while the root of capitalism does conform to human psychology."
>>Psychology, or Psychopathy?
Psychopathy is part of psychology, so both, but primarily to normal psychology.
>> You do live in the present, do you not? I don't want an American system forced upon the entire world. (Even though it really is already ...) It is neither feasible or sustainable. And aside from some material wealth, it is hardly robust, not anymore.
I DO want an American system forced upon the entire world; that would be so great! The world would be SO much better off, I swear.
>> The loopholes and double-standards allow the problems to get worse, and the people causing them to become ever-more powerful [... etc]
No they don't. They get exposed and cause the powerful to try and bury them in other means, which get exposed and cause the powerful to try and bury them deeper. But they aren't any smarter than normal people.
A lot of the turmoil in American society today is caused by exposure of corruption and faulty systems of justice; from the O.J. Simpson trial to the Supreme Court handing over the Bush presidency to the failure of the intelligence communities to the failure of corporate oversight.
This is good and these problems will be addressed. Some poorly, but on average better than before. Millions of people are just as smart as you and I and can see the difference between do-nothing policy and do-something policy. It isn't all do-nothing.
>> Ineffectual rules are imposed, because the criminals run the system. And gambling is never fair, and that's what the market is.
Bull on both counts. Gambling is often fair; and the market is half-gambling and half-investing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with me giving a stranger $10K to start a business in return for a share of the profits. That isn't gambling; or if it is; then by your definition all of life is gambling.
>> There are lots of pieces of paper, with oodles of signatures on them, and our world is still in utter chaos.
No it isn't. I don't have to fortify my camp in order to survive the night. I walk the streets and I've never been held up. Not everybody is as lucky as me, but most people are.
>> The current Administration is acting in direct violation of the most important pieces of paper in America.
Oh, and those weren't written by people in power? They were written by criminals stealing resources from England because they COULD.
>> Don't be too sure. Both parties are sides of the same coin. Their disagreements are more for show than anything.
They may be, but the coin is "public opinion". Voting still rules; and as much as they try to game the system, they have to get the votes. You think Bush Sr. wanted to leave office? That's crazy. He left because Clinton BEAT him. I cannot believe that you can listen to the absolute rage and venom and spitting hatred Republicans had for Clinton, and still believe they are genuinely chummy behind closed doors. People cannot act that well; not spontaneously and consistently.
>>>> "This is Darwinism. Viruses and bacteria try to "game" your biological system and make a profit by using it to reproduce in. Your system closes the loopholes they find and you remain healthy."
>> The market is not a natural system. It is a man-made creation that can be destroyed or modified at any time.
It is a natural system, man-made or not. I have invested heavily in the past in individual stocks and nobody told me what decisions to make.
So what, about modified or destroyed? So can a biological system; a bullet through the heart is a "modification", but one that is counter to survival. A removal of a tumor is a modification, but one that is pro-survival.
Who cares where it came from? It is a natural system; not perfect; but a good system that allows people that cannot afford to start a business still be involved in business and gain the profits of business for just a few hundred dollars. It's a great system, it levels the playing field.
>> Hearings are in the works to determine if AIDS was engineered, and whether or not it was spread through innoculations.
Conspiracy theory.
>>>> "Only if we all agree on what constitutes a "very serious problem." Should it address problems that only 1% of the population feel is very serious?"
>> What people feel and what is true are two completely different things in our society. I would consider anything that threatened the health and well-being of the people of this planet to be a "very serious problem".
Thank goodness you don't run the world, then. I prefer to believe the people as a whole get to decide where to spend our money and resources. Or more accurately, I like the idea of electing representatives that can spend full time studying a problem and make decisions, since most problems require some study to understand well.
Anything less is dictatorship.
>>>> "If so, we pretty much need to wipe out all non-Muslims, they constitute something over 10% of the population, and they want us wiped out."
>> Again, PROPOGANDA ... and racism. This statement is not grounded in reality, and the information disseminated to justify it is a lie.
I'm not racist. I didn't say ARABS, I said MUSLIMS. It is a religion. And I'm not opposed to the religion per se; I should have said Radical Islamists, which uniformly DO want to kill all not like them.
>> Because my "agenda" will not kill people, and it will improve the lives of the majority on this planet.
Only in your own opinion. I am sure Saddam fervently believes Iraq is better off with him as leader, too. His ego is that big, too.
>> ... all over the world, hundreds of thousands rally in the name of the things that I am advocating.
Fine. Let them get together donations, form a society, and work to change the minds of the majority of Americans. Nobody will stop them; in fact most of the media will be happy to sell them time to espouse their views. PAID PROGRAMMING on cable, and all.
>>>> Environmentalism will not be embraced until it affects people directly."
>> It IS affecting them directly! Their children have Asthma, their girls are hitting puberty at seven (because of bovine and other growth hormones), weather events are increasing in severity and number, dirty water is killing people, etc, etc, etc ...
People don't realize that. Nobody is stopping environmentalists from making that case; it is a free country and free speech is well protected, better than almost anywhere else in the world.
>> The corporately-owned media does not ALLOW any public debate of this kind.
BS again. Conspiracist. You can't get them to talk about it so there must be "hidden forces".
>> It's not the numbers, it's the number of dollars in the Lobby.
So? We have dollars. I have several. Form a PAC and gain some influence -- Oh wait, you have to convince normal people to contribute to it first, and you aren't able to, because they don't give a shit about the things that concern you.
>>>> "Politicians operate in their SELF INTEREST, even the very noble are reluctant to risk their office (or intended office) on something NOBODY CARES ABOUT."
>> People care about this. They just aren't offered any serious solutions, because this debate is stifled, because of what the perceived risks are to industry, and industry runs the government.
Oooh, it's a conspiracy.
>>>> "If you want to support it, find ways to bring it to the forefront of peoples minds and make it a litmus issue. I personally dont think that is possible until something drastic and fearful happens."
>> Allowing public debate on the issue, by a free press and not a corporately-owned and biased media would accomplish this.
Public debate IS allowed, I've seen it myself, I've seen junk about it on TV and so have others. You cannot convince me to deny my own senses! The debate occurs, it fails to excite people to action, and so it dies. There is no conspiracy.
>> Saddam was a creation of the CIA, and he does not pose the threat Bu$h would like you to believe. That statement is based upon EVIDENCE.
I don't care, he is a dictator and should be overthrown. He oppresses and kills his own people, they do not have any human rights, he oppresses women. He should be ousted.
>> In this society, that progress is actually hindered becasue people would rather watch Friends.
So? If they are happy with their lives maybe the current level of progress is enough for them. You don't get to make the decision for everybody when enough is enough.
And many people are truly happy with their lives; they have a job they like, entertainment, good food, a spouse and children. If they want to watch Friends instead of save coral reefs, that is THEIR choice and they should be allowed to make it.
>>>> "Sometimes the good win, sometimes the bad win."
>> In war, nobody wins.
Yes they do. The minimum war is one man against another; and quite often one man kills another and never gets any comeuppance at all.
The same applies to gangs and countries. We won WW II, any argument claiming otherwise corrupts the meaning of the word "win" to be so broad as to be meaningless. Wars are won.
>> But planned depopulation IS reprehensible.
I never said anything about it being planned; it is just foreseeable. And there is nothing reprehensible about planned depopulation, either.
If a forest can support a maximum of 100 deer and a generation is born creating 150 deer; it is better for the deer as a whole to kill 50 of them, because letting 150 compete for 100 feeds is likely to leave 100 dead, not just 50.
I don't want to apply that to humans, but birth control is a form of depopulation, and I agree with that.
>>>> "Traits that increase the probability of non-reproduction BY DEFINITION are less reproduced in the long run."
>> In the natural world, under his theory, yes.
Again, I won't discuss anything with somebody naive enough to not believe in natural selection.
And there is no difference between society constructed by humans and the "natural world", you are making a completely false distinction.
>> But we cause the destruction, and the Third World pays the price. This directly contradicts his theory.
No it doesn't. The third world is not competing well against us; they aren't gaining power or influence. For WHATEVER reason, even if circumstantial. So they are losing. THAT IS Darwin's theory!
There is only a TENDENCY toward the best surviving; he never claimed otherwise. There is no guarantee. For the MOST PART, the strong and quick survive. In this case, for whatever reason, the strength resides with the civilized world and the uncivilized world pays the price. Yes. That is Darwinism, it does not contradict at all.
>> I know. Apathy is rampant. Do not believe they do not fear what we represent, however. They place substantial value on disrupting and undermining what we do. It is only a fringe interest because the relative information does not make it into the media.
No it isn't, and no they don't fear you, and no they don't spend anything on stopping you because you are naturally stopped by people's disinterest. You contradict yourself -- "Apathy is rampant" -- If that is true, they don't need to spend a dime. The truth is nobody cares.
>>>> "What I am trying to pound into you is that he operates in HIS SELF INTEREST; and the only way for you to get anything done is to sell it to him on that basis."
>> I understand this. I have talked to several politicians about how the GATS and Globalization in general, threaten the power of the government.
Then you don't understand this! I said "SELF interest". A pol doesn't care about the government, he cares about himself. If you cannot relate GATS to a particular loss for HIM, he won't care. If the particular loss is worth the trade for HIM, he still won't care.
If you want to change his mind, change the minds of his constituents. Then he might lose a friggin' election, and he WILL be worried about it.
>> And they cut the scene in T2 where she tries to smash the chip, and her son asserts his authority for the first time!!!!
So? That wasn't the thrust of the story. She is the main character we empathize with; and I think the story is better to end with her still in control and nurturing and protecting the future leader. It extends her power and influence beyond the end of the movie, in our imagination. I like it better this way.
>>>> "99.9% of people do not make any priority of killing or destruction;"
>> But the people who control their taxes do.
No they don't. They are like everybody else.
>>>> "(...) they make a priority of earning (or getting) money, being entertained, getting laid and finding a life partner to have children with. All innocuous, easily understandable goals."
>> And beyond that, they aren't allowed much else. This is the life they have been taught to lead.
Bull. It is the life they are happy with, and if they want more they can start a business or become a writer or any number of things. Lots of actors, politicians, writers and businessmen started from next to nothing and through luck and persistence made millions of dollars and have had a happy life.
>>>> "Paranoid delusions. WAKE UP! Its a FREE COUNTRY! If anybody wanted to talk about this stuff, they would."
>> Oh, they do, just not on any widely-viewed public forum, because they are owned by the people we oppose.
NO, because the forums where they are discussed are not sufficiently interesting to grab their readers' attention and create the word of mouth that would make them more popular; which would make advertisers support them.
They fail in all of this because they are BORING, not because they are suppressed in any way. Nobody is stopping YOU from reading them! What makes you so special that the "elite" leave you alone, yet hammer everyone else? Perhaps YOU are part of the "elite"!
All of which is to say that your position makes no sense. Anybody can go to those websites and I'm sure they get hits every day. Why aren't they more popular? Because nobody wants to talk about them, because they are BORED with it.
>> Ever read "AdBusters"?
No. And I have in the course of my work advertised extensively and never been suppressed.
>>>> "The simple easy truth is that the media acts in its own self interest, there is no profit in this discussion so they dont have it."
>> Not only is there no profit, they fear a loss if they allow it. The people that own the media are the same people who own the offending corporations.
BS again unless you just lump them all into "corporate officers". Talk about bigotry, you are full of it; anybody anywhere in a position of influence is part of the conspiracy; they have to be or they wouldn't be in a position of influence. That's crap logic.
>> Again, you can't scold me about remembering that we live in the real world and talk like this.
Name some other laws.
>>>> "You presume because nobody WANTS to consider it, they must be not only repressed, but stupider than YOU."
>> I don't understand this. I get this a lot, as do other activists. I never called anybody stupid.
You imply others must be because they can't see what is obvious to you, by your statement below:
>> Misinformed, yes, but one only has to take a critical look at the media, our educational system, and the truth about our prosperity to realize this.
So we must be idiots to not have been able to see through this transparent charade and see "the truth".
I go with the alternative hypothesis: Most people do look at these things critically, decide they are good enough for their purposes, and decide you are just dead wrong.
>> Let them see it, en masse, and we'll see.
Just an appeal to give you free air time, a no lose proposition for you. Thank goodness the system won't let you foist your views on us en masse with no risk to you.
>> If Manhattan is under water, people will demand a solution.
Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe the solution is a cheap cement dike around the island.
>>>> "You have to give me a reason it impacts ME, and then if I believe that Ill say OK, it is worth X dollars to me to prevent that. Because it will be worth SOMETHING if I think I am facing a real loss I care about."
>> How about the loss of your freedoms? The War On Terror is a scam, based upon a lie.
Too general.
>> Us writing to each other provides the opportunity for too much misunderstanding, and always ends up sounding too confrontational. We would be much farther ahead if we could do this over coffee.
I doubt it. More confrontational is better, and writing conveys ideas better. I probably wouldn't have coffee with you for this long.
>>>> "No you arent. The facts and math dont support much of what you talk about, only your own rhetoric does."
>> Prove it. The facts support everything you call rhetoric.
No YOU prove it. I am reasonably happy with the current situation and feel no need to change my mind, if you want to change my mind YOU have to do the work, because I don't CARE if you believe me enough to do any work to make it happen.
You're the one trying to change the system, not me.
>> The network I work for stated that it would not air or print anything critical of the military state called Israel.
And I bet they did that in their own self interest, because it would cost them sales of ads or cost them market share or something like that.
I don't believe for a second some order came from some cabal on high over that issue; I think it was just a selfish decision by a man or committee within your own company.
>> Your response is a tactic of disinformation, and I really wish you would, because I don't believe that you can.
It is not, it is a tactic of practicality, I recognize that this is a rabbit hole conversation with no hope of convincing you and I am losing interest in convincing you. There is no point in it.
>> Why was there no military response (interceptors or the automatic SAM defenses outside NYC and the Pentagon) to four simultaneous "hijackings" over US soil FOR OVER AN HOUR?
Uh, because we weren't expecting any such thing, because we are incompetent in intelligence and pilots are lazy and don't like to spend all day in the five-minute stance? Because even if we could have shot down the planes we weren't certain they would be used as missiles until it was too late? Because shooting down planes and having them crash over random buildings in NYC would have been almost as bad? Because we had no idea the towers would actually collapse, and we thought the damage would be limited to a handful of floors? Because an hour is not all that long?
>> But don't tell me that change, serious change, is impossible.
You sound like a Christian saying "don't tell me miracles are impossible", "Don't tell me angels don't exist", "Don't tell me Satan isn't doing his work in the world".
Change is possible. Serious change is possible. But only if you can get enough people behind something to threaten a representative with the loss of an election.
>>>> "There is no great conspiracy or secret cabal;"
>> How do you know for sure? They'd be secret, right? :)
Because I don't believe people are intelligent enough and coordinated enough to do what you claim they do. Because I have much more mundane and believable explanations for the phenomena you cite. For the same reason I don't believe in God: The "elite" and cabal and hidden forces are completely unnecessary to explain the observations, and the logic that does explain them is better at predicting human behavior than any conspiracy.
Like God you cannot predict the conspiracy; it does what it wants for its own secret reasons we can never know.
At least with my explanations one can predict how people will react and perhaps design a system that aligns with their interests and works more fairly.
>> A conspiracy is just a group of people meeting in secret, to determine and act upon a desired course of action, to a mutually-agreed-upon end.
>> This happens all the time. You'd be naive to believe otherwise ...
I am not naive; you are naive for thinking it happens at the level you claim. It isn't practical, and real people have real disagreements and fight it out in politics and business. It is stupid to think that is 100% acting, or even 50% acting.
>> Incidentally, the numbers reported by the studios are down, while the numbers for independent fare is up.
So where is the conspiracy? Do you think Blair Witch made millions for its players due to some conspiracy to give them money? That's insane.
Independents are on the rise because studios are falling into a rut, and people vote for businesses with their dollars and they like something new and different.
This observation is support for my claim.
>> Look, I;m not some nut who thinks everything is a conspiracy ... I resent the implication.
Yes you are.
>> Deal with me as an individual and not a stereotype, please.
It is easier for ME to deal with you as a stereotype; you spout stereotypical rhetoric, and you stereotypically reject clear logic and common sense.
I think I'll continue on that basis. Darwin was right. Malthus was right. Self interest rules. There are conspiracies, but no "elite" conspiracy.
If there were, why would Bush and Cheney even allow their shady dealings to be public? It makes no sense. If there was a conspiracy all of our leaders would look as clean and pure as new fallen snow. How would Nixon have been forced to resign? How would Clinton have been impeached?
Political, corporate and celebrity scandal is rampant; sexual, gay, corruptions and all. There is no sensible reason for that if the "elite" exists; they would protect their public image and limit such things to wrist-slapping believability.
The very existence of the sensationalist media you denigrate puts the lie to your "elite conspiracy".
At least my explanations, founded in common psychology everyone experiences and can see in others, founded in selfish interest with an occasional charitable impulse that everyone feels and can see in others, make sense. They don't require any stretch of the imagination at all. They are realistic, natural, and can be used to see the future shape of things. They are observable and reproducible science.
Your theories are just ravings.
Tony Castaldo |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: We STILL disagree COMPLETELY.
|
|
|
| |
... And that is fine by me. I was going to resond to you point-by-point, but realize that that is leading us farther and farther away from the original discussion, and I don't really see any purpose in it. I think you have misunderstood a lot of what I have to say. I think part of that is done consciously, with semantics, but perhaps it is also a commentary on my own failure to communicate effectively, and to be led off course.
I believe this is an information war, and that education and outreach are the keys to changing our system for the better, and I don't see anything wrong with that goal. The system we labour under now is destroying our only home, and causing untold misery for the majority on this planet, to fulfill the greed of a tiny minority.
Yes, all people contain some degree of selfishness, but this is more of a survival instinct than the all-pervasive psychosis you use to justify your rather shallow view of the world.
I don't want to be in a position of power, but I do want the masses to be empowered, as everything we are conditioned to believe tells us this is the ideal system.
Like it or not, there are public discussions that are not allowed, because the new opiate of the masses, television, will not allow them, mainly because they contradict the corporate philosophy of the owners of the media empires. FBI wistleblowers and WTC structural engineers (regarding 9/11) are presently being silenced, and the UN report on civilian casualties in Afghanistan has been withheld from the public, after extreme pressure was applied by American delegates and the State Department.
I do believe in natural selection to some degree, but do not feel it is a theory we should use to justify the hypocrisy and downright EVIL our system propogates upon the world.
We are damning ourselves, mainly through greed, and I don't think we should be shrugging our shoulders and saying "sh*t happens", but hey, each to his own. Do what you want.
I acknowledge that there are far-fetched and unreasonable "conspiracy theories" out there. However, labelling everything you do not understand as such is both naive and counterproductive. I also realize that what we perceive as "the truth" has very little to do with actual evidence and fact, than in empty rhetoric and flat-out lies.
There are forces in power at present that have been in power for some time now, will continue to be so, and take us down a destructive path until someone either recognizes them for what they are, or opposes their actions because the results become too unbearable.
The more I research the things that you have said to me, the more I realize ... you're not someone I care to correspond with. Thank-you for your input. I have learned from it, and some of what you have said I do find to be valid points, it's just that, overall, our philosophies differ too greatly to be conducive to meaningful dialogue.
In some ways, I hope to God that much of what I say is wrong. I hope that things haven't gone as far as I think, and perhaps I will be proven wrong. Only time will tell. Perhaps the balance of which I speak will simply naturally occur in time.
I only ask that you keep what I have said in the back of your mind in the near future, as you survey the world around you, and events sink us further (or bring us out of ...) the madness that grips us at present.
You've honestly given me a lot to consider.
Despite what you no-doubt think of me, I wish you nothing but the best on this grand journey. I hope you will bear me no ill will.
In the climate of the present world, a healthy dose of paranoia is warranted.
Jordan Thornton
Eugenics and Engineered Wars, the harsh reality...
Eugenics and Engineered Wars
By:Ivan Fraser and Mark Beeston, Aug 2, 2002
One of the most alarming of the Global Controllers doctrines is that of eugenics controlling human reproduction in order to reduce the number of those that they perceive as inferior to create a 'master race' with 'desirable' genetic characteristics. Eugenics had its highest public profile in Nazi Germany but the policies began a long time before Hitler and are continuing to the present day.
Thomas Malthus pioneered the philosophy in the 18th/19th centuries that sought to encourage disease and child mortality in the poor. So-called Malthusianism has since been adopted by different organizations for a variety of excuses. After various eugenics policies in the US states in the late 19th century, including the compulsory sterilization of the mentally ill and 'undesirables' in Indiana, the Rockefellers established a eugenics research center in New York. They were supported in this venture by the Harrimans, another family of manipulators.
The First International Congress of Eugenics was held in London in 1912 and was attended by a certain Winston Churchill. By 1917, fifteen US states had eugenics laws to sterilize epileptics, the mentally ill and regular criminals. On the agenda of the Third International Congress in 1932 was the 'problem' of African-Americans, which, according to the delegates, revealed a need to sterilize to 'cut off bad stock'. At this meeting were several Nazis, including Dr. Ernst Rudin, who had been enabled to attend by the Hamburg-America Shipping Line, owned by the Harriman and Bush families. On returning to Germany, Rudin, who was funded by the Rockefellers, supervised the policy of sterilizing those who were retarded, deaf, blind or alcoholics.
Between 1941 and 1943, at the same time as the 'master race' mentality in Hitler's Germany was being condemned by the rest of the world, 42,000 people were sterilized in the US. Five years later the Sterilization League/ Birthright Inc. established a eugenics center in North Carolina, which began a project to forcibly sterilize young children who were considered to have a low IQ. This was part funded by the Gray family, close friends of the Bush's. After the war, John D. Rockefeller III and John Foster Dulles campaigned against the extension of the non-white populations and in 1952 launched the Population Council. This still exits and is still advocating zero population growth in the US, family planning in the developing sector and the expansion of the Club of Rome's 'Malthusianism'.
Eugenics policies are funded by the World Bank, which, at the Rio summit, pledged to double the money available to population control. Birth control is now forced on the developing countries through fear of economic sanctions.
The extent of the population control towards which the Elite are striving was revealed in the 1962/63 'Report from Iron Mountain, a secret study group into controlling population without war. It sought completely artificial procreation to supersede the 'ecological function of war'. This was to include total control of contraception via water supplies and essential foodstuffs so babies could only be conceived by those to whom a carefully controlled antidote had been administered. Such a system was apparently already under development 40 years ago!
George Bush has been a major voice in the eugenics movement and has been surrounded by like-minded people Boyden Gray (legal advisor) and William Draper III (head of fundraising for his 1980 presidential campaign). Draper's grandfather had unsuccessfully urged eugenics policies on Eisenhower before convincing Johnson to adopt them. In 1969 Bush was involved in hearings into the 'dangers of too many black babies' and when he became ambassador to the UN in 1972 he arranged for the Association of Voluntary Surgical Contraception (formerly the Sterilization League) to extend its policy of sterilizing young children with 'low' IQ to non-white countries. This was further extended when Bush became president in 1988.
Engineered Wars
War is one of the most effective ways of culling an 'undesirable' population as Thomas Ferguson, a member of the Office of Population Affairs, explains:
'to reduce the population quickly you have to pull all the males into the fighting and kill significant numbers of fertile, child-bearing age, females.'
From his position of 'shuttle' diplomat, Henry Kissinger has successfully engineered conflict throughout the world. In Vietnam, the war was caused by the movement of hundreds of thousands of people from the north to the south a move forced on them by the Saigon Military Mission, created by the CIA in 1954. With no food, they resorted to theft, and by labeling the bands 'the Viet Cong' a problem was created. Under the pretext that the Khmer Rouge controlled them, the North Vietnamese were severely bombed. According to estimates, 30-500,000 Cambodians died in the bombings, when in fact China was
the power behind North Vietnam, supported by Kissinger with US/China liaisons headed by George Bush. The Khmer Rouge reacted, as expected, and took Cambodia, murdering 32% of the population. During the war, the CIA station in Saigon coordinated Operation Phoenix, which reportedly murdered 40,000 Vietnamese on 'suspicion' of working for the Viet Cong that is, they could read and write. Two of the US commanders in the conflict were Maxwell Taylor and William Westmoreland, both members of the Population Crisis Council and Draper Fund.
The Yom Kippur war and countless other 'civil wars' in Central America and Africa have been engineered by Kissinger to cull populations as even when it is not the prime aim; mass killings are perceived as a useful by-product of war.
Kissinger is a member of the Club of Rome and in 1974 supervised the production of National Security Study Memo 200 about the implications of population growth. This stated that population growth in the developing world would lead to a desire for self-determination of their economies. It continued that the population must therefore be controlled, but this fact must be withheld from the country's leaders. Amongst the countries specifically targeted were Ethiopia, Columbia, India, Nigeria, Mexico and Indonesia.
Indonesia is a horrendous example of conflict creation for the purposes of eugenics and corporate control, while public bodies and the media remain obstinately silent. General Suharto took control of Indonesia in 1965 through a CIA-backed coup and has since been responsible for 500,000 murders in his own country. However, because his administration is subservient to Western corporations, allowing them to exploit the land and the people (e.g. Reebok), this appalling tragedy goes unchallenged in the media. In December 1975 Indonesia invaded the Portuguese colony of East Timor and, in the following years, proceeded to slaughter 200,000 people, a third of the Timorese population. This genocide (eugenics) has been carried out with arms from Britain (British Aerospace's Hawk Jets) and US, approval from the West (Kissinger and Ford were in Indonesia days before the invasion) and complete silence in the mass media. The simple reason is that oil and gas reserves had been discovered off the coast of East Timor which the multinational oil companies could exploit only if controlled by a corporate-friendly culture like
Indonesia.
Study the history of the CIA, and of Western (American) inteventionism since WW II. You will see a very definite pattern emerge ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: We STILL disagree COMPLETELY.
|
|
|
| |
>> I think you have misunderstood a lot of what I have to say. I think part of that is done consciously, with semantics...
I don't misunderstand purposely, and I don't think I misunderstood anything you said. But having understood, I think you are wrong.
>> I believe this is an information war, and that education and outreach are the keys to changing our system for the better, and I don't see anything wrong with that goal.
Neither do I. In fact you will be more successful in that effort if you follow my advice and stick to people's self interest. But you won't, so you will fail. Oh well, I gave it a shot.
>> The system we labour under now is destroying our only home, and causing untold misery for the majority on this planet, to fulfill the greed of a tiny minority.
I'll disagree again. Very few people in the world are miserable. Those in war zones or starvation zones; perhaps; but that is nowhere near the majority. Most people are making a living and enjoy the company of friends daily. That is hardly "untold misery".
>> Yes, all people contain some degree of selfishness, but this is more of a survival instinct than the all-pervasive psychosis you use to justify your rather shallow view of the world.
My view may be shallow; and in fact it is logical to make your view only as deep as necessary to explain the behavior of others well.
You don't know enough people very well, apparently. Go read some bloggers on the diary sites; read a variety of them, and see what their daily concerns are.
>> I don't want to be in a position of power...
You should be. I encourage it. For two reasons: You'll never change views without it; and the effort to get into power would teach you what people care about.
>> Like it or not, there are public discussions that are not allowed...
Yet you can tell me all about them. Where did you learn about them? You have facts, you have figures, you have names and places! Where did you get them? How did those books, or websites, or TV shows get into YOUR hands?
Obviously the very existence of such communications defies the idea that such public discussions are "not allowed"! WAKE UP and smell the logic!
The discussion is alive and gets out, or you wouldn't KNOW about it. Which means the ONLY thing that makes sense is what I've been trying to tell you all along: People hear this stuff and they don't believe it or they don't care because whether Kissinger killed 500,000 Viet Cong doesn't affect their own little lives.
It may be callous, but it is true. They sympathize; I am sure; but just don't really care enough to spend a buck on finding out more or spend an hour getting outraged.
Do you think they really care about civilian casualties in Afghanistan? They just don't. I don't. Because I believe they hate Americans, I believe they supported the Taliban and Al Qaida, I believe they still do; and in any case those organizations had to be wiped out. So does Hamas and the rest. Wiped out. Israeli school children are being blown apart and Hamas dances in the street; terrorist attacks killed real people and it is time to wipe out the aggressors.
>> I do believe in natural selection to some degree, but do not feel it is a theory we should use to justify the hypocrisy and downright EVIL our system propogates upon the world.
I don't use it to JUSTIFY it, I use it to explain it. It is amoral; ethically neutral. If EVIL works, it works.
It is repugnant to see a big cat take down a water buffalo and start eating while it is still alive; but it happens.
>> The more I research the things that you have said to me, the more I realize ... you're not someone I care to correspond with.
Hide your head in the sand; it is better that way...
>> Despite what you no-doubt think of me, I wish you nothing but the best on this grand journey. I hope you will bear me no ill will.
How sweet. Here is what I think of you: It's too bad you can't see the truth, because you might be more effective if you did. Probably you are deluded because you care about some fringe things that really do matter (like the environment, political fairness, too much power for the greedy and misguided political objectives), and you are frustrated at the difficulty of anybody making any progress against these ills of the world.
>> In the climate of the present world, a healthy dose of paranoia is warranted.
To continue my previous train of thought; you would be better off without the paranoia. The paranoia is an EXCUSE to explain your (and your fellowed delusionaries) lack of progress against these ills. As a result, it keeps you (the collective you) from thinking about EFFECTIVE means of communication and grassroots efforts to make your issues more prominent in the public eye.
-------------
The examples you give are not surprising, even if true! I think I said earlier Malthus' central observation was correct and the rest of his paper was opinion I do not agree with. His central observation is simply that populations grow exponentially and resources do not.
I do not agree with eugenics of any form; racism, sexism, or religious exterminations. Yes, these are all bad.
But when they occur, the oppressors are acting in their own self interest to get rich, powerful, or some other big reward.
I also believe Kissinger was an evil man; and considering his generation I have no trouble believing some of his motivations are racist, religious or both. The same goes for anybody that was a teen in the USA before 1955 or so, when racism was openly practiced and socially acceptable.
For anybody a teen in the USA before 1942, anti-semitism is not unusual. It became politically incorrect damn quickly, but the attitudes at 16 largely determine the attitudes at 46.
Sure, such philosophies do influence political decisions. It is wrong; but not surprising. So I am not sure what your posts about eugenics are trying to prove.
If it is "conspiracy" then OK. I doubt it, but just barely -- It could happen. But I will present the alternative.
It would not be surprising if a bunch of guys in power and in the same cohort (all 18 years old before 1940) were to share racist and religious views; particularly anti-semitic, anti-islamic, anti-asian/black/hispanic/indian, even anti-catholic, 100% pro-WASP views.
It would not be surprising if they belonged to the same organizations.
It would not be surprising if they bought into the idea of eugenics.
It would not be surprising if these views influenced their decisions about whether to wage war or not.
Is that a conspiracy? If it is then all of history is one long conspiracy story after another; that is the way the world works.
I disagree, that is more unfortunate than conspiracy. The conspiracies DON'T work.
Look at how hard the Christians are struggling to keep the faith in the USA. Daily you will hear them complaining about how godless we have become.
Well, why is that happening? Because they are inexorably losing power. They are dying out, and we are seeing their most violent death throes.
Yes, 95% of people believe in God; but it isn't the God Jerry Falwell wants them to believe in; or he would be President of the USA. The fact that I am not required to attend a church every Sunday is proof that the conspiracies can't hold.
TC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: You are lying to me or to yourself.
|
|
|
| |
I have to agree with Tony on this one.
I have just been through a discussion about the Bilderberger conspiracy that is claimed by paranoid EU sceptics to want world domination.
This "elite" was started post WW2 are being said to be build on a Nazi ideal (One world, one kingdom)
Digging through all the dirt in that discussion I came to the realisations exactely like Tony.
The major problem that I see is 2 things.
1. The paranoid conspiracy theorists (CT) have to use intentions to give any meaning to their theory. If they don't add intentions to the "conspiracy" their theory is trivial as hell.
Ofcourse people in power wants more power, ofcourse any group of people are fighting for more rights for themselves, more power and more money. It is part of the human SELFISHNESS, which is grounded in the obvious desire to survive. But where CT go wrong is that they make the intentions the goal.
"Not only are the elite interested in power, no the want world domnination." This is the kind of logic that follows CS.
The point is that the goal ofcourse cannot be proven and let alone ever accomplished. The conspiracy to control 6 billion people is simply bad conlusion and flawed logic. Democracy, capitalism ect, all these are the real "conspiracies" they exist because they reach critical mass. They are benefitiarry to enough people so the meme that they are is dominating.
If they where only benefitiary to very few people and didn't reach critical mass, then the people behind the "conspiracy" would like the French monarchy or the English empire, get overthrown sooner or later by all the suffering people.
This must lead us to the conclusion that even IF we agreed that there where a conspiracy only those that where a benefit to a large number of people would survive. So it doesn't really matter wether you call it a conspiracy or not.
So what Tony is saying is that conspiracies like the ones you describe Pilgrim is loose specualtion and forced conclusions.
You assume that just because medias are somehow manipulated (they are subjective) means that there is this big thought out conspiracy behind it.
But I can assure you that if you actually took Tonys advice and started accepting that PEOPLE ARE SELFISH, then you would suddently start understanding why medias are subjective, why people do what they do, and more importantly realise that it takes a lot more than a conspiracy to reach "world domination"
Regards
Thomas |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: Conspiracies
|
|
|
| |
Thanks for the assist; I wasn't even sure anybody was reading this thread!
I want to expand upon one point you make:
>> The point is that the goal of course cannot be proven let alone ever accomplished. The conspiracy to control 6 billion people is simply a bad conclusion and flawed logic. Democracy, capitalism etc, all these are the real "conspiracies" that exist because they reach critical mass. They are beneficiary to enough people [to become the predominating meme].
>> If they where only beneficiary to very few people and didn't reach critical mass, then the people behind the "conspiracy" would like the French monarchy or the English empire, get overthrown sooner or later by all the suffering people.
It is interesting to think of democracy and capitalism (separate concepts) as conspiracies!
But if they are we should go strong with that hand; and do our best to promote both in the world. I think it is a huge mistake for us to fund the Palestinian Authority, for example. We might as well be funding terrorism against the USA! It doesn't make a difference if our funds are used for the most benign purposes, such as bookkeeping and diplomatic travel and translation; covering those expenses still frees up funds the PA can then use for chemists in bomb factories.
I think the true conspiracy throughout the world at the grass roots level should be the one for "equal treatment."
I am an atheist, but I think regardless of religions belief (or lack of it) most people can get behind four commandments:
1. Do not murder.
2. Do not steal.
3. Do not lie.
4. Do not endanger others.
Notice that (1) does not demand we do not kill; killing in self-defense is not murder. Killing a murderer as punishment is not murder. Killing a man to gain access to his wife is murder.
Notice that (3) doesn't prohibit harmless shading like social lies; I intend it only to include lies that harm another by giving them a false sense of reality likely to affect their actions or behavior. A novel or movie is not a lie; faking scientific data to support drug sales or a career IS.
In (4) "Endanger" includes financial and emotional danger as well as physical danger.
These are the behaviors that permit us to have a society; it is what let our ancestors sleep beside each other without having to worry they would be murdered in their sleep.
Some think all of these critical societal behaviors can be summarized in the phrase "Do not be selfish," which leads them to the conclusion that selfishness is what must be stamped out.
Hence we get things like the socialist model, an extreme where selfishness is prohibited.
But that extension is incorrect because it goes too far. We need the specifics of the four rules, not a generalization of them.
In fact I think it possible to get people to obey these rules as law (most civilized people do already), but I think it is impossible to get them to be completely unselfish.
In other words we have to allow people to be selfish, within boundaries. Enforcing those boundaries is the province of police and government; with penalties ranging from fines for minor infractions to imprisonment and possibly death for major ones.
If there is a conspiracy in the world, I think it is for this; equality and fair treatment under the law.
Most of the turmoil in the world today is over this war for equality and fair treatment. The elite that exist are scrambling to protect their turf and not be overrun by democracy and capitalism. The warlords in Afghanistan have it pretty good, by their own lights, and they don't want to give up an inch of it.
It may take another 200 years to convert the world, but that is what I hope for.
It is said there are only two stable situations for societies; the extremes of complete domination and maximum freedom.
A dictator that rules with an iron fist can subjugate the people; if he keeps them in fear and any dissent is ruthlessly put down with pain and death, that actually works. This was the model used by many plantation owners in the slave south; beatings and a culture that convinced slaves there was no way out, ever, kept them slaves.
But any infection of freedom tends to spread, and society does not endure intermediate forms for very long. It only took a hundred years from the beginning of slavery to the emancipation; and less than a hundred from there to the black vote; and only decades from there to the abolition of segregation and civil rights. We aren't done with this integration but the progression is clear.
If Pilgrim wanted to do some good he would infect others with the ideas of freedom instead of with the ideas that freedom is impossible.
He should spread the light; freedom of speech does NOT destroy a society; freedom of press does not; freedom of choice (whether abortion or jobs) does not. The only thing they destroy is slavery and subjugation.
Tony Castaldo |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: Conspiracies
|
|
|
| |
>I am an atheist, but I think regardless of >religions belief (or lack of it) most people can >get behind four commandments:
Rules does not need to be grounded in some sort of absolute truth to work. All they need to be is usefull and fair to the people involved.
I believe that it was pragmatism in some weird form that actually spawned the whole idea fo religion in the first place.
The rationale could be something like this:
I am aware of my sorroundings. In theese sorrounding I find other aware things that act more or less like me. I have observed that these other aware things can kill me and the people that I lowe, but "luckily" I have observed that I hold the same power.
This scary thing happens where people seize to exist and never come back again. They call it death. I don't like the idea of me dying nor my loved ones.
Somewhere along that line the idea of an afterlife and a morale started to emerge. It is like the whole discussion of altruism in biology, with altruism here being the acceptance of the rule thau shall not kill.
Unlike today, people throughout the last say 10000 years didn't have the luxury of food, economic systems, democracy ect. Instead they had religion. Religion was what made people go to war for their country, not murder and plunder each other ect.
There is an interesting although dated model in marketing that separates people into 4 categories. Modern to Traditional and Pragmatic to Idealistic. The modern AND idealistic group are academics who instead of finding value in material things, found their value in imaterial things.
Maybe this is the same concept, just applied to what we talk about here.
We didn't have the richness that we have today, so we have up until now found solitude in religion. But today more and more people are turning away from God. Most probably because of what Nietczhe called the master morale. A democratic society with a well educated society that are far enough up in the Maslow pyramid of needs.
We don't need a God, we don't need altruism. A selfish society that are ready to take full responsebility of their own lives and actions is enough, since they will have enough to loose in a society as ours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Roots of Religion
|
|
|
| |
I have heard some argue for a purpose for religion in society, particularly for the concept of an after life and reward/punishment, because it provides a method of punishment if others fail to keep their bargains after the death of a member.
Your point, about seeing other living things, can be extended too. I read this a few years ago, and agree with it: The idea is that it is a little safer to see intelligence and intent in everything than to see it in nothing. So if we err on the side of caution we think the river is alive and we have to be careful not to anger it.
Even though our assumption is wrong, it produces behavior that improves our chances of survival.
Likewise an assumption that a poisonous thorn is "angry" and must be left alone, or that we must take great precautions that it doesn't "bite" us -- Which it might do by calling on the wind to blow a branch into us.
The assumption that the thorn bush and wind are intelligent and can conspire against us causes us to avoid or restrain the branches; making an accidental stabbing by the thorn bush much less likely.
This leads directly to paganism, the oldest of religions, in which every object contains a spirity, an intelligence, and can be hurt or can hurt you. People still love that stuff; they see stuffed animals, furniture, art and statues as living things. Feng Shui is all about paganism.
People love inanimate objects and think the inanimate objects love them back. I've heard friends say they think a painting "wants" to be in the living room instead of the dining room.
It isn't hard to see how this can lead to the modern religions. First by the Roman/Greek methods of assigning gods to be in charge of less tangible things (war, love, luck, honor, fate) and then by eventually trimming them down to just one god.
We could have had a society without an afterlife, too. Punishment for failing to take care of the family of fallen comrades could be imposed on the living by gods or fates.
But the afterlife is the most selfish of conceits, and sacrificing a belief in eternal life isn't in the cards for most people. They say 5% of the USA is atheist. From my experience with numerous atheists, only about 2% of people are TRUE atheists, rejecting supernatural explanations altogether.
In Pilgrim's case, it seems to me the "great conspiracy" takes the role of Fate, Karma, or God, depending on what you want to call it. It is an all powerful, jealous "elite" that wants to control everything and has the money and power to do it. Is that much different than a God threatening us with hellfire and eternal damnation for a few harmless transgressions? I don't think it is.
TC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: Conspiracies
|
|
|
| |
Hey, Tony. It appears that I may have misjudged you, and for that, I apologize. I took your invoking of Malthus as an indication that you advocated his conclusions. (I have run into these people before, unfortunately ...)
Your last response to me was better than any of the back and forth dialogue we had engaged in, and I thank you for plugging ahead.
I am not as naive as I may appear. That I give this impression has made me look at the way I commubnicate (or fail to, in some instances...)
"You assume that just because medias are somehow manipulated (they are subjective) means that there is this big thought out conspiracy behind it."
I have written to activist groups telling them the complete opposite. I think that some official meddling does go on (as began with Operation Paperclip), but I work in the media, and I know first-hand that this happens for a variety of reasons.
First of all, the concentration of media by profit-driven corporations has left many formerly-strong news departments stripped virtually to the bone. We now have half the people doing twice the work, so most times, you don't have the manpower or resources to research the reality behind "official statements", or the facts behind what "experts" say.
This corporate process has also meant that a lot of younger, less-seasoned journalists are now in the field, and lack the training or experience to do research. Many are hired solely on their looks and delivery, so you have anchors/reporters who barely grasp the meaning behind the news they are presenting.
This has also led to an increased reliance on "pooling". For example, here in Canada, despite the size and scope of the network I work for, we trust CNN and CBS for the bulk of our international news. No-one investigates the facts behind the claims made in those stories, we just cut them from the feed, and throw them on the air, anchor leads and all.
That means that we are trusting the informing of our citizens to news agencies of a FOREIGN COUNTRY, the country rattling the sabre at that! Hardly conducive to informed decision-making, or to any democratic process.
The person that owns this network is a Zionist, and fully supports the military state called Israel, both financially and through his writing. He has vowed to not air or print anything critical of Israel, no matter how truthful it may be. I have noticed this same phenomenon, both on CNN (especially CNN) and the big three networks.
Before I worked in Canada, I worked for an NBC affiliate, and, no offense but, conspiracy or no conspiracy, American news is hardly the truth. It is the most biased, one-sided, isolationist, and manipulated information network that I have come across. (In "free" societies, that is.)
See groups such as FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting - www.fair.org) for extensive study on this. Also books such as "It's the Media, Stupid", "Coercion: The Modern Art Of Advertising", and "Manufacturing Consent".
If you dismiss the fact that conspiracies exist outright, then you have no chance of seeing the truth. I do not (nor have I ...) advocate a Grand Conspiracy, only that several groups or cartels enact large, overarching schemes in their daily operations. There is ample evidence of that.
I have seen hidden video of drug company and oil company executives meeting to determine collectively what their prices will be, in this society of "free markets" and "competition".
"But I can assure you that if you actually took Tonys advice and started accepting that PEOPLE ARE SELFISH, then you would suddently start understanding why medias are subjective, why people do what they do, and more importantly realise that it takes a lot more than a conspiracy to reach "world domination""
Oh, I do not dispute this. I know that this is our major motivator as survival instinct. I'm just saying that only playing to that impulse, and building a society upon and nurturing it, is wrong, and thus, is unsustainable.
It takes a strong intelligence community that operates "by any means necessary", a strong military that reacts instantly and without question, a pliable media environment, considerable financial and policy-making power, and an uninformed, poorly-educated populace, and much, much more to achieve world domination.
Anmd if you think what is transipring presently in the world and in your country are not in the service of those goals, then you have been misinformed.
>> The point is that the goal of course cannot be proven let alone ever accomplished."
The pattern of every action they take speaks to this goal. Look at what Reagan passed while in power (which would be easier if Bush hadn't sealed his presidential papers), the recent PATRIOT Act and Bush's new executive orders, the "Homeland Security Agency", and the nation's support for "unending war".
Then look at the effect that the neo-liberal policies commonly known as "Globalization" are having on the world, and the immense power wielded by the undemocratic and secretive organizations that set policy in its name, and tell me that, consciously or unconcsiously, steady progress isn't being made towards this aim.
"The conspiracy to control 6 billion people is simply a bad conclusion and flawed logic."
But nations controlling millions of people isn't so hard to believe. It's not malicious, but it is how our world is run.
"Democracy, capitalism etc, all these are the real "conspiracies" that exist because they reach critical mass. They are beneficiary to enough people [to become the predominating meme]."
Western democracy is only rhetoric, an illusion. It provides cover for our purely capitalist plutocracy.
Just as we have never seen a truly Communist nation, we ahve never seen a modern nation run democratically. When the will of the people is subverted by disinformation and moneyed lobbying powers, democracy is nullified.
>> If they where only beneficiary to very few people and didn't reach critical mass, then the people behind the "conspiracy" would like the French monarchy or the English empire, get overthrown sooner or later by all the suffering people."
I think that is what we are seeing at present, with daily demonstrations of thousands upon thousands of people throughout the world. We now use menas to control these demonstrations that we used to chastise other countries for employing.
"It is interesting to think of democracy and capitalism (separate concepts) as conspiracies!"
Indeed ...
"But if they are we should go strong with that hand; and do our best to promote both in the world."
Before we promote democracy throughout the world, we need to establish them here first.
And the capitalist system of allocating resources is unsustainable. We need some balance, some order to it, rather than this free-for-all. (Or free-for-all-who-can-afford-it-and-have-the-menas-to-enforce-it ...)
"I think it is a huge mistake for us to fund the Palestinian Authority, for example. We might as well be funding terrorism against the USA!"
BS. You fund Israel to a much greater extent. if you cut funding for one, I believe you must (and you should) cut funding for both. But that is another, very complicated topic.
"It doesn't make a difference if our funds are used for the most benign purposes, such as bookkeeping and diplomatic travel and translation; covering those expenses still frees up funds the PA can then use for chemists in bomb factories."
So give them jets and tanks as well, and we can end this whole "terrorism" (Third Generation Warfare) debate, and take sides in a war instead. (I'm joking, of course ...)
"I think the true conspiracy throughout the world at the grass roots level should be the one for "equal treatment."
I think I agree, and I believe it is, but please elaborate.
"I am an atheist, but I think regardless of religions belief (or lack of it) most people can get behind four commandments:
1. Do not murder.
2. Do not steal.
3. Do not lie.
4. Do not endanger others."
Including the leaders. Otherwise, all is hypocrisy.
"Notice that (1) does not demand we do not kill; killing in self-defense is not murder."
But you just said all that stuff about the PA ...
"Killing a murderer as punishment is not murder. Killing a man to gain access to his wife is murder."
Agreed, so long as you know who the murderer is.
"Notice that (3) doesn't prohibit harmless shading like social lies; I intend it only to include lies that harm another by giving them a false sense of reality likely to affect their actions or behavior. A novel or movie is not a lie; faking scientific data to support drug sales or a career IS."
Claiming that Saddam is more of a threat than the evidence suggests, or that he kicked out weapons inspectors for reasons other than to prevent espionage (the UN has confirmed both) is, especially when you do it on national television, to garner support for a war.
"In (4) "Endanger" includes financial and emotional danger as well as physical danger.
These are the behaviors that permit us to have a society; it is what let our ancestors sleep beside each other without having to worry they would be murdered in their sleep."
I agree, but all of these basic values are daily contravened by the people in positions of power, to satisfy their own SELFISHNESS. I'm just saying that we need some checks and balances, because the ones we have are not working.
"Some think all of these critical societal behaviors can be summarized in the phrase "Do not be selfish," which leads them to the conclusion that selfishness is what must be stamped out."
I think that open, accepted criminal behaviour by a certain class has to be stamped out.
"Hence we get things like the socialist model, an extreme where selfishness is prohibited."
Well, I think the other side of the coin is that this selfishness would not be allowed to endanger the majority.
"But that extension is incorrect because it goes too far. We need the specifics of the four rules, not a generalization of them.
In fact I think it possible to get people to obey these rules as law (most civilized people do already), but I think it is impossible to get them to be completely unselfish."
Oh, I agree completely. We need transparent processes that allow us to keep tabs on the people at the top, and we need to destroy the hypocrisy of this plutocratic system, that places the wealthy above the law.
"In other words we have to allow people to be selfish, within boundaries. Enforcing those boundaries is the province of police and government; with penalties ranging from fines for minor infractions to imprisonment and possibly death for major ones."
But when the people who comprise the government are the biggest violators, new balances and penalties must be devised. When the entire system has been degraded because of this, reform is vital.
"If there is a conspiracy in the world, I think it is for this; equality and fair treatment under the law."
I agree. Can you believe that?
"Most of the turmoil in the world today is over this war for equality and fair treatment. The elite that exist are scrambling to protect their turf and not be overrun by democracy and capitalism. The warlords in Afghanistan have it pretty good, by their own lights, and they don't want to give up an inch of it."
The government is comprised primarily of the master capitalists. I agree that they fear democracy, but surely not capitalism. They only fear the corporations in that they threaten their power, and the justification of same.
If I was an Afghan warlord, I would not want to give into American imperialist forces either, and live in a subjugated occupation.
"It may take another 200 years to convert the world, but that is what I hope for."
Hear, Hear! What is the conversion you hope for?
"A dictator that rules with an iron fist can subjugate the people; if he keeps them in fear and any dissent is ruthlessly put down with pain and death, that actually works. This was the model used by many plantation owners in the slave south; beatings and a culture that convinced slaves there was no way out, ever, kept them slaves."
This is still the American system, but now it has a friendlier face. (If you can call Bush's fake grin friendly. Perhaps that creepy smirk when he says the word "evil". Come on. Even you've noticed that. Not healthy ...)
"If Pilgrim wanted to do some good he would infect others with the ideas of freedom instead of with the ideas that freedom is impossible."
When did I say that? I say that without the support of the people, the ones I oppose are powerless, and I speak, act, and write to that end.
"He should spread the light; freedom of speech does NOT destroy a society; freedom of press does not; freedom of choice (whether abortion or jobs) does not. The only thing they destroy is slavery and subjugation."
And that is what I am attempting to do. This is only one piece of quite rectionary dialogue in response to what you have said.
I think that if we truly started addressing our problems, and identifying the common players behind many of them, we'd be much further ahead.
If we'd be honest about our lack of democracy and the hypocrisy inherent in this plutocracy, we may be able to postpone our demise by limiting the damage that is done by regulators who all too easily and fequently turn their heads in the name of their own SELFISHNESS.
If we took money out of the political process, then placing the people in power over "their" governemtn would be leaps and bounds ahead.
Allowing people who realize that solving problems such as terrorism are greater than to "go shopping" to have a voice in our society would place us on the road to solving our problems.
A balancing of Left and Right may not be perfect, but it would allow for more true "growth" than a right-wing agenda alone, focussed solely upon their own profits and the profits of their "friends".
The solutions I posted were only the result of brainstorming, and hardly definitive of what I believe. I will be the first person to admit that I am not the smartest man alive. I am only trying to do my part. If I have failed at that task, then offer solutions, rather than simple criticism.
What change do you feel would bring about the change we need?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: Conspiracies
|
|
|
| |
"You assume wrongly IMO that there is such a thing as a perfect sceneario. That something can be reached 100%"
I never assumed any such thing. I am simply saying that we should work at improving our flawed system, instead of blindly forging ahead and forcing it upon the rest of the world.
"All your conspircies have nothing to do with conspircy but everything to do greed and selfishness."
You're the one who brought the subject of conspiracies up. Besides, that's semantics. Regardless of the motive, if laws are regularly broken, and specific players are the routine culprits, they should be dealt with, as they put us in harm's way.
"Neither Tony nor I talk about building a society should be built on selfishness. IT IS built on selfishness."
I never said that it isn't. I said that we should work to limit this. Sure, it will continue if nothing is done to counteract it. And no, I don't think it will be easy, but the alternatives are unacceptable, because they threaten the very existence of our species.
"We are describing NOT prescribing. There is a major difference there."
Okay, but the tone that you are using, and the conclusions you are arriving at, takes it a step further.
"Everything thing you see today is a product of selfishness, even altruism, even democracy ect."
I don't see democracy. I don't even really see altruism.
"Look how you again jump your conclusions on the media thing."
Those conclusions are based upon solid evidence, research, and my experience in the field.
"You say that "conspiracy or not american media is not the truth"
I am making a concession here, because I know that not everything is a conspiracy, despite your repeated attempts to portray me as someone who has this belief, and is somehow delusional.
"But still go on to talk about conspiracies as if the exist."
That's because they do. They've been proven time and time again in the past, but somehow, no-one believes that they are a part of the present. That is why they succeed. Get past that hangup, and we can talk.
"Ofcourse american media is not the truth. But do you know why american media have been slagging on their foreign policy coverage?
Because the public didn't want it. They where not interested. It is that simple."
Bullsh*t. Back up that claim. While you're at it, research Operation Paperclip.
"You falsly take a lot of unrelated events and put them together and then apply intentions that you do not have the slightest evidence of."
Please demonstrate.
"Try and apply Ochams Razor to your thinking. You will realise that your thinking is still intact, but it is less narative."
I don't see how this theory applies. Please elaborate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: Conspiracies
|
|
|
| |
>> First of all, the concentration of media by profit-driven corporations has left many formerly-strong news departments stripped virtually to the bone. We now have half the people doing twice the work, so most times, you don't have the manpower or resources to research the reality behind "official statements", or the facts behind what "experts" say.
I think they do that out of evolution and the selfish profit motive. Namely, they will do as little work as they can and still maintain their revenue stream. The news is like any other sitcom. They want ratings; the public watches to see big drama like bank holdups, hostage situations, and gruesome car wrecks. That's what they get along with a sprinkling of politics and coming weather.
>> This corporate process has also meant that a lot of younger, less-seasoned journalists are now in the field, and lack the training or experience to do research. Many are hired solely on their looks and delivery, so you have anchors/reporters who barely grasp the meaning behind the news they are presenting.
Again, that is explained because they want ratings and the public likes looking at pretty people and is NOT interested in trying to follow in-depth researched analysis.
A secret meeting of news directors is not necessary to explain this phenomenon; just simple market dynamics and evolution. The news agencies need viewers and so they have to find a formula that interests viewers.
>> This has also led to an increased reliance on "pooling".
>> That means that we are trusting the informing of our citizens to news agencies of a FOREIGN COUNTRY, the country rattling the sabre at that! Hardly conducive to informed decision-making, or to any democratic process.
First because "pooling" is so much cheaper than doing it yourself. Second because the news agency is in the business of getting ratings and using them to sell ad space, it is only indirectly in the business of keeping the public informed for decision making.
Why should it care, if the public doesn't care?
>> The person that owns this network is a Zionist, and fully supports the military state called Israel, both financially and through his writing. He has vowed to not air or print anything critical of Israel, no matter how truthful it may be.
Self interest, all the way. No conspiracy, just one man with power using his assets to promote his own point of view.
I will note that if that point of view turns out to be counter to his profit, eventually it will hurt him. Now I assume he can afford to take the hit, but it does mean he is spending on behalf of Israel. But in this case I don't think it is; I think his sympathies are aligned with public sentiment (In the USA, I don't know about Canada). So it won't cost him anything.
>> Before I worked in Canada, I worked for an NBC affiliate, and, no offense but, conspiracy or no conspiracy, American news is hardly the truth. It is the most biased, one-sided, isolationist, and manipulated...
So? It exists for a profit; which to it means selling ads, which means ratings, which means appealing to a plurality of viewers.
I start with the opposite assumption: I think you are closer to the mark if you look at what the networks with the best ratings are doing and assume that is what draws viewers! So if think it is biased, one-sided and isolationist, stop thinking that is "manipulated" from on high and start thinking that is what people WANT. It is more likely to be the people that have that bias, not the news.
Now I do agree that an owner or manager can impose their own views; but I said the networks with the BEST ratings. So the imposition of views is out of the formula, because if they aren't the views that attract viewers then they wouldn't get the viewers.
Nobody forces anybody to watch channel 3 instead of channel 5; people choose. Some, like me, choose to not watch local news at all.
>> If you dismiss the fact that conspiracies exist outright, then you have no chance of seeing the truth.
I do NOT dismiss them outright! I dismiss the ones you describe because they are not needed to explain the result you complain about.
In fact I say of COURSE there are conspiracies, big and small, operating right now. I just don't believe in long standing large conspiracies.
For one, conspiracies are formed by people that are essentially duplicitous at their core; willing to defraud, lie, and steal to get their way. People that are extremely SELFISH. Being composed of unstable elements makes them unstable; as soon as the conspiracy stops being profitable for a member it disintegrates, perhaps gets exposed, etc.
They can occur, but as THP said, you have to presume their agenda is all important to them; and unless that agenda involves profit, wealth and hedonistic pleasure I just don't believe it.
>> I do not advocate a Grand Conspiracy, only that several groups or cartels enact large, overarching schemes in their daily operations. There is ample evidence of that.
Oh, SAME THING. I don't believe in large, over arching schemes, I say follow the damn money (or sex or drugs). Follow the selfish motive.
>> I have seen hidden video of drug company and oil company executives meeting to determine collectively what their prices will be, in this society of "free markets" and "competition".
I don't doubt that for a second! That's why we have laws against it. How do you explain THAT, the fact that we have laws against price fixing, the fact that people have gone to jail for it?
If there really was a conspiracy why wasn't it left legal? Because citizens became outraged and threatened to throw lawmmakers out of office; so they enacted laws and anytime price fixing is exposed they enforce them.
>> The pattern of every action they take speaks to this goal.
This is your central mistake; of course "every action they take speaks to this goal", because you only attribute actions to them you want.
It is exactly like Christians: They pray and pray, and every prayer that gets answered is a gift from God; and their preachers tell them that every prayer that does NOT get answered is also a gift from God.
God's in a no-lose situation. So are your imaginary evil cartels. If something happens you can interpret as a move toward their world domination goal, you attribute it to them. If something happens counter to that, you either say it is part of the plan, or random crap.
Why are corporate villians being arrested and jailed; how was Nixon forced to resign; why did Bush Sr. get voted out of office; and on and on.
There are hundreds, maybe thousands of stories that are exactly counter to the idea of cartels, but you ignore them because they don't support your preconceived notion of cartels.
So your filter of course leaves you only with a few dozen stories that DO support the idea of some thing striving for world domination. And those are the only stories you consider "moves" of the cartels, so OF COURSE their every move supports your agenda; you don't identify anything else AS "their moves."
>> Look at ... Bush's new executive orders, the "Homeland Security Agency", and the nation's support for "unending war".
Ya. Bush wants to be re-elected (selfish) and he has seized upon 9/11 and terrorism as the way to do that. I do not think they orchestrated it, but I do think they delight in it. Yes, it will kill people. He and his party are extremely selfish.
On the plus side, I think destroying a few third world countries that really do support terrorism, dictators and oppression are a good thing.
I am a strong believer in forcing the right thing on bad people.
>> THP said: "The conspiracy to control 6 billion people is simply a bad conclusion and flawed logic."
>> Pilgrim said: But nations controlling millions of people isn't so hard to believe. It's not malicious, but it is how our world is run.
The whole point is that nations do not control millions of people. At least in the USA, Canada, France, Germany, Britain, Ireland, and a bunch of other countries I can't think of offhand; people are pretty much free to work where they want, think what they want, research what they want on the net, publish what they want, and generally have enough freedom to find the info if they want and disseminate the info if they want.
I see people from these countries all the time on the web, communicating with me and each other. (And I only speak English, by the way). Nobody is holding them back or censoring them.
I have great difficulty understanding how the countries are supposed to be controlling them.
The plain truth is, in the countries I mention, what people want to talk about is sex, entertainment (music and movies), business, their family and friends, local happenings, politics or celebrities, and so on. They are self-centered.
Not controlled.
>> Western democracy is only rhetoric, an illusion. It provides cover for our purely capitalist plutocracy.
Blah blah. It is not only rhetoric. You purposely ignore the real results of democracy because they don't support your thesis of cartels.
Why is Gary Condit getting out of office? I assure you he doesn't want to, but the public now perceives him as a scum bucket philanderer, and he would lose the election.
Why does the public perceive him that way? Because the news was all over the murder of Chandra Levy, the girl he was having an affair with.
Why were they all over it? Because the public wanted to hear it. They love sex and intrigue and mystery, and the news media loved to supply it and sell papers and ads.
That's democracy in action.
>> Before we promote democracy throughout the world, we need to establish them here first.
No we don't. They are established here, and making ourselves perfect first is unreasonable.
A little democracy is better than none at all. Democracy is an infection that will spread. It really does give people the power through their vote, and when people care enough they use that power. You are just whining because there are things you wish they would use it for and they don't collectively give a rat's ass about your issues.
>> And the capitalist system of allocating resources is unsustainable. We need some balance, some order to it, rather than this free-for-all.
It is not unsustainable, that is a false assertion. It is perfectly sustainable and has been sustaining itself for hundreds of years, becoming more refined and better at allocating resources. There is a reason the highest standards of living are in the capitalist countries.
>> I said: "I think it is a huge mistake for us to fund the Palestinian Authority, for example. We might as well be funding terrorism against the USA!"
>> Pilgrim said: BS. You fund Israel to a much greater extent. if you cut funding for one, I believe you must (and you should) cut funding for both.
HA! That is like saying if I fund the police I have to fund the criminals! Total BS. Israel is in the right, the Palestinians are in the wrong, and that's that.
The Palestinians attacked ISRAEL, not the other way around, and they friggin' LOST. They deserve to lose their land, they tried to steal Israel's land and they LOST. They lost WW II, they lost every time they attacked Israel. They are thugs and thieves and deserve their fate.
>> So give them jets and tanks as well, and we can end this whole "terrorism" (Third Generation Warfare) debate, and take sides in a war instead. (I'm joking, of course ...)
No, good idea. I am all for an all out war between the Palestinians and Israel, with us on Israel's side. If the Palestinians cannot behave in their country they should be wiped out.
>> But you just said all that stuff about the PA ...
The PA is not killing in self defense. They are continuing to wage war to destroy Israel and try to undo their losses due to earlier wars they instigated in their attempts to destroy Israel.
The PA purposely targets children and civilians. They've blown themselves up in daycare centers, for god's sake. Israel targets terrorists that lead the war against them; and sometimes kills children and non-combatants that get in the way.
>> I said: "Hence we get things like the socialist model, an extreme where selfishness is prohibited."
>> Pilgrim said: Well, I think the other side of the coin is that this selfishness would not be allowed to endanger the majority.
But prohibiting selfishness WON'T WORK, so the socialist model is doomed. The only way is to do specifically what you talk about: Prohibit the specific kinds of selfishness that the majority of people feel endanger them. There is no easy solution; selfishness and individual profit and gain must be permitted. Or more accurately it WILL be exercised no matter what your rules are, so if you want a society that works you must take that into account and not make it illegal.
>> ...we need to destroy the hypocrisy of this plutocratic system, that places the wealthy above the law.
The wealthy are NOT above the law; they are about to go to jail! Millionaires commit murder and (despite O.J.) they DO go to jail for life, I've seen it happen in my own town.
I agree that justice is not even-handed and the wealthy and/or celebrities can often afford to subvert it, but no amount of money, celebrity or power puts anyone completely above the law. Do you think Nixon WANTED to resign?
>> I said: "It may take another 200 years to convert the world, but that is what I hope for."
>> Pilgrim said: Hear, Hear! What is the conversion you hope for?
Actually, better information. Better marketing, specifically. Better efficiency.
For the sake of eliminating currency and cost of living conversions, let's talk about "hours of work". I think it would be great if a bushman in Australia or a farmer in China could find, for the cost of an hour's work or so, a way to sell what they can offer (work, art, crop, whatever) for the best possible price, taking all normal things into account.
It would be great for me to know with even a full day's work where my knowledge and skill would get me the biggest bucks.
It would be wonderful if, instead of having to wade through hundreds of laws I really care nothing about if a machine could accurately recognize exactly what I was interested in and let me know that.
The conversion I hope for is greater effectiveness through better information. I am pretty certain I could make more money if I spent three or four months searching. Why should I have to do that? Because I don't know they need me, and they don't know I'm out there, so there is a win-win situation, for me and for them, that goes unconsummated.
When AI is good enough so that mine can seek out theirs, and we both get informed of this great win-win match, the world will be a better place because everyone will be working for the most profitable outcome for THEM: One might prefer less money and more emphasis on environmentalism; for example. AI's could figure that out and of the jobs possible for that person help them find the one they will like the best.
I think there is a great deal of inefficiency in the matching of products (including people's work) to markets (including employers).
Wouldn't it be great if an AI could tell you "You're going to love this movie" and always be RIGHT, without having to tell you what the movie is about?
Anyway, that sort of stuff would be excellent. AI's that run for next to nothing and keep you informed, that can search the world for buyers of whatever you have to offer, and search the world for the products you want to buy. They would be always "on", carried on your hip like a cellphone or on your wrist like a watch or on your finger like a ring, and listening in on your day and constantly working to serve you and optimize your day, your year, and your life.
I believe it will happen. I don't think I will be alive to see it, so I envy those that will.
>> This is still the American system, but now it has a friendlier face.
Then it isn't the same!
>> I think that if we truly started addressing our problems, and identifying the common players behind many of them, we'd be much further ahead.
Back to the damn imaginary cartels! I'm done discussing them.
>> What change do you feel would bring about the change we need?
Since we don't agree on the change we need; you might not like the answer.
I think we are on the right track in terms of expanding the spread of information. The right thing to do is to infect the world with a culture of Free Speech (however flawed), Democracy (however flawed) and Free Markets (however flawed).
I think that because I think that together these form a self-correcting, self-improving system.
It isn't quick; it takes decades or centuries for some problems to be resolved. Mostly this is limited by the spread of information, so that is the key: The quicker and more dependable the information, the faster changes occur.
Free Speech just means that GOVERNMENT doesn't suppress stories. Much like our 1st Amendment rights.
Democracy just means that if enough citizens care they can take power away from a leader; whether that is a city councilman or the President.
And Free Markets just means that I can sell in an open market what I have to legally offer. When Microsoft uses its money and power to squash competitors, that is anti-free market. If the competitors fail because they don't offer something as good as Microsoft offers, that is a free market; let them perish.
TC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: Traditional News Media is DEAD
|
|
|
| |
It is dead, or at least the walking zombie.
Know why news anchors are generally older? Because their demographic of people that watch TV for their news is old.
The traditional news outlets are dying because the information revolution is succeeding. I hardly need to watch the news to find out what happened today; I see it all over the net directly from the AP, Reuters and other feeds practically as soon as it is filed.
I can see local news too, if I care.
The only people that watch the news on TV are older people used to getting their news that way; people without a net connection during the day.
Whether it is cost-effective for Yahoo and all these news agencies to publish their stuff on the net is immaterial to me; it is much more convenient for ME to get my news there, so I do, and that is killing the ratings of nightly news shows. What do they get, 25 minutes? And they have to use video and speech to convey it, what is that about a hundred sentences?
They can't compete with the web. I probably read an hour's worth of news a day, and it is heavily loaded with my specific interests, and I can skim articles so I get far more out of it than if I watched a nightly-news style delivery all night long.
Their only choice is to become entertainment and report what people aren't going to see on the web; which is unimportant titillation, horror stories, and other such banality.
I don't believe nightly news telecasts will survive the death of the baby boomers; they've got maybe another 20 or 30 years.
I think people will be seeing and reading more news than EVER by then, but I don't think it will be delivered by TV anchors or newspapers that are already an average of 12 hours stale.
In the news arena we are moving beyond our need for a trustworthy anchor and moving into a more chaotic (but better) era in which we judge for ourselves the accuracy of reports and the news worthiness of stories.
In other words we are growing up; and we don't need Brinkely to say it for us to believe it.
The same is happening with the church; we are slowly growing up and not trusting priests and organized religion like we once did. The virulence of preachers and religious fundamentalism is a REACTION to this maturation.
They are LOSING the "flock" and they are working themselves like crazy to get it back, but it is inevitable. They will lose it.
First to alternative religions. But in some generations that diffusion into other religions is likely to translate into general agnosticism, and we can hope that Christianity and Islamism and the major "controlling" religions will be defeated. That is something else I hope for.
TC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: Is Religion a Poison to society?
|
|
|
| |
Not precisely. At least, I think there are a whole lot of worse poisons to society before we get to religion!
Religion is a poison only in the sense that any deeply held and totally wrong belief about how the world works is a poison.
I too espouse my atheistic beliefs and other beliefs about how the world (or systems in general) work; so I don't begrudge their true believers their preaching; as long as it remains harmless. I love freedom of speech.
By harmless I mean not calling for the killing or repression of others; not calling for segregation based on racial, religious, gender or sexual preference... stuff like that. When religions start preaching hatred against what they consider "sinners" and changing the law to support their control over others, then I get mad.
In general religion seems to me to be a training ground for uncritical acceptance of authority and statements at face value. But I could be wrong: I am not sure if people that are religious, racist, bigoted, homophobic and sexist are that way because:
A. Early religion installed a bypass in their ability to think critically, and thus they see everything as surface issues and accept the statements of others without ever thinking about them, or
B. They never HAD the ability to think critically and have always seen everything as surface issues and have always accepted the statements of others without ever thinking about them, thus including religion.
I do note, however, a strong correlation in these attitudes with religious belief!
So no, it isn't a poison. For many people that imaginary world provides a real comfort in their times of misery. Atheism can be a cold mistress.
I often think that the only people that are true atheists (believing in zero supernaturalism) are those that have no choice, like myself. There is simply no way I could accept the premise of any religion without solid, logical proof. For me, a personal feeling, vision or epiphany could be chalked up to brain chemistry, an illusion or delusion. God speaking to me would make me check out my shizophrenia.
If God wanted me to believe in him he would have to perform miracles on demand in a laboratory setting in front of dozens of qualified witnesses. Even then I would probably opt for the super-intelligent alien hypothesis before I opted for the God hypothesis.
Anyway, those that CAN believe, do. Because if you can believe in it, It is definitely a prettier picture than the one I feel certain is the truth.
I don't think atheism will ever be the majority opinion, but then I don't know where we will be in hundreds of years. Maybe it will be. But it is human nature to ascribe supernatural causes, so even if the major religions lose their hold I am expecting a mosaic of other beliefs to take their place.
TC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: Santa Claus
|
|
|
| |
>> Like you, I am not an atheist by choice. Rather, I can't *force* myself to believe in a deity any more than I could make myself believe in Santa.
Oh, Santa is REAL. Don't be dissing Santa, man!
(Just kidding.)
Actually that reminds me of one of my favorite Christmas-time jokes (author unknown):
There are three stages in life:
First, you believe in Santa Claus.
Second, you do not believe in Santa Claus.
Third, YOU ARE SANTA CLAUS!
:D
I don't know how that applies to this discussion, but I love telling that joke. I can't wait till Christmas so I can spring on someone that hasn't heard it.
But back to the subject, Yeah, I'm stuck with it too. I wouldn't know how to begin to force myself to believe something so radically illogical and contrary to a huge body of what I consider established fact.
I honestly think physical intervention would be required: I'd have to have some sort of brain surgery; or degenerative brain disorder; or be drugged into some seriously out of whack brain chemistry.
Oh well. I'm actually pretty happy with atheism, I've come to regard it as liberating. I'm certainly more free than the religious, they've bound themselves with imaginary chains; and feel guilty when they disobey their imaginary master.
I'll tell you something that irks me, mildly, and that is God is a credit hog. It bugs me when I've done the good Samaritan bit for some stranger and they thank God instead of thanking me. I'm not asking for thanks lady, but if you're going to thank somebody thank the guy that just got his pants dirty changing your damn tire, not some jerk that had nothing to do with it!
TC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: Religion
|
|
|
| |
I wanted to add to my previous post: I said there are many poisons I'd rather see addressed first; like education. I'd love to see a decent education system, separated from religion, that teaches each student to the best of their personal ability.
I think eliminating religion is absolutely impossible in the next several generations; so I don't hope for that or work toward that.
But I would like to see the big ones become marginalized, I really think that might be possible in the next four or five generations. I think they are cracking already. Not just because of the recent priestly pedophile revelations, but because of my personal experience in talking to teens. They believe in God but not very many believe the bible should be taken literally.
The effect of the big ones falling would be to diffuse religion over a variety of alternatives; like witchcraft, paganism, reincarnation beliefs, astrology, etc.
I like that effect, because it reduces the influence of any one religion dominating the field in government. With exactly the same number of people being religious, I'd rather see them in 100 religions than in 2. I'd rather see every one of them have their own "personal belief system", even if totally based in the supernatural.
With a wide pantheon of religious beliefs, the courts and government would be forced into religiously neutrality; finally implementing the constitution as it was written and as it should be.
So I am no longer an evangelist for atheism, unless I see somebody leaning toward it already. Converting the religious to atheism is pretty much a hopeless task and a waste of time.
Instead I am an evangelist for doubt. I encourage the religious to personalize their take on religion, get away from the church-based faiths and to worship God as THEY interpret the bible, not how somebody else does. I tell them to go to the source, read it for themselves, and see what God is telling THEM.
If they ask I tell them I am an atheist. But they seldom do. And really I don't want them to be religious at all, but if I can undermine the church even a little by getting somebody to read for themselves and stop blindly accepting what they are told, then I think that little bit is an advance in the cause of science.
If you can't turn them around, at least turn them toward doubt. It's better than blind faith, and a diffusely religious populace is better than a focused religious populace.
TC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: Conspiracies
|
|
|
| |
"I think they do that out of evolution and the selfish profit motive."
Regardless of the motive, it has an adversely negative effect on the world around us, and what people percieve as the truth.
"Namely, they will do as little work as they can and still maintain their revenue stream."
Then this problem should be examined, and perhaps the media should not be concentrated in a handful of corporations. This would be easier if the head of the FCC (Colin Powell's brother) did not hand the spectrum to private interests, claiming he does not know what the public interest is. (He went so far as to say that he waited up at night, waiting for an angel to tell him what the public interest is! Insult to injury?)
"The news is like any other sitcom."
But it is different in that it has the power to shape and manipulate public opinion and manufacture consent.
"They want ratings; the public watches to see big drama like bank holdups, hostage situations, and gruesome car wrecks. That's what they get along with a sprinkling of politics and coming weather."
Which came first, the chicken, or the egg?
"Again, that is explained because they want ratings and the public likes looking at pretty people and is NOT interested in trying to follow in-depth researched analysis."
Again, which came first ... ? They did at one time. Why not now?
"A secret meeting of news directors is not necessary to explain this phenomenon; just simple market dynamics and evolution. The news agencies need viewers and so they have to find a formula that interests viewers."
Whenever the media goes after institutions and politicians, people are rivetted, glued to their screens, so don't tell me that.
If the media was discussing the myriad of gaping wounds in the Administration's conspiracy theory surrounding the events of September eleventh, or questioning the (possible) criminal activity of the people making up the current Administation, or the enormous anomalies in Election 2000, they would easily achieve their market share.
"First because "pooling" is so much cheaper than doing it yourself. Second because the news agency is in the business of getting ratings and using them to sell ad space, it is only indirectly in the business of keeping the public informed for decision making."
Then, as I said, perhaps news programming should not be left in the hands of a few powerful corporations.
"Why should it care, if the public doesn't care?"
The people can't care if they are ignorant. Don't blame the people for the failings (or success, depending on wehich side of the fence you're on...) of a rigged and corrupted system.
The public spectrum is handed to the corporations, and the corporations, in turn, divulge (or omit) the information the men in power want. You scratch my back ...
"Self interest, all the way. No conspiracy, just one man with power using his assets to promote his own point of view."
I never said it was a conspiracy!!!!!
"I will note that if that point of view turns out to be counter to his profit, eventually it will hurt him. Now I assume he can afford to take the hit, but it does mean he is spending on behalf of Israel."
He is taking a considerable hit. his network has lost viewers, and the readership of his papers has dropped considerably, as people cancel their subscriptions.
Public hearings on the matter have been scheduled, due to extreme public outrage, but they keep being put off, by the Prime Minister directly, who is a close personal friend of the man in question.
"But in this case I don't think it is; I think his sympathies are aligned with public sentiment (In the USA, I don't know about Canada). So it won't cost him anything."
Much of that public sentiment (in the USA) has been created by a biased media. It hasn't taken as effectively here in Canada, but it has still had an effect.
"So? It exists for a profit; which to it means selling ads, which means ratings, which means appealing to a plurality of viewers."
It also means excluding information that is counter-productive to the corporations it counts on for advertising.
See? Even I know that it is not a grand conspiracy. Just a whole bowl of corruption.
"I start with the opposite assumption: I think you are closer to the mark if you look at what the networks with the best ratings are doing and assume that is what draws viewers!"
I would agree, if the netowrks didn't regurgitate the exact same disinformation.
"So if think it is biased, one-sided and isolationist, stop thinking that is "manipulated" from on high and start thinking that is what people WANT. It is more likely to be the people that have that bias, not the news."
And where did they get this bias?
"Now I do agree that an owner or manager can impose their own views; but I said the networks with the BEST ratings. So the imposition of views is out of the formula, because if they aren't the views that attract viewers then they wouldn't get the viewers."
Allow me to let you in on a little secret. When it comes to news, most stations in the West carry the exact same thing, and as long as it is on, people will watch it. It doesn't take much to attract viewers, and most choose their news based on the appeal of the anchor.
Most take the time to watch some news during the day, but they are taught that they can trust what they are being presented with is the truth.
"Nobody forces anybody to watch channel 3 instead of channel 5; people choose. Some, like me, choose to not watch local news at all."
It doesn't matter who you're watching if they all present the same thing!
It's just like this illusion called Democracy we all live under; You can vote for A or B, but they are both sides of the same coin.
"I do NOT dismiss them outright! I dismiss the ones you describe because they are not needed to explain the result you complain about."
Then you do not understand all the years of research that went into the study of media as a tool for disseminiating propoganda.
"In fact I say of COURSE there are conspiracies, big and small, operating right now. I just don't believe in long standing large conspiracies."
Okay, but it's like littering. Alone, not too bad, but concentrated together and openly-practiced over generations ...
"For one, conspiracies are formed by people that are essentially duplicitous at their core; willing to defraud, lie, and steal to get their way. People that are extremely SELFISH. Being composed of unstable elements makes them unstable; as soon as the conspiracy stops being profitable for a member it disintegrates, perhaps gets exposed, etc."
But most of the time, it does not, and we get the system we are living under now.
"They can occur, but as THP said, you have to presume their agenda is all important to them; and unless that agenda involves profit, wealth and hedonistic pleasure I just don't believe it."
I listed no other motive.
"I don't doubt that for a second! That's why we have laws against it. How do you explain THAT, the fact that we have laws against price fixing, the fact that people have gone to jail for it?"
PR. The illusion of giving a damn, or working in the public interest. But the people who enacted these laws know damn well that it's not what you know, but what you can prove.
The organizations that are creating this thing we refer to as "Globalization" are doing this in regular meetings, or, more accurately, they do this in private, and then announce the policies they have arrived at in secret, at these meetings.
"(...) so they enacted laws and anytime price fixing is exposed they enforce them."
Therein lies the rub ...
"This is your central mistake; of course "every action they take speaks to this goal", because you only attribute actions to them you want."
What other actions are there?
"If something happens you can interpret as a move toward their world domination goal, you attribute it to them. If something happens counter to that, you either say it is part of the plan, or random crap."
Nothing right now appears to be counter to that. There's some phrase about "deniability" that comes to mind, but I can't remember how the whole thing goes.
"Why are corporate villians being arrested and jailed;"
Some are. Enron "disappeared", and the one man who could (and was going to) link Bu$h to the fiasco was found "suicided".
"how was Nixon forced to resign;"
The media was handed information from inside the White House. Incidentally, that happened after he stopped the Vietnam war.
"There are hundreds, maybe thousands of stories that are exactly counter to the idea of cartels, but you ignore them because they don't support your preconceived notion of cartels."
Please share one.
"So your filter of course leaves you only with a few dozen stories that DO support the idea of some thing striving for world domination."
Sorry, the count is a LOT higher than "a few dozen". And even that would be enough, would it not?
"Ya. Bush wants to be re-elected (selfish) and he has seized upon 9/11 and terrorism as the way to do that. I do not think they orchestrated it, but I do think they delight in it. Yes, it will kill people. He and his party are extremely selfish."
So let's do something about it!
"On the plus side, I think destroying a few third world countries that really do support terrorism, dictators and oppression are a good thing."
That is subjective, and has been manipulated by the media and the military.
"I am a strong believer in forcing the right thing on bad people."
Funny. I have been chastised on this very forum because people perceived this to be what I was saying. What you are forcing on the world is not good for it. Selfish and tyrannical, yes. Good? Nope.
"The whole point is that nations do not control millions of people. At least in the USA, Canada, France, Germany, Britain, Ireland, and a bunch of other countries I can't think of offhand; people are pretty much free to work where they want, think what they want, research what they want on the net, publish what they want, and generally have enough freedom to find the info if they want and disseminate the info if they want."
Then you obviously do not engage in any activity which threatens the power of the ones in control.
"Tyranny is seldom seen but by him who opposes it." - Mark Twain
"I see people from these countries all the time on the web, communicating with me and each other. (And I only speak English, by the way). Nobody is holding them back or censoring them."
But we're not really doing anything, are we? Don't believe for a second that we are not being watched.
"I have great difficulty understanding how the countries are supposed to be controlling them."
It starts in grade school ...
"Blah blah. It is not only rhetoric. You purposely ignore the real results of democracy because they don't support your thesis of cartels."
Oh, right. I forgot that Bu$h was democratically elected, and not appointed by a bunch of his Daddy's friends.
"Why is Gary Condit getting out of office? I assure you he doesn't want to, but the public now perceives him as a scum bucket philanderer, and he would lose the election."
He's getting off easy.
"Why does the public perceive him that way? Because the news was all over the murder of Chandra Levy, the girl he was having an affair with."
What else was transpiring in the world while we were all caught up in Chandra-mania? Oh yeah, the United States was amassing troops around Afghanistan, in anticipation of an invasion.
"Why were they all over it? Because the public wanted to hear it. They love sex and intrigue and mystery, and the news media loved to supply it and sell papers and ads."
I do not dispute this. Bu$h was under fire when her body mysteriously appeared in an area that had already been searched, and when things had died down, he wasn't. We'd forgotten ...
"That's democracy in action."
Manipulation ...
"No we don't. They are established here, and making ourselves perfect first is unreasonable."
I'm not talking about being perfect, I'm talking about adhering to the idea of democracy. What we engage in is called hypocrisy.
"A little democracy is better than none at all."
So let's have a little!
"Democracy is an infection that will spread. It really does give people the power through their vote, and when people care enough they use that power."
If it isn't stifled by other powers, in the protection of their own "interests". If the people don't have the relative information to make informed decisions, democracy and this power the people have, is rederred useless.
"You are just whining because there are things you wish they would use it for and they don't collectively give a rat's ass about your issues."
I guess that's one way of looking at it. It's hard to 'give a rat's ass" about things of which you are kept comletely ignorant.
"It is not unsustainable, that is a false assertion."
No, it is right on the money. With every jump in GDP, the environment takes a bigger hit. We're approaching our saturation point, at which the environment will begin to violently reject us and what we're doing.
"It is perfectly sustainable and has been sustaining itself for hundreds of years, becoming more refined and better at allocating resources."
That's why more children starve to death every day than the number of people killed in the WTC? It is not improving, it is only growing bigger and more concentrated.
"There is a reason the highest standards of living are in the capitalist countries."
Make no mistake, all there are are capitalist countries.
And you're exactly right. "First World" countries have no qualms about employing force in the protection of their "interests". We call it "protecting freedom", but whatever ...
"HA! That is like saying if I fund the police I have to fund the criminals! Total BS. Israel is in the right, the Palestinians are in the wrong, and that's that."
Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.
"The Palestinians attacked ISRAEL, not the other way around, and they friggin' LOST. They deserve to lose their land, they tried to steal Israel's land and they LOST."
You mean the people whose land Israel is situated upon failed to take it back ... right?
Do you think I am retarded in some way? You keep talking to me like a child ...
"They lost WW II, they lost every time they attacked Israel. They are thugs and thieves and deserve their fate."
WHAT?
See? Propoganda DOES work, pretty damn well.
Please direct your attention to the article at the end of this post.
"No, good idea. I am all for an all out war between the Palestinians and Israel, with us on Israel's side. If the Palestinians cannot behave in their country they should be wiped out."
You mean in the country that a power claiming racial superiority, who keep expanding their territory illegally, using force and utter brutality?
"The PA is not killing in self defense."
Yes, they are, employing what all tacticians know as Third Generation Warfare.
"They are continuing to wage war to destroy Israel and try to undo their losses due to earlier wars they instigated in their attempts to destroy Israel."
Oh, you mean they want to destroy the country that considers them animals, and has made no bones about their stated goal of a "Final Solution"? I'd be on the front lines, too.
The Americanism that I hate is beginning to show in you. It's a bit frightening.
"The PA purposely targets children and civilians."
So does the IDF, but they have strong PR. Israel has killed more Palestinian children than the sum total of Israelis killed.
"They've blown themselves up in daycare centers, for god's sake. Israel targets terrorists that lead the war against them; and sometimes kills children and non-combatants that get in the way."
Want a hankie for your chin?
Propoganda. I am NOT arguing that Palestinian violence is good, only that neither side's violence is.
To what do you attribute the high number of Mossad agents arrested on September 11th, that were quickly whisked back to israel without interrogation?
If you wish to debate this issue further, e-mail me directly. I will not do this here.
"But prohibiting selfishness WON'T WORK, so the socialist model is doomed."
That is not what socialism is all about. You misunderstand the philosophy.
"There is no easy solution; selfishness and individual profit and gain must be permitted."
I agree, but not at the expense of the only home we have, nor do these motives justify mass-murder.
"The wealthy are NOT above the law; they are about to go to jail!"
BS. The wealthy ARE the law.
"Millionaires commit murder and (despite O.J.) they DO go to jail for life, I've seen it happen in my own town."
I lack the specifics of that to comment intelligently.
"I agree that justice is not even-handed and the wealthy and/or celebrities can often afford to subvert it, but no amount of money, celebrity or power puts anyone completely above the law."
Well, that's splitting hairs. Nothing can be perfect, as you said, not even corruption.
"Do you think Nixon WANTED to resign?"
I don't know. I wasn't there.
(He was pardoned, however ...)
"Actually, better information. Better marketing, specifically. Better efficiency."
Oh. I thought you meant something else.
"For the sake of eliminating currency and cost of living conversions, let's talk about "hours of work". I think it would be great if a bushman in Australia or a farmer in China could find, for the cost of an hour's work or so, a way to sell what they can offer (work, art, crop, whatever) for the best possible price, taking all normal things into account."
For now, I'd be happy if all the people in the world could eat.
"It would be great for me to know with even a full day's work where my knowledge and skill would get me the biggest bucks."
That would be nice, if it was fair for all. I'm not all about the big bucks, but more power to ya!
"It would be wonderful if, instead of having to wade through hundreds of laws I really care nothing about if a machine could accurately recognize exactly what I was interested in and let me know that."
It would, but that's not the real world. Why don't we focus on that for now?
"When AI is good enough so that mine can seek out theirs, and we both get informed of this great win-win match, the world will be a better place because everyone will be working for the most profitable outcome for THEM: One might prefer less money and more emphasis on environmentalism; for example. AI's could figure that out and of the jobs possible for that person help them find the one they will like the best."
That is like the Christians waiting around for the second Coming, while the forces they claim to oppose ru(i)n the world.
While we're waiting, why not try to do something to make the world better NOW?
"I think there is a great deal of inefficiency in the matching of products (including people's work) to markets (including employers)."
So work on a solution. Brainstorm. All the best.
"Wouldn't it be great if an AI could tell you "You're going to love this movie" and always be RIGHT, without having to tell you what the movie is about?"
Yeah, but isn't there a danger of having it TOO GOOD? What about the mystery of unwrapping that movie like a Christmas gift, for better or for worse? (I agree that too many bad movies in a row is maddening...)
If AI's were truly intelligent, perhaps they wouldn't want to support our shallow ay of life. Or perhaps they would destroy us because we are destroying the world that they now inhabit.
"I believe it will happen. I don't think I will be alive to see it, so I envy those that will."
If we destroy this planet, will anyone?
That is how I feel about the chabnge this world needs. I believe it's starting, however slowly, and that I won't see it come to fruition.
"I think we are on the right track in terms of expanding the spread of information."
Agreed. But information has to be kept out of the hands of those who would manipulate it.
"The right thing to do is to infect the world with a culture of Free Speech (however flawed), Democracy (however flawed) and Free Markets (however flawed)."
I only agree if we truly work to improve on these, and that is NOT what is happening right now. The Free Market needs balancing, so that want does not supercede needs, or stretch our finite resources too thin.
If one side lives in utter opulence while the other lives in abject poverty, then we have failed.
"I think that because I think that together these form a self-correcting, self-improving system."
I don't, because I think these terms are nothing but hot air, sort of like "self-regulating systems". Improving and correcting will take hard work, not apathy.
"It isn't quick; it takes decades or centuries for some problems to be resolved. Mostly this is limited by the spread of information, so that is the key: The quicker and more dependable the information, the faster changes occur."
So long as it happens ...
"Free Speech just means that GOVERNMENT doesn't suppress stories. Much like our 1st Amendment rights."
Well ... That's a very fine line you're dancing on. Business is a force, just like government. When the corporate media is unfettered by the government sworn to protect our interests, then our speech is not free.
"Democracy just means that if enough citizens care they can take power away from a leader; whether that is a city councilman or the President."
Well, it's a bit more complicated than that, a bit more involved. True democracy, that is.
"And Free Markets just means that I can sell in an open market what I have to legally offer."
That is not the system that is currently being established "globally", nor do I agree that capitalism is the wave of the future.
But we can work from there ...
I guess my point is this:
If we're going to continue to live under and spread this system of plutocracy and hypocrisy, and subjugation to capital, then let's teach that, and be honest about it, and save future generations from slowly and painfully learning that truth over time.
If we're going to teach freedom and democracy, then let's pursue freedom and democracy, and peace, and one-ness, instead of using them soley as rhetoric to justify war, and conquest, and brutality, and hatred.
And evil ...
Instead of listing justifications for why our system isn't working, let's talk about how to get it to work, because it isn't.
Not really ...
We're in trouble here, and I think, despite your arguments to the contrary, that deep down you know it.
__________________________________________
US Taxpayers Give At Least $10 Billion A Year To Israel
By James P. Tucker Jr.
Exclusive to American Free Press
8-4-2
American taxpayers give Israel at least $10 billion each year, nearly three times the publicly acknowledged $3.5 billion.
The precise amount cannot be determined; the funds are hidden in different programs in different federal agencies.
Hidden subsidies "are frequently listed under innocuous budget titles" in a "budgetary sleight of hand," said a report by William D. Hartung of the World Policy Institute.
Congress routinely approves about $3 billion in foreign aid to Israel.
Next year's Foreign Operations FY 2002 Appropriations legislation (H.R. 2506), which passed the House, 381-46, on July 24 and the Senate, 50 to 46, on Oct. 15, publicly details a portion of the economic and military assistance-called "grants"-slated to be given Israel. In the section of the appropriations bill, titled "Foreign Military Financing," Congress provides:
. . . Not less than $2,040,000,000 shall be available for grants only for Israel, and not less than $1,300,000,000 shall be made available for grants only for Egypt: Provided further, That the funds appropriated by this paragraph for Israel shall be disbursed within 30 days of the enactment of this Act or by October 31, 2001, whichever is later: Provided further, That to the extent that the Government of Israel requests that funds be used for such purposes, grants made available for Israel by this paragraph shall, as agreed by Israel and the United States, be available for advanced weapons systems, of which not less than $535,000,000 shall be available for the procurement in Israel of defense articles and defense services, including research and development . . .
The money is placed into bank accounts, which Israel can draw upon to purchase equipment. Meanwhile, bankers garner huge profits from interest on the "grant money" at the expense of U.S. taxpayers.
However, another $2.5 billion "loan" is often made so Israel can purchase additional arms from American companies. This "loan" is quietly forgiven in an amendment to an obscure piece of legislation each year.
"Forgiveness" legislation is a popular foreign policy weapon.
The other giveaways are carefully hidden from the public and many of the legislators who vote for the $15.6 billion foreign aid package and other legislation that transfers tax dollars to Israel.
Many more billions are given away by selling "surplus" modern military technology at steep discounts. Some such "surpluses" are discounted by 85 percent of market value. A 1996 report by the Arms Sales Monitoring Project of the Federation of American Scientists found that the United States gave away or sold at a steep discount weaponry that cost taxpayers $8.7 billion.
So taxpayers paid twice: once for the forgone proceeds from the sale of still-useful weaponry to foreign nations and again for the cost of replacement items.
Another conduit of American tax dollars to Israel is the "economic support funds" administered by the Agency for International Development. It is funded by the "international affairs" budget. In fiscal year 1999, Israel received $1 billion from this source, which is typical. Next year Israel will receive $750 million.
HOW 'BOUT AMERICA?
Another means of secret funds for Israel was reported by David P. Yohanna of Chicago in March, 1993. He wrote in the Chicago Tribune:
"The true total aid to Israel in 1993 is as follows: on budget, $3 billion; off-budget, $1.2 billion; interest paid by U.S. on above, $50 million; U.S. loan guarantees to Israel, $2 billion; compound interest on previous grants (1951-1992), $5 billion.
"Total 1993 grants, interest, loan guarantees and compound interest: $11.3 billion," Yohanna wrote.
This accounting does not take into consideration Israeli bonds that are widely sold, not only to supporters but to unsuspecting taxpayers in every state.
American Free Press has no detailed studies but it appears that 40 years ago most states outlawed state purchases of securities from outside the country. But apparently such laws were repealed or are being ignored in all 50 states, benefiting Israel by even more billions. But much of the disguised funds for Israel come from "petty cash" operations that go undetected. For example, during fiscal year 1997, the Pentagon gave Israel $68 million worth of weaponry under something it calls the "excess defense articles program."
Obviously, $10 billion a year, if spent at home instead of going to fuel Israel's war machine, could benefit Americans handsomely. Two examples:
* Only a fraction of the $10 billion could offset the $300 million in annual "savings" the administration wants to accomplish by reducing much-needed benefits given to disabled veterans and families of those killed in war by 10 percent.
* A modern transportation system, with fast, on-time trains, efficient airline service and unclogged highways could quickly emerge if funded by $10 billion a year.
http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_22_01/_10_Billion_Yea
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: Conspiracies
|
|
|
| |
Could you demonstrate the "proper" conclusions as brought about by applying Ocham's Razor to our current situation? You'd do a better job than I, and I'd like to see these.
I thought you didn't like theories ...
The things of which I speak are arrived at through study of relevant facts, the players involved, an understanding of their nature, past present and future, and an understanding of past events.
You may be interested in the following. I do not claim to know the culprit in the attacks of 9/11, but the event did not transpire as the Administration claims, and I do not find that trivial, given the consequences of the act.
Do you not find it strange that there has been little or no official investigation into this unprecedented event, nor a disclosure of the "evidence" which justified our spreading war, in almost a year's time?
That is NOT trivial.
Portugal News
"FRONT PAGE STORY - 03/08/2002"
September 11 - US Government accused
A Portugal-based investigative journalist has presented THE NEWS with version of the September 11th attacks that has to date failed to attract the attention of the international press. The report, compiled by an independent inquiry into the September 11th, World Trade Centre attack, warns the American public that the governmentâ™s official version of events does not stand up to scrutiny.
A group of military and civilian US pilots, under the chairmanship of Colonel Donn de Grand, after deliberating non-stop for 72 hours, has concluded that the flight crews of the four passenger airliners, involved in the September 11th tragedy, had no control over their aircraft.
In a detailed press communique, the inquiry stated: "The so-called terrorist attack was in fact a superbly executed military operation carried out against the USA, requiring the utmost professional military skill in command, communications and control. It was flawless in timing, in the choice of selected aircraft to be used as guided missiles and in the coordinated delivery of those missiles to their pre-selected targets."
The report seriously questions whether or not the suspect hijackers, supposedly trained on Cessna light aircraft, could have located a target dead-on 200 miles from take off point. It further throws into doubt their ability to master the intricacies of the instrument flight rules (IFR) in the 45 minutes from take off to the point of impact. Colonel de Grand said that it would be impossible for novices to have taken control of the four aircraft and orchestrated such a terrible act requiring military precision of the highest order.
A member of the inquiry team, a US Air Force officer who flew over 100 sorties during the Vietnam war, told the press conference: âœThose birds (commercial airliners) either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat, or they were being manoeuvred by remote control.â
In evidence given to the enquiry, Captain Kent Hill (retd.) of the US Air Force, and friend of Chic Burlingame, the pilot of the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, stated that the US had on several occasions flown an unmanned aircraft, similar in size to a Boeing 737, across the Pacific from Edwards Air Force base in California to South Australia. According to Hill it had flown on a pre programmed flight path under the control of a pilot in an outside station.
Hill also quoted Bob Ayling, former British Airways boss, in an interview given to the London Economist on September 20th, 2001. Ayling admitted that it was now possible to control an aircraft in flight from either the ground or in the air. This was confirmed by expert witnesses at the inquiry who testified that airliners could be controlled by electro-magnetic pulse or radio frequency instrumentation from command and control platforms based either in the air or at ground level.
All members of the inquiry team agreed that even if guns were held to their heads none of them would fly a plane into a building. Their reaction would be to ditch the plane into a river or a field, thereby safeguarding the lives of those on the ground.
A further question raised by the inquiry was why none of the pilots concerned had alerted ground control. It stated that all pilots are trained to punch a four-digit code into the flight controlâ™s transponder to warn ground control crews of a hijacking - but this did not happen.
During the press conference Captain Hill maintained that the four airliners must have been choreographed by an Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS). This system can engage several aircraft simultaneously by knocking out their on-board flight controls. He said that all the evidence points to the fact that the pilots and their crews had not taken any evasive action to resist the supposed hijackers. They had not attempted any sudden changes in flight path or nose-dive procedures - which led him to believe that they had no control over their aircraft.
FAA records show AWACS aircraft in the airspace around NY on September the eleventh.
THE NEWS, in an attempt to further substantiate the potential veracity of these findings, spoke to an Algarve-based airline pilot, who has more than 20 years of experience in flying passenger planes, to seek his views. Captain Colin McHattie, currently flying with Cathay Pacific, agreed with the independent commission's findings. However, he explained that while it is possible to fly a plane from the ground, the installation of the necessary equipment is a time-consuming process, and needs extensive planning. THE NEWS will publish a full interview with Captain McHattie in next week's edition.
The FBI also came in for criticism for the various pieces of contradictory evidence it has published regarding the suspects. Questions are now being asked as to how incorrect information was given out regarding the ID cards of the suspects, and the seat numbers they supposedly occupied after boarding the flights.
None of the suspects named by the FBI appeared on any of the official passenger lists. A further point was how the FBI had managed to retrieve the passport of one of the suspects amid the molten and twisted remains of thousands of tons of steel and rubble brought about by the Twin Towers collapse.
Dr. Paul Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury, and presently Senior Research Fellow at Stamford University, has lent his support to the independent inquiry findings. He also claims that Osama Bin Laden was not responsible for September 11th. The doctor has challenged President Bush to make public the so-called "irrefutable evidence" incriminating Bin Laden.
Colonel Donn de Grand said that if President Bush is lying it would not be the first time that the American people had been mislead by its government. He cited the recently published official government archives describing President Roosevelt's duplicity in deceiving Americans about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, which triggered the US entry into WWll.
He also highlighted the role of the countryâ™s government in misleading its citizens in respect of the Bay of Pigs invasion in Cuba, and the events that brought about the Spanish American war in the late 19th, century. "Whilst considering who committed this act of war on September 11th," he said, "albeit Russia, China, an Islamic country or NATO, we must also consider that the enemy may well be within the gates.
"Not for the first time the American public might be being mislead, by those with ulterior motives, into lending its support to a war, this time against Iraq, that has no bearing whatsoever on the interests of the people of the USA."
So far the mainstream American news media has failed to publish or broadcast any details regarding the independent inquiry. Similarly, the White House, whilst having received a copy of the report, has remained silent on its findings.
http://the-news.net/cgi-bin/story.pl?title=September%2011%20-%20US%20Government%20accused&edition=663
THE ENEMY IS INSIDE THE GATES
by Colonel Donn de Grand Pr(US Army - Ret.)
A dedicated group of experienced civilian and military pilots, including combat fighter pilots and commercial airline captains, just finished a marathon 72 hours of non-stop briefings and debate over the current crisis evolving from
the use of commercial aircraft as cruise missiles against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 11 September.
The so-called terrorist attack was in fact a superbly executed military operation against the United States, requiring the utmost professional military skill in command, communications and control. It was flawless in timing, in
the choice of selected aircraft to be used as guided missiles, and in the coordinated delivery of those missiles to their pre-selected targets.
As a tactical military exercise against two significant targets (world financial center and the citadel of world strategic military planning), the attack, from a psychological impact on the American public, equaled the
Japanese "surprise" attack on Pearl Harbor 7 Dec
1941.
The over-riding question If we are at war, who is the enemy?
The group determined that the enemy is within the gates, that he has infiltrated into the highest policy-making positions at the Federal level, and has absolute control, not only of the purse strings, but of the troop build-up and deployment
of our military forces, including active, reserve and National Guard units.
PRELUDE TO PANIC
The 9-11 activity and horrific destruction of US property and
lives was intentionally meant to trigger a psychological
and patriotic reaction on the part of the US citizens,
which is paving the way for "combined UN
activity" (using the fig leaf of NATO) for striking
key targets in both the Middle East/ South Asia and the
Balkans. The goal continues to be ultimate destruction of
all national sovereignty and establishment of a global
government.
The trigger for the 9-11 activity was the imminent and
unstoppable world-wide financial collapse, which can only
be prevented (temporarily) by a major war, perhaps to
become known as WW 111. To bring it off (one more time),
martial law will probably be imposed in the United States.
In each of the major wars of the 20th century, the financial
manipulators (located in the City of London and New York
City) had placed the US (and much of the Western world) in
a monetary expansion mode, followed by an ever-tightening
vice of a gigantic credit squeeze.
We now have two ongoing
and tightly controlled simultaneous events (emanating from
the two symbolic targets of 911 1) Alan Greenspan, Fed
chairman, promising to flood the market with up to $200
billion in FRNs and to further lower interest rates, thus
bringing about hyperinflation and dollar devaluation.
Much of these multi billions in largesse will be dumped into the
coffers of Wall Street, Defense, bankrupt airlines,
insurance companies and into the willing arms of
debt-ridden third-world countries in the form of debt
repudiation (forgiveness). Call it bribery, in order to get
these often reluctant nations to join our coalition of
"freedom fighters" in "the war against
terrorism".
2) Paul Wolfowitz, deputy Defense secretary, promised that the
US will launch "sustained military strikes against
those behind the terrorist attacks on New York and
Washington". He said that the "military
retaliation would continue until the roots of terrorism are
destroyed."
This bit of saber rattling was seconded by select NATO allies
(especially Britain), and by our chief ally in the Middle
East, Ariel Sharon, while Secretary
of Defense Don Rumsfeld, with the blessings of Pres. Bush
11, is activating thousands of national guard and
reservists, not only to guard the vulnerable airports, but
to do fly-overs of our Nation's capital in F16s from the
North Dakota Air Guard. Other National Guard units are
being jockeyed into potential combat "hot spots"
throughout the Middle East/South Asia and the Balkans.
WHO IS THE ENEMY?
Following is a summary of the near-unanimous views of the
assembled military and civilian pilots concerning certain
critical factors relating to the WTC/Pentagon hit of 9-11
Troubling questions arose about the alleged pilot-hijackers
of the four aircraft, who were supposedly trained on Cessna
aircraft over the past year at fields in Florida and
Oklahoma. One General officer remarked, "I seriously
question whether these novices could have located a target
dead-on 200 miles removed from takeoff point...-- much less
controlled the flight and mastered the intricacies of 11FR
(instrument flight rules) -- and all accomplished in 45
minutes."
The extremely skillful maneuvering of the three aircraft at
near mach speeds, each unerringly hitting their targets,
was superb. As one Air Force officer -- a veteran of over
100 sorties over North Vietnam -- explained, "Those
birds (commercial airliners) either had a crack fighter
pilot in the left seat, or they were being maneuvered by
remote control."
Another pilot warned that "we had better consider whether
electro-magnetic pulse or radio frequency weapons were used
from a command and control platform hovering over the
Eastern Seaboard... I'm talkin' AWACS."
Another comment "If there was an AWACS on station over
the targeted area, did it have a Global Hawk capability? I
mean, could it convert the commercial jets to robotic
flying missiles?
A hotly debated question Who would be in command of such an
Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS)? Were they
Chinese -- Russians -- Saudis -- Israelis -- NATO ? All of
these countries possess AWACS-type aircraft. All (except
the Saudis) have the capability to utilize electro-magnetic
pulsing (EMP) to knock out on-board flight controls and
communications of targeted aircraft, and then, to fly them
by remote control.
One of the Air Force officers explained that we had already
flown a robot plane the size of a Boeing 737 across the
Pacific to Australia -- unmanned -- from Edwards AF13 in
California to a successful landing on an Aussie base in
South Australia. It flies along a pre-programmed flight
path, but is "monitored" (controlled remotely) by
a pilot from an outside station.
He explained that the London Economist (20 Sep 2001) published
comments from the former CEO of British Airways, Robert
Ayling, who stated that an aircraft could be commandeered
from the ground or air and controlled remotely in the event
of a hijack.
COMMERCIAL JETS AS GUIDED MISSILES
An AP story, dateline Brussels - 7 Oct 01 -- "At
Washington's request, NATO will soon deploy surveillance
aircraft for anti-terrorist operations in the United States
in response to the attacks on New York and Washington, NATO
officials said Sunday, an unprecedented use of foreign
military forces to defend the U.S. homeland."
The assembled group of pilots debated why we would ask for
foreign forces to fly AWACS over our sovereign territory
when we have a fleet of 33 of them, of which 28 are
stationed in Oklahoma. The debate also centered on whether
such NATO surveillance aircraft were already here prior to
11 September.
Could one of them have commandeered the four airliners?
There seems to be wide discrepancies between what the Federal
government is proclaiming -- and their media moguls
reporting -- as opposed to the calm and reasoned and
rational views of those men who fly the planes and defend
the nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
This writer has been a general aviation pilot since 1946. 1
have flown a variety of single engine prop aircraft since,
and installed an FAA-approved airstrip here on my farm in
1980. Two local pilots periodically joined me for short
hops; one, a Madison County lawyer, a graduate of the Air
Force Academy, who flew for the Air Force before coming
home to practice law.
The other, Kent Hill, who lives with his wife, Carol, on a
farm close to mine, is an American Airlines captain
assigned to the European route. He was a lifelong friend of
"Chic" Burlingame, They were graduates of the
Naval Academy and flew F-4 Phantoms in Vietnam. Both left
the Navy 28 years ago and joined American Airlines. Both
planned to retire in 2002. Chic was the captain of AA
flight 77, a Boeing 757, which departed Washington Dulles
for Los Angeles at 8 10 am on I I September, with 58
passengers and a crew of 6. Flight 77 crashed into the
Pentagon at 941 am.
"We were totally trained on the old type of hijack,"
Capt Hill said, "where you treat the hijacker
cordially, punch a 4-digit code into your transponder to
alert ground control you're being hijacked, and then get
him where he wants to go, set the plane safely on the
ground and let them deal with it on the ground. However,
this is a totally new situation... Not one of the planes
alerted ground control that they were being hijacked."
How come?
"The fact is, all the transponders were turned off on the
doomed flights virtually at the same time." Look at
their departure times -- two from Logan (Boston), one from
Newark, another from Dulles (Washington DC) -- all between
8 am and 815.
"Shortly after climb-out to flight level, their
transponders are de-activated.. (they are no longer a blip
on the radar screens). This is something that really needs
to be looked into. The only reason we turn them off is so
they don't interfere with ground systems when we
land."
(Note Transponders identify a particular aircraft in flight
on the radar screens of FAA flight controllers located
throughout the country. Various codes are punched into the
transponder, one displaying, "I am being
hijacked.")
Although there is much talk among the various flight crews,
Hill says they are not privy to any of the investigations
into the events of I I September. "We're in the dark
-- very much so ... They're playing it pretty tight to the
vest."
He is convinced none of the pilots had control of their
aircraft when they were flown into the World Trade Center
and the Pentagon. The question then becomes, who was really
in control?
"Even if I had a gun at my head, I'd never fly a plane
into a building. I'd try to put it in anywhere -- a field
or a river --and I'd be scaring the hell out of them (the
hijackers) by flying upside down first," Hill said.
In fact, the pilot has the best weapon in his hand when
threatened with imminent death by a hijacker, namely, the
airplane.
Another airline pilot stated. "On hearing a major scuffle
in the cabin, the pilot should have inverted the aircraft
and the hijackers end up with broken necks."
That none of the four pilots executed such a maneuver points
toward the fact that none of them had control of their
aircraft, but had been overridden by an outside force,
which was flying them by remote control.
As an old and not so bold pilot, I became more convinced that
the four commercial jets were choreographed by a
"conductor" from a central source, namely an
airborne warning and control system (AWACS). They have the
electronic capability to engage several aircraft
simultaneously, knock out their on-board flight controls by
EMP (electro-magnetic pulsing) and assume command and
remote control of these targeted aircraft.
As we consider all the options -- and enemies -- who performed
this act of war, whether from China, Russia, an
Islamic country, or from NATO, we must also consider that
the enemy may be within the gates.
If so, then we are dealing with high treason.
The same source sent another email to me
Subj OVERVIEW
Date 10/23/2001 82556 PM Pacific Daylight Time
OVERVIEW
I want to start out by responding to that tiny percentage of negative email
I receive that accuses me of being anti American. I'm not. I think America is
a great place, and the American people by and large are to be admired.
What I am against is any government that lies to its people. This includes
the government of the United States which, contrary to Bill Clinton's
comments on the matter, is not the same thing as the country. The country is
the people. The country is the land. The country is those who build, teach,
heal, grow, manufacture, and along the way raise a family. The United States
is not found in the marble buildings along the Potomac. The United States is
found in the homes and hearts of 266 million Americans.
The government, its self delusions of grandeur aside, is nothing but a
custodian, and a temporary one, hired by the people to care for our nation,
and if that custodian fails in that job, like any menial, they should be
replaced. Our nation did just that once before, in 1776, and it must be
remembered that those who were called "Patriot" were those who stood with
the people of the nation, not with the corrupted government.
There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the government, as
custodian of the nation, to lie to the people. It's just not in there. And
yet the government of the United States has been caught repeatedly lying to
the people of the nation in recent years, lying about Vince Foster , TWA 800,
Waco , Martin Luther King , John F. Kennedy , The Oklahoma City Bombing ,
and others too numerous to mention. Suffice it to say that if the government
of the United States finds itself with a credibility problem, it has only
itself to blame.
When the government of the United States lies to the people, it acts
illegally and un-Constitutionally and by the strict interpretation of that
document ceases to be the legal government of the land. But let us set that
aside for the moment and look at why the US Government lies to the people
and what such lies have accomplished in the past. Only then can we understand
why the reasoning citizen must have serious doubt we are being told the truth by
the government in the present case.
Some of the biggest lies told by the government of the United States are
those used to initiate a war. Modern pundits keep equating the attacks of
9/11 to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
This is a slippery, indeed dangerous analogy, since it has been proven in
recent years, by way of recently declassified documents, that FDR
deliberately maneuvered Japan into the attack on Pearl Harbor and kept the
Hawaii commanders from knowing of the attack so that there would be plenty
of dead bodies with which to enrage Americans into support of a war that as of
December 6th, 1941, nobody wanted. American boys, shouting "Remember Pearl
Harbor", marched off to war. Many did not come back.
The Spanish/American war was likewise started with deception. The Hearst
Newspapers flooded the land with stories of Spanish abuses of the Cuban
people; stories which turned out to be fictional and which were published
solely to fan the flames of a war, not for the benefit of the Cuban people,
but to enlarge American territory and influence.
When USS Maine exploded in Havana Harbor, the Captain of that ship insisted
that the explosion was not the result of any attack. But he was shouted down
by the press, and American boys, shouting "Remember The Maine", marched off
to war. Many did not come back. And all because of a lie. In 1975, a review
of the evidence by admiral Hyman Rickover, the father of the modern nuclear
Navy, concluded that there hadn't been any Spanish mine at all, just as the
Maine's Captain had reported. The ships had suffered a fire in a coal
bunker, detonating the ship's magazine, imprudently located nearby.
The same with the Gulf of Tonkin. Even as Johnson exhorted the American
people to respond to the torpedo attack on the Maddox, Johnson knew there
hadn't really been any torpedoes, not had the USS Maddox been as innocent as
claimed. American boys again marched off to war. Many did not come back.
Following the Bay of Pigs, which was by any definition an invasion of a
foreign nation, the US Joint Chiefs proposed staging fake terrorist attacks
that would be blamed on Cuba, to build support for a second invasion.
Of course, there is nothing new about politicians using terror on their own
citizens to get what they want. The trick goes back to Roman times, and even
Hitler found it useful.
So, let's take a moment to push aside those flags being held in front of our
eyes like blindfold and take a close look at the current situation.
The United States government, despite nice sounding speeches about freedom
and Democracy (sic This author should have said Republics) , has a record of
overthrowing actual working Democracies (sic This author should have said Republics) and supporting outright dictatorships.
The US, for example, backed Cuban Dictator Batista, Chile's Pinochet, the
Shah of Iran, and the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos, to name just a few.
The US backed these regimes because the dictators were willing to do favors
for American multi-national corporations.
Batista, for example, kept the prices of Cuban agricultural products below
the prevailing market rate. This made American companies like United Fruit
and PepsiCo more profitable, at the expense of the Cuban farmers, who
eventually revolted, bringing Castro to power. Castro let the market set the
price of Cuban produce, whereupon the United States declared an embargo and
invaded at the Bay of Pigs. Then we wonder why the Cuban people may not like
us.
Another classic example of US foreign policy as it really is was South
America. Chile had a working democracy under Allende. But US corporate
interests saw a greater chance for profits if the Democracy
(sic This author should have said Republics)
were to be replaced by a dictator friendly to US interests.
This led to the US backed coup, complete with torture squads trained by US
experts. Henry Kissenger flat out stated that the United States had a right
to intervene in any Democracy (sic This author should have said Republics)
that voted contrary to American interests, adding, "The issues are much too
important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves."
Same deal in Iran. The US Government backed the Shah of Iran. The rich got
richer, the poor got poorer (same as in the United States) and the people of
Iran revolted, bringing the Ayatollah Khomeini to power. Iran was our
friend, now it's our enemy.
The same with Iraq, once our friend, and now our enemy. Indeed, the United
States keeps switching sides so often, with the American people expected to
follow along like lemmings, that one is reminded of George Orwell's "1984"
in which the perpetually warring nations are always changing allegiance, and
the war weary people wake up one morning to be told, "Eastasia is our friend.
Eastasia has always been our friend. Pacifica is the enemy."
This brings us to Osama Bin Laden.
Osama is the modern equivalent of Orwell's "Emmanual Goldstien", the boogie
man on whom the government blames everything. Even though careful observers
have long known the United States economy was poised for a major decline,
the media is spinning the current economic woes as a direct result of the
attacks on the World Trade Towers, in the hopes that the general public will be
stupid enough to believe it.
If Orwell is not to your taste, then let's try L. Frank Baum and the "Wizard
Of Oz", who used a paper mache' mask to scare Dorothy Gale into doing war
with the Wicked Witch of the West, something farm girls would not normally
be wise to do. After all, witches have air superiority!
Likewise, Osama appears to be a manufactured monster, designed to scare us
into doing things we otherwise would not so, including support a war, cease
criticizing the government, and surrender our freedoms.
Contrary to the public media image of Osama, he is not a lifelong religious
fanatic. At the time the United States covert intervention in Afghanistan
triggered the Soviet invasion , Osama, like the rest of his family, was
living a westernized lifestyle. One of Osama's brothers was a business
partner with the son of the then vice-president and former head of the CIA,
George H. W. Bush.
The CIA needed a front man in Afghanistan to oppose the Soviets, since
Vietnam was too fresh a memory for the American people to tolerate another
war, especially since the lid had just been blown off of the COINTELPRO
scandal , revealing the criminal actions the FBI had engaged in to silence
opposition to that war.
So, trained and financed by the CIA, Osama quit being a westernized Saudi
and seemingly overnight became a fanatical muslim and financier/leader of the
fight against the Soviets, waging an indirect war on behalf of the United
States. Osama was a creation of the CIA and we only have the CIA's word that
Osama isn't still in their employ. However, as another CIA asset, David
Ferrie, pointed out just prior to his own assassination, you don't leave the
agency. Once you are in, you are in for life!
Afghanistan is an interesting place. It has natural gas, petroleum, coal,
copper, chromite, talc, barites, sulfur, lead, zinc, iron ore, salt,
precious and semiprecious stones, and more opium than the Burmese Golden Triangle. It
is also one of the most deadly places on Earth, having destroyed every
invading army since the time of Alexander the Great!
Afghanistan also sits on the proposed route for an oil pipeline which would
allow the vast oil reserves sitting under the Caspian Sea to be brought to
market, and it is no secret that a consortium of American oil companies want
to build that pipeline.
However, as John J. Maresca, vice president of international relations,
Unocal Corporation, flat out told Congress in 1998, the pipeline would not
be built until the Taliban was removed as the government in Afghanistan, even
though the United States had installed the Taliban as part of the
anti-Soviet strategy.
When one considers the size of the Caspian oil fields, estimated at about
500 years' worth at present rates of consumption, one finds ample motive to
start a war of conquest for that wealth. Compared to the trillions of dollars in
oil profits which will flow from that pipeline stretching across
Afghanistan, the cost of new World Trade Towers and a few thousand lives is a small price
to pay to those who lust for wealth beyond dreams of avarice.
Long before the attacks on the World Trade Towers, the United States was
already announcing that there would be a war. While the American people were
kept distracted by "All Condit All The Time" in the American press, the
foreign press was reporting as early as March 2001 that the United States
was planning to invade Afghanistan in October. and here it is, October. and here
the United States is invading. and just like with FDR, a provocation
occurred just when the government of the United States most needed one to anger the
people into support of a war for oil.
No sooner had the planes crashed into the World Trade Towers than the media
was reporting official statements of suspicion that Osama Bin Laden was
behind the attacks. The FBI issued names of suspected hijackers, none of
which appeared on the actual passenger lists, and all based on what the FBI
admits were forged IDs using stolen identities.
Moreover, the men used those stolen identities the night before the attacks
to visit strip bars, making so much noise that they would have to be
noticed, ensuring that the credit card slips using the stolen names would be turned
over to police.
When Flight Attendant Madeline Sweeney phoned the ground from her hijacked
plane, she gave the seat numbers of the hijackers. The passengers assigned
to those seats do not appear on the FBI's list of suspects. Then there was that
suitcase, appearing out of nowhere and assumed to have been left off of one
of the crashed planes by accident, containing a flight manual, a Koran, and
a handwritten letter which any scholar of Islam would recognize was written by
someone ignorant of the religion.
In short, the evidence that purports to link the attacks on the World Trade
Towers with Osama appears to be planted, with the scene of the crime looking
like the set of a cheap detective movie, with a vital clue always carefully
positioned within camera view.
Because of the phony IDs, we do not really know who was on those airplanes,
or who they worked for.
But it is very obvious who we are all supposed to blame; the people sitting
on that oil pipeline right of way!
So great is the rush to war in Afghanistan that Osama has himself almost
become secondary in the media campaign to sell us all on hatred of the
Afghani people.
Indeed it isn't Osama who terrorizes Americans, it is the American media,
waving fear all over the place. Yes, Anthrax is nasty, but would a real
anthrax attack harm so few people? More people have been gunned down in
Washington DC in the last 6 weeks than have died by anthrax. More people are
sick with Dengue fever on Maui than are sick with Anthrax. Yet Anthrax, and
the fear it is designed to cause, get the headlines, to keep the public
scared, so scared that they cannot think.
Because once the people stop being terrorized by the media and start to
think, they'll realize that it makes no more moral sense to bomb the Afghani
people over what crimes Osama has done than it makes to bomb people of
Chicago over the crimes the mafia does.
And once the American people realize this, they'll start to wonder what the
real reason for bombing the Afghani people might be. Then they'll start
paying attention to John J. Maresca's comments before congress about that
oil pipeline. Then the American people will notice those foreign news articles
that announced the US invasion of Afghanistan last spring. Then the American
people will realize that the timing of the attacks on the World Trade Towers
is just a little too convenient to the already scheduled invasion.
And that is when the American people will realize that, once again, they are
being lied to to swindle them out of their support for a war, a war not
fought for moral principle but for profit, profit from oil paid for in the
blood of our children. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: Conspiracies
|
|
|
| |
>> But [the media] is different [from a sitcom] in that it has the power to shape and manipulate public opinion and manufacture consent.
My point is that it is not that different; When Bush Sr's VP Dan Quale (sp?) complains about a sitcom star being a single mother, we know reality and fiction are confused. There is a little cachet to news in that we know the pictures of the car accidents are real; but reality TV shows have blurred the line between entertainment and news.
Which is GOOD from your point of view because people view start to view everything cynically, as highly edited shadows of the truth.
>> I said: "They want ratings; the public watches to see big drama like bank holdups, hostage situations, and gruesome car wrecks. That's what they get along with a sprinkling of politics and coming weather."
>> Pilgrim said: Which came first, the chicken, or the egg?
Obviously the egg, by millions of years. At some point a bird-like animal that was not quite a chicken laid an egg containing a mutation that made that egg hatch into what we today call a chicken.
To answer the question your metaphor poses, news came first because it had survival value and made a difference to people's lives. It no longer has that much impact, except in times of stress.
The car radio and traffic news are important, I still make decisions based on what the copter is seeing! But even though I live in a city of over a million, not that much happens, day to day, to warrant a half hour of coverage. So entertainment has taken over.
>> I said: "Again, that is explained because they want ratings and the public likes looking at pretty people and is NOT interested in trying to follow in-depth researched analysis."
>> Pilgrim said: Again, which came first ... ? They did at one time. Why not now?
Answered above. But to elaborate, during the world wars and cold war, news made a difference. It meant you would live or die.
During the struggle for power by baby boomers and the civil rights movement and feminism movements, news made a difference. People cared deeply about these issues.
There aren't any major struggles like that going on, except perhaps the War on Terror, and I posit people don't care about that so much as the vigor displayed during the movements of the 50's to 70's.
>> Whenever the media goes after institutions and politicians, people are rivetted, glued to their screens.
OK. If you really believe that, start a media outlet that JUST goes after institutions and politicians. If the market is there, as you believe, then people will tune in and you will sell ads. Sell ads for local business -- I have owned such a business, and I wouldn't care if a station was attacking IBM or P&G or whatever, as long as I could get cheap ads and reach people.
>> Then, as I said, perhaps news programming should not be left in the hands of a few powerful corporations.
It isn't. Go report it. Sell papers, or radio ads, or TV ads. Get a public service cable channel.
>> The people can't care if they are ignorant. Don't blame the people for the failings (or success, depending on wehich side of the fence you're on...) of a rigged and corrupted system.
Oh but I DO! You continue to ignore the fact that you have become aware of these "issues" you talk about that the rest of us are so ignorant of.
What makes YOU so special? How did YOU become one of the elite few that know this stuff?
Nothing at all makes you special, anybody can find out what you have learned, and they don't bother. Because they don't care. Even after you tell them all about it, they don't care enough to bother trying to learn any more, or bother proselytizing others.
>> Pilgrim says: The public spectrum is handed to the corporations, and the corporations, in turn, divulge (or omit) the information the men in power want. You scratch my back ...
>> I say: "Self interest, all the way. No conspiracy, just one man with power using his assets to promote his own point of view."
>> Pilgrim says: I never said it was a conspiracy!!!!!
You just did so, again. A conspiracy between big corps and government to suppress or promote information the government wants.
I don't believe it.
>> He is taking a considerable hit. his network has lost viewers, and the readership of his papers has dropped considerably, as people cancel their subscriptions.
>> Public hearings on the matter have been scheduled, due to extreme public outrage, but they keep being put off, by the Prime Minister directly, who is a close personal friend of the man in question.
Then the hit will extend to them PM, it is costing him political capital. He won't let that continue until it endangers his position. If the people keep up the pressure, the PM will cave, the hearings will be held, and the offender will be humiliated or whatever. The PM acts in his own self interest also; when his friend becomes more of a liability than an asset, the friend goes overboard.
>> It also means excluding information that is counter-productive to the corporations it counts on for advertising.
Yes, I am sure that is often true. But I restrict that to the specific corporations that advertise with them; not all corporations.
>> It's just like this illusion called Democracy we all live under; You can vote for A or B, but they are both sides of the same coin.
BS, they are not. I don't believe Clinton and Bush are the same thing; politicians don't act that well.
>> You do not understand all the years of research that went into the study of media as a tool for disseminiating propoganda.
Perhaps I do, and don't believe it. Years of research don't make the research good; two millenia have been spent "researching" the bible and it is all crap.
>> Okay, but it's like littering. Alone, not too bad, but concentrated together and openly-practiced over generations ...
My point was I don't believe they are concentrated together.
>> PR. The illusion of giving a damn, or working in the public interest. But the people who enacted these laws know damn well that it's not what you know, but what you can prove.
And that is all it SHOULD be. And it isn't PR, once again anything that doesn't agree with your hidden conspiracy theory is a sham and facade put up by the conspiracy.
>> I said: "how was Nixon forced to resign;"
>> Pilgrim said: The media was handed information from inside the White House. Incidentally, that happened after he stopped the Vietnam war.
I've seen this before, you are as bad as a Christian; everything that happens, good or bad, is part of the grand plan of the secret controllers. Just like a Christian where everything that happens, good or bad, is all part of God's grand plan.
I won't discuss it because it cannot be discussed. Just like a Christian, nothing can convince you because the hidden forces are all powerful and can do anything they want. This is just religion in another disguise.
>> So let's do something about it!
OK. Let's vote against the Republicans in the coming Congressional elections; and vote him out of office in two years.
>> I said: "I am a strong believer in forcing the right thing on bad people."
>> Pilgrim said: Funny. I have been chastised on this very forum because people perceived this to be what I was saying. What you are forcing on the world is not good for it.
American Law is flawed terribly; but I would still choose it over dictatorship and outright rule by religious men.
>> But we're not really doing anything, are we?
We do what we want.
>> Oh, right. I forgot that Bu$h was democratically elected, and not appointed by a bunch of his Daddy's friends.
Oh he is the "duly selected" president, I agree with that, but that is because the vote clearly fell within the margin of error. I believe Gore won the vote in Florida, but by a very thin margin. If Gore had gotten even a few thousand more votes, he would be president.
>> I said: "Why is Gary Condit getting out of office?
>> Pilgrim said: He's getting off easy.
You don't answer the question. Why? He doesn't want to, he is being forced out. So Why?
>> I do not dispute this. Bu$h was under fire when her body [Chandra Levy] mysteriously appeared in an area that had already been searched,
Crap. It was half a mile off the path and into the woods; and the standard search method is to search the paths and about a hundred yards either side of the paths. That is where most rape victims are found. Not 900 yards off the path. You try dragging a struggling victim half a mile. Or try carrying an unconscious victim half a mile.
The search pattern is this way because it lets them search five times as far with the same manpower, which is always limited.
If no body is found the victim is presumed abducted and removed from the scene. The distance from the path indicates Levy probably made her way there under her own power, which indicates she was probably with somebody she knew and trusted.
>> It's hard to 'give a rat's ass" about things of which you are kept comletely ignorant.
Oh, but thank you great god of information, who can access news the rest of us are prevented from seeing. Thank you oh great oracle, you are so full of BS! Nobody is "kept" ignorant, they choose to be ignorant.
>> With every jump in GDP, the environment takes a bigger hit. We're approaching our saturation point, at which the environment will begin to violently reject us and what we're doing.
You anthropomorphize the environment! As if it will say "enough is enough, I'm killing them!"
What a load of crap. The environment is passive, not active. If it gets to a point where it cannot sustain us, there will be a die off of humans. It might. But it isn't going to "react" in any way.
>> You mean the people whose land Israel is situated upon failed to take it back ... right?
No, I mean they lost.
>> Do you think I am retarded in some way?
Yes.
>> See? Propoganda DOES work, pretty damn well.
It isn't propaganda. (And you could start spelling it correctly). I researched the history of this conflict independently on the net, and I believe the plain historical sources.
The Palestinians lost; they chose to wage war and they lost. Read a history book. Oh wait, those will all be propaganda too! We can't trust anything anybody ever published! All we can trust is Pilgrim, he has the direct channel to the truth! Only he can know!
I admit I may be biased because I despise the culture of Palestine and Islamists. It is horribly degrading to women, it is a slave culture. So even if I were uncertain about which side is in the right (and I am not uncertain) then I would choose to back Israel. I know women from Israel, and they are not slaves in their culture.
>> I said: "The PA is not killing in self defense."
>> Pilgrim said: Yes, they are, employing what all tacticians know as Third Generation Warfare.
Ha! How typical of you to claim that purposely blowing up a daycare center is "self defense". That killing a bus full of teenagers is "self defense". Ha!
I don't care what label you want to slap on it, you will not convince me that is self defense.
>> The Americanism that I hate is beginning to show in you. It's a bit frightening.
Good.
>> That is not what socialism is all about. You misunderstand the philosophy.
No I don't. I understand it perfectly, and it is completely flawed and will not work.
>> I said: "Do you think Nixon WANTED to resign?"
>> Pilgrim said: I don't know. I wasn't there.
>> (He was pardoned, however ...)
A pardon is not continuing in power. He did not want to resign, he was humiliated and did it to avoid impeachment, because there was public outrage and he was going to jail. If there really was government control of the media, Watergate would have been a non-issue.
>> For now, I'd be happy if all the people in the world could eat.
With better information they could.
>> That is like the Christians waiting around for the second Coming, while the forces they claim to oppose ru(i)n the world.
No it isn't; they hope for a miracle, I hope for the normal progression of engineering science.
>> Agreed. But information has to be kept out of the hands of those who would manipulate it.
Information cannot be kept out of the hands of those that would manipulate it. The whole point of information is for it to be manipulated.
Suppression is not the answer, wider dissemination is the answer.
>> I only agree if we truly work to improve on these, and that is NOT what is happening right now. The Free Market needs balancing, so that want does not supercede needs, or stretch our finite resources too thin.
No it doesn't.
>> If we're going to continue to live under and spread this system of plutocracy and hypocrisy, and subjugation to capital, then let's teach that, and be honest about it, and save future generations from slowly and painfully learning that truth over time.
That isn't really your point; you would not be happy to find that everybody knew about it and agreed with it. You are lying, you don't just want your view known, you want people to act on it and change it.
>> If we're going to teach freedom and democracy, then let's pursue freedom and democracy, and peace, and one-ness, instead of using them soley as rhetoric to justify war, and conquest, and brutality, and hatred.
War and conquest are valid, working means to pursue freedom and democracy. Shrink this problem down to the neighborhood: Sometimes deadly force is required in suppressing criminal behavior. When a police sharpshooter puts a bullet in the brain of a criminal holding a hostage; that is "war", that is "conquest".
I regard the culture of Aghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, China and others as criminal behavior. But we cannot wage war on everyone simultaneously, so we choose the battles we can win.
>> We're in trouble here, and I think, despite your arguments to the contrary, that deep down you know it.
I don't think the system is perfect, but I don't think we are in trouble. But then, I am relatively sanguine about the prospects of mass starvations, environmental collapse, and other such major disasters.
__________________________________________
US Taxpayers Give At Least $10 Billion A Year To Israel
Uh huh. Even if all true; and I don't doubt the sources in the article; then so what?
And even according to this article $5B is in interest payments on past grants! That isn't money given to Israel at all, it is part of the national debt, it is interest paid to bond holders, mostly US citizens. So it is $5B.
Also the article claims we lose "double" because we lose the revenue from the discounted military hardware, then have to pay for new hardware. BS. That's Arthur Anderson accounting; we lose only once by the amount of the discount from market value. And how is that market value determined? To whom can we sell this hardware for more money? I think the market is extremely limited; so we may have lost nothing at all. Fifteen cents on the dollar isn't that bad for old equipment; and the military wants the latest and greatest stuff anyway so selling it to Israel is better than scrapping it.
So all in all our stated $3B is really closer to $4.5B, an increase of 50% or so.
The majority of US citizens would probably say yeah, so what, we have to support them. And not just out of Judeo Christianity; I am an Atheist but I prefer the way Israel treats its citizens to the sixth century alternative the PA would implement, so I'm on Israel's side.
And as for spending it on something else: It's our friggin' money, we will spend it on whatever the hell we want. I don't want to ride your damn train even if it is on time. I like my car just fine, thank you, and it's always on time: My time, when I am ready to roll. And it travels from my door to the door of my destination, something your train will never do.
TC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: Conspiracies
|
|
|
| |
I use Palestinian as a shorthand for the people represented by the Palestinian Authority; which as far as I can tell uniformly HATE Americans, Jews, Israelites, and non-Muslims.
So yes, I am talking about anybody near Israel that rejoices and applauds when a suicide bomber kills Israeli civilians.
I know Israel also kills Palestinians, but I think that happens very predictably in retaliation, they are not the instigators. At least I do not believe they are; they kill when they are killed; they target Hamas and other terrorist members and leaders.
The sad fact is that Palestine waged war on Israel from its inception, and repeatedly. Everybody knows they waged this war out of religious hatred. And they have lost, lost, and lost again, and they are waging this war again.
They want to undo the losses suffered by them since World War I, and they cannot.
As far as OIL is concerned: I don't think Israel is a source of our oil, is it? I don't hear much about them exporting it or being oil rich.
But if it weren't for oil, we wouldn't have a problem! The Arab countries would not be RICH enough to cause a problem; there would be no funding for Hamas or other terrorists. The Middle East is a region with a sixth century mindset, thrust into the lime light of world affairs by a lucky break -- They have oil. Without it, they would be like most African nations or Eastern Europe or something; places that cause little trouble and that we seldom hear from.
I don't think we would abandon Israel without oil in the region. Israel grew out of the atrocities of WW II. And as long as there IS oil in that region, we need Israel as our ace in the hole to combat the completely idiotic Islamist mindset.
TC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Not Just A River In Egypt
|
|
|
| |
"My point is that it is not that different; (...) but reality TV shows have blurred the line between entertainment and news."
Great. You and I understand this, but millions of Americans do not, and their opinions and support for war are based upon deception and disinformation.
"To answer the question your metaphor poses, news came first because it had survival value and made a difference to people's lives. It no longer has that much impact, except in times of stress."
I think it could be said that this is a "time of stress".
And the question I was asking was, were people misinformed first, or did they get that way because of a media that is owned by private interests (all laws of balance being eliminated under Reagan in the 80's), that constantly lies to them, either blatantly, or through omission?
"But even though I live in a city of over a million, not that much happens, day to day, to warrant a half hour of coverage. So entertainment has taken over."
There is a lot going on right now that warrants more than a half-hour of coverage, but entertainment doesn't get people in trouble, empower populations, or scare off advertisers.
"(...) , during the world wars and cold war, news made a difference. It meant you would live or die."
Supporting unending war upon the world, based upon bad information, has the potential to get people killed. Knowing the truth could prevent this from happening.
"There aren't any major struggles like that going on, except perhaps the War on Terror, and I posit people don't care about that so much as the vigor displayed during the movements of the 50's to 70's."
There is a very vigorous struggle taking place right now - commonly (and mistakenly) called the Antiglobalization Movement. However, this struggle represents interests counter to the corporate ones in posession of "our" airwaves.
The "War on Terror" without a war on the causes of "terror", is a scam, just like a "War on Drugs" without a war on organized crime.
Don't you think, with the heightened security of the "Homeland", the drug world would be suffering? Should we not be hearing stories about massive drug seizures at borders and off the coasts? Should the drug world not be suffering massively as a result of this war?
"OK. If you really believe that, start a media outlet that JUST goes after institutions and politicians."
You speak as if it is just that easy. There is a rapidly-growing network of websites such as Independent Media Centres (www.indymedia.org) which attracts a growing audience. (As well as its share of "spooks")
"If the market is there, as you believe, then people will tune in and you will sell ads. Sell ads for local business -- I have owned such a business, and I wouldn't care if a station was attacking IBM or P&G or whatever, as long as I could get cheap ads and reach people."
And that's where the whole "fearing a loss of revenue" argument falls flat with me as well. Advertisers will buy time regardless of content, because if they are buying, their competitors are.
>> Then, as I said, perhaps news programming should not be left in the hands of a few powerful corporations.
"It isn't."
Yes, it is. The evidence of corporate media ownership and concentration supports my statement.
"Go report it. Sell papers, or radio ads, or TV ads. Get a public service cable channel."
I do not have the means or resources by which to do this. I'm talking about mainstream news, on widely-viewed airwaves, that until the 80's, were recognized to be public airwaves, merely "rented" by the networks.
"You continue to ignore the fact that you have become aware of these "issues" you talk about that the rest of us are so ignorant of."
But I am also aware that the media lies, and the history books leave out volumes of information. The general public is not aware of these facts. I don't blame them, however, I blame the educational institutions which paint us as "angelic", when we are nothing of the sort.
"What makes YOU so special? How did YOU become one of the elite few that know this stuff?"
First of all, I am (thankfully) not a product of the American educational system. (The people you see on "Cops" are ;) ...) Years of research and independent study, as well as my work and study in the media, coupled with education in Speech/Language Pathology. Also, my extensive tours of US military facilities as a cadet, and the training and rejected conditioning of that period in my life.
"Nothing at all makes you special, anybody can find out what you have learned, and they don't bother."
I never claimed to be special. Most of them have never had any reason to question what they have been taught, or to seriously consider the fact that their "leaders" do not view them as equals, and lie to them on a daily basis.
"Because they don't care. Even after you tell them all about it, they don't care enough to bother trying to learn any more, or bother proselytizing others."
I love how you keep claiming this. Methinks you protest too much.
The people that I have sat down and talked to, or corresponded with, and shared information and literature with do begin to care, when the information becomes known to them. You would be suprised how many people I hear from, based solely on my writing, who ask very good questions, and are serious about understanding what is happening around them.
You'd probably be shocked at the number of them that have since become active in this work.
I take this work very seriously, because I realize the failings of the "anti-globalization" Movement to make its views clear at public events.
And our opponents care a great deal too. We have put a scare into them.
"Your failure to be informed does not make me a whacko." -Some famous guy whose name I can't remember off-hand.
"You just did so, again. A conspiracy between big corps and government to suppress or promote information the government wants."
Oh, well viwed that way, then I guess it would be a conspiracy. It's just that I don't see it as black and white as all that (and I'm not trying to scare people off by tossing around the word "conspiracy"...). I see the motivations and "you scratch my back" relationship you obvioulsy don't, because I work in the media, and you don't.
"I don't believe it."
That doesn't mean that I am wrong. When it comes right down to it, I think you do believe it, and you're purposefully being obtuse.
"If the people keep up the pressure, the PM will cave, the hearings will be held, and the offender will be humiliated or whatever."
The hearings will be overseen by the CRTC, a government agency, and will hand the culprit a slap on the wrist, but nothing in the way media is concentrated will be changed.
That's just a prediction. I hope to be proven wrong. I have asked to be a part of these hearings, but no word yet. The process is progressing very slooooowly.
"Yes, I am sure that is often true. But I restrict that to the specific corporations that advertise with them; not all corporations."
It extends to all corporate interests, because the views of this Movement, which also includes peace and environmental concerns, are calling into question this whole system of corporate rule and unfettered capitalism, as the culprits of same.
"BS, they are not. I don't believe Clinton and Bush are the same thing; politicians don't act that well."
The two parties combined are called the RepubliCrats, and despite petty surface differences, they pursue the exact same basic goals. Right-wing agenda all the way. One just speaks more softly, while the other carries a big stick.
Check out Michael Moore's book, "Stupid White Men".
"Perhaps I do, and don't believe it."
If you do not believe in the media as a tool for the dissemination of propAganda, then you ignore history, psychology, and I'm not suprised you carry some of the views you do.
"Years of research don't make the research good; two millenia have been spent "researching" the bible and it is all crap."
I would suggest that two millenia have been spent manipulating the bible. And that's apples and oranges, please stay on topic.
>> Okay, but it's like littering. Alone, not too bad, but concentrated together and openly-practiced over generations ...
"My point was I don't believe they are concentrated together."
By "concentrated" I did not mean that they are all in on it together. When numerous politicians and business interests engage in corrupt or illegal activity, it concentrates into one big mess overall.
"And that is all it SHOULD be."
And the information should be openly available, not hidden behind the vague disguise of "national security".
"And it isn't PR, once again anything that doesn't agree with your hidden conspiracy theory is a sham and facade put up by the conspiracy."
Again, stop trying to frighten people away with the use of that term! It IS PR. Fixes like that are riddled with clever wording and loopholes. It doesn;t carry the weight that they claim it does. Portions of nearly all major bills contain sections like that, that have little or nothing to do with the proposed bill.
"I've seen this before, you are as bad as a Christian;"
You have said this before. And I don't consider being likened to christians all that bad. Unless you mean the corrupted individuals who make up the organization of the church. Real, true christians aren't that bad.
"everything that happens, good or bad, is part of the grand plan of the secret controllers."
And you seem to believe that everything that happens, no matter how suspicious or contrary to lagic, or that mimcs well-defined past patterns, are mere coincidences, to be brushed aside and forgotten.
"Just like a Christian where everything that happens, good or bad, is all part of God's grand plan."
Not to defend them, but do you have any definitive proof that it doesn't? Science has NEVER disproven the existence of a higher power.
"I won't discuss it because it cannot be discussed."
I've heard this one before. It's a tactic of disinformation. You should look them up. There are 25 of these.
"Just like a Christian, nothing can convince you because the hidden forces are all powerful and can do anything they want. This is just religion in another disguise."
Unlike a christian, who relies upon faith alone, my views are supported by FACTUAL, DOCUMENTED INFORMATION.
"OK. Let's vote against the Republicans in the coming Congressional elections; and vote him out of office in two years."
I was talking more along the lines of impeachment.
"American Law is flawed terribly; but I would still choose it over dictatorship and outright rule by religious men."
You mean Bu$h? Take a look in the mirror.
"We do what we want."
I mean, we're not really influencing anyone here. We are relatively isolated, and you and I are talking. A few others read and respond, but we are hardly competing with CNN.
"Oh he is the "duly selected" president, I agree with that, but that is because the vote clearly fell within the margin of error. I believe Gore won the vote in Florida, but by a very thin margin. If Gore had gotten even a few thousand more votes, he would be president."
Justify it any way you want. Bu$h was not democratically elected. The people who assured his ascent into power are intimately connected to his family and friends.
"You don't answer the question. Why? He doesn't want to, he is being forced out. So Why?"
Outrage. The media has spent considerable time on this. Again, what else was happening when this was all transpiring? Oh yeah, the US was amassing an invasion force around Afghanistan ...
"Crap. It was half a mile off the path and into the woods; (...)"
Yeah. I heard this very detailed justification on CNN too.
"Oh, but thank you great god of information, who can access news the rest of us are prevented from seeing. Thank you oh great oracle, you are so full of BS! Nobody is "kept" ignorant, they choose to be ignorant."
Personal ridicule is also one of those 25 tactics ...
In fact, I DO see a lot that you do not. I see the feeds come in, including all of the uneditted footage and all the stuff that does not make it to air. I see it all without a "guide' to tell me how to interpret it.
The people want to be ignorant? Is that akin to terrorists "hating freedom and democracy"? Please ...
"You anthropomorphize the environment! As if it will say "enough is enough, I'm killing them!"
You do the same thing with the markets! And I didn't quite do that. You came up with that one.
"What a load of crap. The environment is passive, not active. If it gets to a point where it cannot sustain us, there will be a die off of humans. It might. But it isn't going to "react" in any way."
It is reacting, whether passive or active is irrelevant. Weather patterns are changing, due to the changes in temperature that WE caused.
"No, I mean they lost."
Lost what? The attempts at regaining the land that was seized from them?
>> Do you think I am retarded in some way?
Yes."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
"It isn't propaganda."
It is just that. "Organized dissemination of information to assist or destroy a political cause."
"I researched the history of this conflict independently on the net, and I believe the plain historical sources."
Which sources? CFR.org doesn't count.
"The Palestinians lost; they chose to wage war and they lost. Read a history book. Oh wait, those will all be propaganda too! We can't trust anything anybody ever published! All we can trust is Pilgrim, he has the direct channel to the truth! Only he can know!"
Oh, blah, blah, blah. So, because the Palestinians lost, the Israelis are justified in taking their land, and in expanding their territory ad nauseum, and brutalizing a people they feel are racially-inferior? Sure glad the Nazis didn't win. We'd all have to support them!
"I admit I may be biased because I despise the culture of Palestine and Islamists."
Another word for "Islamists" is MUSLIM. Do you despise the culture, or are you completely ignorant of it?
"It is horribly degrading to women, it is a slave culture."
Women under western capitalism earn less than men in identical jobs. They also have to wear high heals ...
If you don't see the slavery inherent in OUR culture, then you're not real quick.
Individuals and regimes are degrading to women, and enslave others. Islam does none of this. In the Koran, Mohammed was given his vision by a woman.
"So even if I were uncertain about which side is in the right (and I am not uncertain) then I would choose to back Israel. I know women from Israel, and they are not slaves in their culture."
Racism is not an indicator of high intelligence.
"Ha! How typical of you to claim that purposely blowing up a daycare center is "self defense". That killing a bus full of teenagers is "self defense". Ha!"
I saw a video tape of Israeli tank shells landing in the midst of women and children in a shopping district. The IDF said that these people were breaking curfew, but the IDF announced the lifting of the curfew!
There was no warning shot. No-one reacted until the sound of the first tank round, and by then, it was too late.
Even though no Palestinian response came, the crew of another tank opened up on the square opened up with a 50 calibre machine gun.
Do NOT call me a liar. I watched it with my own eyes.
"I don't care what label you want to slap on it, you will not convince me that is self defense."
Let's say you didn't have the strong military you have, and a group of Canadians, who believed themselves to be superior to you, racially, because it says so in a book written by Canadians, decided they had a right to your the neighbourhood next to yours.
Say that after occupying this neighbourhood, they decided they wanted more land, so they bulldozed you house, and in the process, killed your family. Would you 1) Go have a coffee and forget about it. 2) In the absence of a military, and any international support, resort to guerrilla tactics, for the reclamation of your land, and one part revenge?
>> The Americanism that I hate is beginning to show in you. It's a bit frightening.
Good."
I don't mean "frightening" in that I'm scared of you. Frightening from the standpoint that someone could be so intelligent and yet so gullible.
All the terms you use "attack", "retaliation" is simply regurgitation of the biased language interwoven into the mainstream media's coverage of these events.
"No I don't. I understand it perfectly, and it is completely flawed and will not work."
Yes, you misunderstand socialism. I'm not talking about the non-socialism that we have seen. I'm talking about the true philosophy.
"A pardon is not continuing in power."
A pardon is not time in prison, either. These men do not go to prison, no matter how heinous the crime. That is the hypocrisy of our plutocratic system.
Placing a class of men above the law gives them license to act in whatever manner they please, regardless of the consequences for the earth.
Kinda like Ariel Sharon ...
>> For now, I'd be happy if all the people in the world could eat.
With better information they could."
What sort of information? We have the means, the manpower, and the resources to accomplish this, but there are weapons to build, wars to fight, and money to make.
>> That is like the Christians waiting around for the second Coming, while the forces they claim to oppose ru(i)n the world.
No it isn't; they hope for a miracle, I hope for the normal progression of engineering science."
But it hasn't happened yet, and it may not. It is, for now, science fiction. Why not concern yourself with what is possible, instead of awaiting the arrival of a solution that may not come? You talk about "doing what you can accomplish" ...
"Information cannot be kept out of the hands of those that would manipulate it. The whole point of information is for it to be manipulated."
That's not what I mean, and you know it.
"Suppression is not the answer, wider dissemination is the answer."
Also, wresting it from corporate control, so that it can be disseminated freely.
"The Free Market needs balancing, so that want does not supercede needs, or stretch our finite resources too thin.
No it doesn't."
Why not?
>> If we're going to continue to live under and spread this system of plutocracy and hypocrisy, and subjugation to capital, then let's teach that, and be honest about it, and save future generations from slowly and painfully learning that truth over time.
That isn't really your point;"
Yes, it is. I'm saying, let's be honest, instead of teaching what we know is not the truth in the real world.
"you would not be happy to find that everybody knew about it and agreed with it."
I am calling your bluff. I am saying, let people know the truth. Let's talk about American foreign policy, and that the rule of law now is, every man for himself, and let's see what reaction that gets.
"You are lying, you don't just want your view known, you want people to act on it and change it."
That's not what I meant by that staement, but yes, I do want this world to change, before we kill ourselves needlessly, in the name of greed.
If you feel threatened by that, then I call into question your priorities and motivations.
"War and conquest are valid, working means to pursue freedom and democracy."
No, they are not. They are as counter to those interests as you can get. Unfortunately, they are all we know, because we cannot escape the past.
"Shrink this problem down to the neighborhood: Sometimes deadly force is required in suppressing criminal behavior. When a police sharpshooter puts a bullet in the brain of a criminal holding a hostage; that is "war", that is "conquest"."
But that is not what we're talking about.
Let's shrink American interventionism into a neightbourhood setting. A shop owner will not let you steal from his store. This angers you, because you're a greedy. spoiled fu*k who doesn't play well with others, and is used to getting your own way.
You firebomb the shop and kill it's owner, then repair the shop, and give it to another thief who will let you steal if you cut him in.
That's closer to the truth. You speak in romanticisms.
"I regard the culture of Aghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, China and others as criminal behavior."
And they (as do I) regard the United States' behaviour on the world stage as criminal, and for the most part, they are right. I view the culture of America as a subservient slave nation, built upon ignorant enthusiasm.
"But we cannot wage war on everyone simultaneously, so we choose the battles we can win."
It's called "being chicken". Other people regard this behaviour as "Bullying".
Have you enlisted yet, in this "most noble of causes", to "defeat the enemies of freedom"? I say again, propaganda works!
See, it's not you waging war. It is the poor of your nation, at the behest of the rich.
"I don't think the system is perfect, but I don't think we are in trouble. But then, I am relatively sanguine about the prospects of mass starvations, environmental collapse, and other such major disasters."
How about unending world war, brought about by an act that may or may not have been caused by doemstic forces, and championed by a madmen who was placed into power by those same forces?
Are you blind?
"The majority of US citizens would probably say yeah, so what, we have to support them."
Why?
"I am an Atheist but I prefer the way Israel treats its citizens to the sixth century alternative the PA would implement, so I'm on Israel's side."
Muslims have not engaged in the kind of death and destruction that non-Muslim powers have over history. Your view is based upon propaganda, and racism. While this racism may be accepted within your country at present (as it was in Germany ...) it does not fly outside your borders.
"And as for spending it on something else: It's our friggin' money, we will spend it on whatever the hell we want."
Were you asked? You are not given a choice, now, are you?
"I don't want to ride your damn train even if it is on time. I like my car just fine, thank you, and it's always on time: My time, when I am ready to roll. And it travels from my door to the door of my destination, something your train will never do."
If you don't stop stomping your feet, you're gonna get a spanking ...
Look. I'm not trying to threaten anybody, or hurt anybody.
I'm just trying to restore a little order here, a little reason. We are gripped by madness, and if we do not recognize that and free ourselves from it, then we are all in very serious jeopardy.
Don't believe me. I really don't care. You're one person. Just remember what I've said in the days ahead.
P E A C E to you ...
May I be proven wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Re: Your Paranoid Delusions
|
|
|
| |
>> I said: "My point is that it is not that different; (...) but reality TV shows have blurred the line between entertainment and news."
>> Pilgrim said: Great. You and I understand this, but millions of Americans do not, and their opinions and support for war are based upon deception and disinformation.
I disagree. I think most Americans understand this; certainly everybody I talk to does. They just don't care. I know that concept is intolerable to you, so you have to reject it and believe they are stupid and ignorant instead. But they aren't. They just don't care.
>> And the question I was asking was, were people misinformed first, or did they get that way because of a media that is owned by private interests that constantly lies to them, either blatantly, or through omission?
People are not the idiots you paint them as being. 80% will always be misinformed no matter how unbiased the media is; and the other 20% can think well enough to filter through bias and see something resembling the true story.
>> There is a lot going on right now that warrants more than a half-hour of coverage, but entertainment doesn't get people in trouble, empower populations, or scare off advertisers.
EXACTLY. Plus, entertainment is (by definition) more fun to watch. So if the stuff you find "important" isnt important to ME, Id rather they aired Frasier, thank you. You keep saying I am lying when I say I DONT CARE, but I am not. I have thought about mass extinctions; global warming; environmental collapse, the loss of the ozone layer, corrupt politics, corporate scandal, and a lot of other stuff. I read at least 10 hours a week on this crap. I find my own sources, on the net and through foreign publications to which I subscribe.
When I sit down to watch TV I dont need some puerile two hour lesson on the loss of Andean frogs, I could WRITE that crap. I want Farscape, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel and Boston Public.
TV and radio (spoken media) are not the right media for education. You cant skim easily; you cant break into greater depth, you cant do it on your own time. The newspaper is slightly better, but the Internet is the best.
TV and radio are great for notification. I cant imagine better coverage than watching the WTC collapse for myself. They are great for immediacy; seeing the firemen and injured and chaos; seeing the clouds of debris. But that ISNT LEARNING. If you want to learn something, get on the net and learn to use google and dogpile.
>> There is a very vigorous struggle taking place right now - commonly (and mistakenly) called the Antiglobalization Movement. However, this struggle represents interests counter to the corporate ones in posession of "our" airwaves.
As I said, airwaves are poor media anyway.
>> I said: "OK. If you really believe that, start a media outlet that JUST goes after institutions and politicians."
>> Pilgrim said: You speak as if it is just that easy. There is a rapidly-growing network of websites such as Independent Media Centres (www.indymedia.org) which attracts a growing audience. (As well as its share of "spooks")
>> So I repeat what I said: "If the market is there, as you believe, then people will tune in and you will sell ads.
By this I mean a newsletter or paper, which can be started with a few hundred dollars. To which Pilgrim does not respond, instead he changes the subject because it is actually a solution and he isnt interested in solutions.
>> I said: "Go report it. Sell papers, or radio ads, or TV ads. Get a public service cable channel."
>> Pilgrim said: I do not have the means or resources by which to do this. I'm talking about mainstream news, on widely-viewed airwaves, that until the 80's, were recognized to be public airwaves, merely "rented" by the networks.
Oh, I get it. You have to start BIG! I dont think so. I have started successful businesses with as little as $300. I havent started a newsletter, but if you have something interesting to sell then you can grow the business by its revenues. Spend $300 to print about 6000 letters; come up with the text and use that as a sample to sell $400 worth of ads using your home phone. Give them away for free door to door. It can be done. Of course I am presuming the text will be interesting, as you insist people are interested in this.
>> But I am also aware that the media lies, and the history books leave out volumes of information. The general public is not aware of these facts.
Of course they are. You think we are idiots.
>> I said: "What makes YOU so special? How did YOU become one of the elite few that know this stuff?"
>> Pilgrim said: First of all, I am (thankfully) not a product of the American educational system. (The people you see on "Cops" are ;)
I *AM* a product of the American educational system, public schools all the way, including state college. I made the Deans List (4.0 average) my first two semesters, taking 27 hours in each, more than double the normal load. I'm proud of it. I have never been on "Cops". You seem like a good candidate, though.
>> I said: "Even after you tell them all about it, they don't care enough to bother trying to learn any more, or bother proselytizing others."
>> Pilgrim said: I love how you keep claiming this. Methinks you protest too much.
Methinks thou dost sport a skull of ironwood; for verily, nothing doth penetrate it.
>> Pilgrim said: "Your failure to be informed does not make me a whacko."
And your failure to accept the simplest logical premise does not make me uninformed.
>> When it comes right down to it, I think you do believe it, and you're purposefully being obtuse.
You are purposely being obtuse; not me. I REALLY DONT BELIEVE IT.
>> I said: "If the people keep up the pressure, the PM will cave, the hearings will be held, and the offender will be humiliated or whatever."
>> Pilgrim said: The hearings will be overseen by the CRTC, a government agency, and will hand the culprit a slap on the wrist, but nothing in the way media is concentrated will be changed.
So whats the point of trying to get them, again? Nothing can come of it! The big conspiracy will make sure of that! So why waste the publics time? Your scenarios hold no water; they dont hold together. Either hearings can do some good or they cannot.
>> The views of this Movement, which also includes peace and environmental concerns, are calling into question this whole system of corporate rule and unfettered capitalism, as the culprits of same.
Well excellent, they are doomed to failure then!
>> Science has NEVER disproven the existence of a higher power.
Then you dont understand science. For a scientist the existence of a higher power does not have to be disproved; just like the existence of elves, Santa, and ghosts do not have to be disproved. On the contrary, scientists are often willing to postulate the existence of unproven entities, such as the top quark or gravitons, but will not believe in them completely until they are proven to exist by experiment.
Science doesnt HAVE to disprove the existence of a higher power, and those that postulate the existence are careful to make that existence completely untestable, so such disproof is always impossible. On the contrary, true science doesnt believe in anything that is not tangible or testable in some way. Science concerns itself with the natural, not the supernatural.
So YOU prove a higher power exists. You can't, and in fact all the "evidence" touted for one is better explained by other means; therefore there is no reason to believe in one.
>> I said: "I won't discuss it because it cannot be discussed."
>> Pilgrim said: I've heard this one before. It's a tactic of disinformation.
Oh, of course. No, I wont, and no, it is not disinformation. It is simple fact, you ignore everything that doesnt fit your hypothesis; you pick and choose your facts, and it is impossible to hold a discussion with somebody if they cannot be objective about the evidence. You suffer from paranoia; I might as well be arguing with a guy on the street corner wearing an aluminum foil hat and shouting at cars.
>> I said: "Just like a Christian, nothing can convince you because the hidden forces are all powerful and can do anything they want. This is just religion in another disguise."
>> Pilgrim said: Unlike a Christian, who relies upon faith alone, my views are supported by FACTUAL, DOCUMENTED INFORMATION.
How do you know it is factual? How do you know it isnt more propaganda put out by some other side that wants you to believe it?
Even if it were factual, that makes no difference: You select the facts you want that do support your view, and reject the facts that dont support your view as "PR" or "Disinformation" or "propaganda" or "distraction" or "media controlled pap for the masses" or whatever.
You are so emotionally involved in the problem you cannot see the problem objectively. You cannot see it scientifically. You cannot be trusted.
>> I said: "OK. Let's vote against the Republicans in the coming Congressional elections; and vote him out of office in two years."
>> Pilgrim said: I was talking more along the lines of impeachment.
OK. Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he has committed a high crime. You cannot, of course, all you can point at is suggestive crap that is only suggestive because it doesnt take all the facts into account, only those that support your thesis.
>> I said: "American Law is flawed terribly; but I would still choose it over dictatorship and outright rule by religious men."
>> Pilgrim said: You mean Bu$h? Take a look in the mirror.
By religious men, I mean rule by a church. Bush is religious, but he is not ruling as the leader of a church. Not to mention he does not rule at all; he is only one of three seats of government and one of them does not agree with him.
>> I said: [Chandra Levys body "Crap. It was half a mile off the path and into the woods; (...)"
>> Pilgrim said: Yeah. I heard this very detailed justification on CNN too.
I didnt hear it on CNN, but I am glad other people in the world are able to follow plain logic.
>> In fact, I DO see a lot that you do not. I see the feeds come in, including all of the uneditted footage and all the stuff that does not make it to air.
Great! Sounds like you got the start of that newsletter right there!
>> The people want to be ignorant? Is that akin to terrorists "hating freedom and democracy"? Please ...
Yes, they do. More specifically they do not want to take the time to learn every friggin detail of every friggin issue. It is too much work. They dont want to listen to a barrage all day every day telling them news, background, information. They want to listen to music and songs and humor and light commentary. Look at the top ranking radio stations.
So yes, they choose ignorance because being well informed and educated is just too much like the forced march of high school and college.
>> [The environment] is reacting, whether passive or active is irrelevant. Weather patterns are changing, due to the changes in temperature that WE caused.
So what? That doesnt mean it is killing us; nor do stronger hurricanes, a chaotic El Nino / La Nina cycle, or any of that. It is just a different environment that requires some adaptation. It might wipe out a few species, but no big loss. A change is not necessarily a change for the worse.
>> [Palestinians] Lost what? The attempts at regaining the land that was seized from them?
Wrong; it was not. They lost wars. They instigated the wars they lost. By instigating the war they put their assets at risk, just like a burglar puts his ass (and his life) on the line when he crawls through my window. My response will probably kill him. In some sense I have the responsibility to society to ensure his punishment. He, on the other hand, does not have the right to kill me, or sue me if he lost a hand due to my resistance to his crime. And if he gets away with the burglary and is later caught, then restoration of my property is in order.
When Iraq invades Kuwait, Iraq was the aggressor and criminal and deserved to lose their entire country. We, as the police, were right to repel them and restore Kuwait to its rightful owners.
The Palestinians started the wars or joined losing aggressors, they lost the wars, they deserve to lose, they do not deserve the land they lost. They put it at risk the day they decided to attack Israel.
>> I said: "I researched the history of this conflict independently on the net, and I believe the plain historical sources."
>> Pilgrim said: Which sources? CFR.org doesn't count.
I couldnt recall. I spent about a day on the net looking for sites and read a days worth of stuff; including several sites with independently compiled timelines of events in the area. The Palestinians are the aggressors, not the Israelis.
>> I said: "The Palestinians lost; they chose to wage war and they lost. Read a history book. Oh wait, those will all be propaganda too! We can't trust anything anybody ever published! All we can trust is Pilgrim, he has the direct channel to the truth! Only he can know!"
>> Pilgrim said: Oh, blah, blah, blah. So, because the Palestinians lost, the Israelis are justified in taking their land, and in expanding their territory ad nauseum, and brutalizing a people they feel are racially-inferior? Sure glad the Nazis didn't win. We'd all have to support them!
Yes, the Israelis are justified. Because they were the attacked, not the attackers. The Nazis were the criminals in WW II, they were the invaders and attackers. I am glad they did not win, too. But no, we would not have to support them.
>> I said: "I admit I may be biased because I despise the culture of Palestine and Islamists."
>> Pilgrim said: Another word for "Islamists" is MUSLIM. Do you despise the culture, or are you completely ignorant of it?
I despise it. I have read extensively on this too, including much commentary on the Koran from atheist scholars that I trust. I despise it.
>> I said: "It is horribly degrading to women, it is a slave culture."
>> Pilgrim said: Women under western capitalism earn less than men in identical jobs. They also have to wear high heals ...
WHAT? I have a mother, four sisters, a wife and a grown daughter over 30. Of those seven all have jobs, four of them high paying jobs, and not one of them wears high heels to work. And I know for a fact that at least three make exactly the same as men in the same position, and I suspect the others do too. You dont know what you are talking about.
>> Individuals and regimes are degrading to women, and enslave others. Islam does none of this. In the Koran, Mohammed was given his vision by a woman.
Whom he then enslaved, apparently. Islamists treat women like cattle, right down to the beatings and murders and forced gang rapes of an eighteen year old virgin that are all perfectly legal. Putting it on individuals means nothing; the religion advocates it and controls the laws in these countries. Trying to equate the plight of women in Islam to the plight of women in the USA because they both have "inequality issues" is so stupid it is laughable.
>> Racism is not an indicator of high intelligence.
Neither is bigotry; which you have in abundance.
>> I saw a video tape of Israeli tank shells landing in the midst of women and children in a shopping district. The IDF said that these people were breaking curfew, but the IDF announced the lifting of the curfew!
I didnt see it, and I think you are making it up.
>> I don't mean "frightening" in that I'm scared of you. Frightening from the standpoint that someone could be so intelligent and yet so gullible.
I am not the gullible one; you are the one that believes everything he reads that is anti-government and swallows the most ridiculous crap if it suggests any kind of conspiracy. You are the one that thinks the world is run by "elites" that are so smart and on top of things that they cannot be found out and of the millions of highly intelligent people in the USA, none of them are capable of seeing through these indirections and deceptions except the few that supply you. You are so gullible it hurts.
>> I said: [Socialism] "... I understand it perfectly, and it is completely flawed and will not work."
>> Pilgrim said: Yes, you misunderstand socialism. I'm not talking about the non-socialism that we have seen. I'm talking about the true philosophy.
I went to college and aced the courses. Im talking about the philosophy too, I understand it perfectly. It isn't that complex. It wont work. Quit saying I am talking about something else. Accept the fact that I can know exactly as much as you do about a subject and disagree with you completely. IT WON'T WORK, the very philosophy of socialism is fundamentally flawed and will not work, no matter how well it is implemented.
>> I said: "A pardon is not continuing in power."
>> Pilgrim said: A pardon is not time in prison, either. These men do not go to prison, no matter how heinous the crime. That is the hypocrisy of our plutocratic system.
You ignore the point. If there was really a conspiracy and the powerful could suppress anything they wanted, then Watergate would have been successfully covered up. There would not have been a threatened impeachment, and no need for a pardon. The existence of Watergate (and myriad other political and corporate scandals) are nails in the coffin for your grand conspiracy theories and allegations that the media is controlled. But you ignore them, or say they are somehow part of the plan. The truth is the media is uncontrolled, it acts in its own self interest, and when there is convincing evidence of wrongdoing so they won't be sued for libel or damage their reputation (which their audience depends upon), the media reports it gleefully.
>> Pilgrim said: "The Free Market needs balancing, so that want does not supercede needs, or stretch our finite resources too thin.
>> I said: No it doesn't."
>> Pilgrim said: Why not?
Because it will balance itself, eventually. That is the nature of free markets. If we stretch something too thin then something will break, prices will rise, etc. The only "balancing" the free market needs is standard anti-trust and anti-fraud policing. Everything else takes care of itself.
>> That's not what I meant by that staement, but yes, I do want this world to change, before we kill ourselves needlessly, in the name of greed. If you feel threatened by that, then I call into question your priorities and motivations.
I am not threatened. But I disagree, I dont think we will lose an awful lot of people in the name of greed. I think that corrects itself.
>> I said: "War and conquest are valid, working means to pursue freedom and democracy."
>> Pilgrim said: No they are not. They are as counter to those interests as you can get. Unfortunately, they are all we know, because we cannot escape the past.
>> I said: "Shrink this problem down to the neighborhood: Sometimes deadly force is required in suppressing criminal behavior. When a police sharpshooter puts a bullet in the brain of a criminal holding a hostage; that is "war", that is "conquest"."
>> Pilgrim said: But that is not what we're talking about. Let's shrink American interventionism into a neighborhood setting. A shop owner will not let you steal from his store. This angers you, because you're a greedy. spoiled fu*k who doesn't play well with others, and is used to getting your own way. You firebomb the shop and kill it's owner, then repair the shop, and give it to another thief who will let you steal if you cut him in. That's closer to the truth. You speak in romanticisms.
Bull, not at all. I wasnt talking about American Interventionism anyway; the facts are simple and played out weekly in Israel. Palestinians bomb Israeli non-combatants, in Israel proper. It is criminal; they arent even trying to hit military or political targets. Then Israel tries to kill some of the criminals in retaliation; and often hits civilians when mortars are used. However, many of the "civilians" killed are acting as combatants harassing the tanks and Israeli soldiers.
>> I said: "I regard the culture of Aghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, China and others as criminal behavior."
>> Pilgrim said: And they (as do I) regard the United States' behavour on the world stage as criminal, and for the most part, they are right. I view the culture of America as a subservient slave nation, built upon ignorant enthusiasm.
Boy are you lost. Youd think if we were slaves, we would know it I dont know anybody here that thinks they are slaves; including co-workers putting in 60 hour weeks. They feel they are building their own future, that they are in charge of their financial destiny, and they are reasonably happy with the way their lives, finances and families are turning out. Some are very happy.
Now you can argue that they are slaves and dont know it; but I think that is a deep stretch of the meaning of "slave". A slave is somebody that cannot exercise their own free will, that is forced to labor. These people arent forced to labor any more than my shiftless nephew who hasnt worked a solid month in five years. They could get by on far less work, just like him. They choose to work in order to get what they want. They are not slaves.
>> I said: "But we cannot wage war on everyone simultaneously, so we choose the battles we can win."
>> Pilgrim said: It's called "being chicken". Other people regard this behavior as "Bullying".
It is no more being a chicken than refusing to play Russian Roulette. An intelligent person does not pick fights that are bound to be lost, waste resources, and ultimately destroy them. They pick fights they have a good chance of winning. In this case the USA could afford to pick more fights and correct greater wrongs, but it would be folly to try and take on China, for example, or all of the Middle East at once. A man can easily eat an entire Jersey cow, but he cant swallow one whole.
>> Have you enlisted yet, in this "most noble of causes", to "defeat the enemies of freedom"?
I was in the armed services of my country, if that is what you mean, and during a time of conflict. I didnt see battle. At the time my talents were considered to be more valuable in the computer room.
>> See, it's not you waging war. It is the poor of your nation, at the behest of the rich.
Then I guess I was the poor of the nation! We have a volunteer military; I was a volunteer. I knew when I joined I was risking my life by doing so, but I considered the benefit worth the risk. I presume current volunteers know what they are doing too; the army, navy, marines, air force and special forces dont train you in gunmanship for nothing! I know teens joining the marines or army. They WANT to go fight. That's stupid, I know, but they think it is exciting.
Sometimes it takes lives. In recent wars (since the Gulf War) the number of casualties has been comparable to the number suffered due to domestic accidents and natural causes; I think it was even LESS than that in Afghanistan.
>> I said: "I don't think the system is perfect, but I don't think we are in trouble. But then, I am relatively sanguine about the prospects of mass starvations, environmental collapse, and other such major disasters."
>> Pilgrim said: How about unending world war
I am sanguine about that also. I dont think it will be unending, no war is. I am sanguine about these things because they are a necessary part of cultural evolution. This is how we sort out the winning ideas and models, and kill off the bad ones (sometimes literally). And I think Democracy and Free Markets are those winning ideas; so regardless of the amount of blood shed I think we will come out on top.
>> Are you blind?
No. But I was told I might be obsessive compulsive a few months ago, and I havent been able to stop thinking about that.
>> I said: "The majority of US citizens would probably say yeah, so what, we have to support them."
>> Pilgrim said: Why?
Because they are a democracy, they believe in education, at least some female liberation, free speech, etc. They are like us. They are our brothers, we share similar ideas and ideals. They are civilized. There are public atheists in Isreal; there are public dissenters and a vigorous public debate over policies. They are like us.
Unlike their enemies, where dissenters are jailed (one pro-democracy Egyptian citizen was just sentenced to six years in prison; his crime was criticizing the Egyptian government for not being more democratic. Criticizing the government is against the law in Egypt).
We have to support them.
>> I said: "I am an Atheist but I prefer the way Israel treats its citizens to the sixth century alternative the PA would implement, so I'm on Israel's side."
>> Pilgrim said: Muslims have not engaged in the kind of death and destruction that non-Muslim powers have over history. Your view is based upon propaganda, and racism.
Firstly, massive death and destruction by non-Muslims throughout history doesnt give Muslims the right to explode even one bomb on a bus. You cant point at the Crusades and say "They did it! Why cant we?" Two wrongs don't make a right.
Secondly, quit accusing me of racism. I care nothing which races the Muslims are; I dont even care what the specifics of their religious beliefs are. I care about attitude and judge people exactly as Martin Luther King said, not on the color of their skin but on the content of their character.
And that content which I have seen first hand is Muslims dancing in the street when the WTC collapsed; it is Muslims making heroes out of "martyrs" that exploded themselves to kill people eating passover dinner or trying to get to work on a bus or buying milk at a grocery or having a wedding.
What I see is Islamists rejoicing in sneaky underhanded murdering of Jews they hate passionately, I see nine year olds saying they hope to grow up and kill Jews, and I find the content of the character of people that teach this to their children repulsive.
Thirdly, what a colossal ego you have to believe that if I don't agree with you, I must be the unwitting victim of propaganda.
YOU are the propagandist. I see the live footage, I see the pictures taken by reporters in Israel and the West Bank and Gaza and Afghanistan. I know the difference between staged and live. Danny Pearls head got CUT OFF, dont tell me it didnt, dont tell me he deserved it. He was writing a story, for Jebus sake.
YOU are the propagandist, trying to say all this is manipulated and manufactured media when any fool can see it isnt. Palestinians blow themselves up in Israel, period. Palestinians get plenty of airtime on cable, and I never once hear them deny that suicide bombers are real. I never once hear of an Israeli blowing himself up in Palestine. Even if the Israelis DO kill Palestinian civilians, at least they have the decency to do it with uniformed soldiers and tanks instead of sneaking into a grocery, daycare, or restaurant. At least you can see them coming.
>> Were you asked? [about government money spent on Israel You are not given a choice, now, are you?
I am absolutely given a choice, every year. You apparently dont understand how this country works. We elect REPRESENTATIVES, and entrust them with the decisions. We dont get to overrule every little decision and vote on every million they spend, or every ten billion for that matter. If we dont like the way they represent us, we elect SOMEBODY else that more closely matches our views.
Direct democracy is mob rule, and I want no part of it. I want, and have, representative democracy. That way the representative has the time and resources which I dont have to study the problems and come to some conclusion.
In fact, polls in America indicate that 70% of us agree that we have to support Israel even if that means sending troops to protect them. It doesnt make a difference what the reasons are, propaganda or religious or otherwise, we believe it and that is how we choose to spend our money, our troops, and our political capital.
You are just pissed off because representative democracy concentrates power in individuals, and you arent one of them, and you want to disagree with them. So typically, you want to "put to a vote" every decision you disagree with, and absolutely mandate without a vote every issue you feel is of paramount importance.
>> Look. I'm not trying to threaten anybody, or hurt anybody.
Oh you ARE trying to hurt people, thank Jebus you are incompetent at it. Your policies and decisions would kill tens of thousands of people and make hundreds of millions miserable. And you are actively trying to spread this poison and infect other minds with it. Dont tell me you arent trying to hurt anybody. And as far as threats go, what you claim those currently in power deserve could hardly be interpreted as anything other than a veiled threat.
>> I'm just trying to restore a little order here, a little reason. We are gripped by madness, and if we do not recognize that and free ourselves from it, then we are all in very serious jeopardy.
You are incapable of reason. You are the one gripped by madness; specifically, paranoid delusions of conspiracies and world-wide oil interest cabals and the government engineering the WTC collapse and media cover ups using Condit and all sorts of whacked out crap.
All of which only you and a handful of other insightful induhvoiduals have managed to piece together. You are the one that willingly believes these concocted fantasies.
If you were capable of reason you couldnt possibly believe in that stuff. Do you KNOW how hard it is to fly a 747? Not too damn hard at all! Rank amateurs that have never flown anything in their LIFE have been talked down to perfect three-point landings by flight controllers.
Talk about racism! I read your post above about the hijackings. Do you think that with six months of training YOU could fly one? I certainly could, I could probably do it in one month. I have a knack for math, I am certain I could navigate and the WTC or Pentagon is a big, big target to aim at. So if we could do it, why couldnt a Muslim? Are they just too stupid, is that what you want to say?
I dont think so, I think they can learn to operate a machine with the best of us.
And how "complicated" was this plot, anyway? It wasnt at all complicated, I could have picked the planes to hijack in a few days all by myself, using the Internet. The master planning and coordination everyone seems to think was so necessary could have been done by one intelligent person over a few morning coffees, given the basic idea of using planes as missiles.
My brother-in-law travels to trade shows about 20 times per year, and he used to regularly bring box cutters on board in his carry on luggage. They didnt even stop him, before 9/11 they were perfectly legal to carry on.
Of course the pilots didnt do the transponder thing, the pilots were subdued and KILLED, along with the flight attendants that had their throats cut with those box cutters. Geez. If the pilots expected anything they expected a normal hijacking where the hijacker makes demands and doesnt know how to fly the plane. Not to be jerked from their seats and thrown out of the cockpit. The first thing such a pilot would do is NOT to play with the transponder but turn around to see who is forcing their way into the cockpit.
And the cell phone calls! Tell me those were actors, Mr. Paranoia. They described Arabs taking over the plane and cutting the throats of the flight attendants to make a point. Next you will be telling me those hijackers were CIA agents falling on the sword as part of the grand scheme; thats the only way you can make the conspiracy fit.
>> Don't believe me. I really don't care. You're one person. Just remember what I've said in the days ahead.
It isnt easy to retain incoherent paranoid rambling; but if I do remember any snippets of anything you have said it will be as the perfect example of how deluded and unhappy a person can get when they see everything through the filter of their preconceived ideas. You are wasting your life on this crap, waiting eagerly for an Armageddon that will prove you right but never comes; shouting into the wind about collapse and catastrophe that is always going to be just a few years away, until finally you die. And then, or near then, you may finally realize you could have done something real and useful with your life. But it will be too late.
So you keep that in mind, in the days ahead, as you toil uselessly against the evil overlords.
TC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Not Just A River In Egypt
|
|
|
| |
"I disagree. I think most Americans understand this; certainly everybody I talk to does. They just don't care."
Well then I don't know which is worse, being ignorant of manipulation, or being apathetic to the world around us. Perhaps you are correct, then, and we deserve what we get.
"People are not the idiots you paint them as being."
I never called them idiots. I said they were misinformed.
"80% will always be misinformed no matter how unbiased the media is;"
Because 80% do not care, right? If they had easy access to factual information, without bias, rhetoric, and justification, then I think this would change dramatically. I believe their outrage would become very evident.
The people I come in contact, whether it be friends, family, strangers, fellow activists, or coworkers, all seem to be concerned, but feel powerless and helpless. A people without hope is easier to control. Whoever has the control, has the power, and that's what all of this is about.
"(...) and the other 20% can think well enough to filter through bias and see something resembling the true story."
And that's good enough?
"So if the stuff you find "important" isnt important to ME, Id rather they aired Frasier, thank you."
But what about the people who don't like Frasier? What about the people who want these issues aired? Their opinion doesn't count?
"You keep saying I am lying when I say I DONT CARE, but I am not."
I never said this. I believe you.
"I have thought about mass extinctions; global warming; environmental collapse, the loss of the ozone layer, corrupt politics, corporate scandal, and a lot of other stuff. I read at least 10 hours a week on this crap. I find my own sources, on the net and through foreign publications to which I subscribe."
Then you do care, to some degree, do you not? (This is the first time I have suggested this ...)
"When I sit down to watch TV I dont need some puerile two hour lesson on the loss of Andean frogs, I could WRITE that crap. I want Farscape, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel and Boston Public."
I want to be entertained too. But when I flip on the news, I am tired of being lied to, and then see damaging policies arise and find widespread support based upon these lies.
"TV and radio (spoken media) are not the right media for education. You cant skim easily; you cant break into greater depth, you cant do it on your own time. The newspaper is slightly better, but the Internet is the best."
I never said it was the best. I only said it is the media which influences people on a grand scale. The internet is eating into this, yes, but you have to trust your sources. Also, most homes have TV, many do not have a computer.
"I cant imagine better coverage than watching the WTC collapse for myself."
For 48 hours straight? That was a little much, and had an adverse psychological effect on the nation, beyond just seeing the attacks happen, and watching it a few times.
"But that ISNT LEARNING. If you want to learn something, get on the net and learn to use google and dogpile."
Millions of people love the documentaries on channels like the Discovery Channel.
When the G8 meets, I don't want the news to regurgitate official statements from the group, and completely fail to discuss what the G8 represents, how it operates, and the negative and non-effects of the policies it sets.
The coverage surrounding those types of events is deceptive.
"As I said, airwaves are poor media anyway."
But they reach the widest audience, and influence people's thinking like no other medium yet seen.
"By this I mean a newsletter or paper, which can be started with a few hundred dollars. To which Pilgrim does not respond, instead he changes the subject because it is actually a solution and he isnt interested in solutions."
Thank-you for placing your assumptions into my response. That's another tactic ...
I write extensively, mainly on Independent Media, and my articles have been published in several of these newsletters. I contribute to a local one as well. But much of that is "preaching to the converted", and only reaches the audience we can afford to get to.
As the airwaves were considered public until the Reagan Administration, they were intended to be available to the public to air views that counter "official statements", and have important issues widely heard, so that no interests could "own" the airwaves and stifle opinion and information.
The opposite is true today.
"Oh, I get it. You have to start BIG! I dont think so."
Granted, but you said "papers, TV, radio", all of which are expensive prospects.
"It can be done. Of course I am presuming the text will be interesting, as you insist people are interested in this."
I already DO this, but the range of your audience is not there, because we cannot AFFORD to go bigger. The PUBLIC airwaves should ensure that these views are heard, but they aren't, and we're now seeing the effects of that.
"Of course they are. You think we are idiots."
Nope, but I understand that MILLIONS of people do not understand this, and their decisions are based upon a media they believe they can trust. A lot of them are educated people, but don't even conceive that the people they trust for information are not trustworthy.
I don't really get your problem with this. You understand that information is stifled, yet you seek to justify it. It is NOT okay that this happens.
"I *AM* a product of the American educational system, public schools all the way, including state college. I made the Deans List (4.0 average) my first two semesters, taking 27 hours in each, more than double the normal load. I'm proud of it."
And you should be. That is a great accomplishment, and no doubt the product of a lot of hard work.
Much of the American educational system, however, is substandard. Look at your country's educational rankings.
"I have never been on "Cops". You seem like a good candidate, though."
Bad boys, Bad boys ....
"Methinks thou dost sport a skull of ironwood; for verily, nothing doth penetrate it."
"And your failure to accept the simplest logical premise does not make me uninformed."
No, that would be the fault of the media ...
"So whats the point of trying to get them, again? Nothing can come of it! The big conspiracy will make sure of that! So why waste the publics time? Your scenarios hold no water; they dont hold together. Either hearings can do some good or they cannot."
With public support, anything is possible. Without relevant information, you can't have public support, and the processes we exist under will not change. The CRTC has, time and time again, placed private interests above public interests. If people knew this, the pressure would be on them to explain their decisions and perhaps change. Writing to them as an individual, or part of a small group, goes ignored.
No, I don't know beyond a shadow of a doubt that people will respond to the facts, with outrage, criticism, or calls for change.
I am simply saying "How would we ever know"? I think you misjudge people's nature as well.
>> The views of this Movement, which also includes peace and environmental concerns, are calling into question this whole system of corporate rule and unfettered capitalism, as the culprits of same.
Well excellent, they are doomed to failure then!"
They are failing, and that's why we're embroiled in a phony war, and why people are losing their life's savings by the thousands. That's why "terrorists" are surfacing.
As the original post states "Affluence Is Unsustainable", because that affluence is built upon the misfortunes of others.
"Then you dont understand science."
Oh no, I didn't mean no scientists believe in this higher power. I was simply responding to the implication that you believe in science over God/Allah/whatever ...
Science has never been able to truly explain what anything IS. Science can explain processes, break things down to their tiniest unit, and even replicate these, but it cannot explain what anything IS, or WHY it is.
Science simply puts existence into a language that our limited intelligence can understand.
"Science concerns itself with the natural, not the supernatural."
Everything natural IS supernatural. Just because things seem mundane doesn't mean there isn't magic behind them. I'm sorry you cannot see this. There is much to the natural that science cannot explain.
"So YOU prove a higher power exists. You can't, and in fact all the "evidence" touted for one is better explained by other means; therefore there is no reason to believe in one."
I didn't mean to get into this so much. I was just throwing that out there.
"It is simple fact, you ignore everything that doesnt fit your hypothesis; you pick and choose your facts, and it is impossible to hold a discussion with somebody if they cannot be objective about the evidence."
Everyone does this. You do it.
"You suffer from paranoia; I might as well be arguing with a guy on the street corner wearing an aluminum foil hat and shouting at cars."
Look, I know there are real nuts out there, and they make all sorts of wild claims. What I believe in comes from EVIDENCE, not mere speculation.
Study the CIA. Study the history of American Interventionism. Study the Bush Family, and the other powerful families connected to them and their "interests".
"How do you know it is factual? How do you know it isnt more propaganda put out by some other side that wants you to believe it?"
Because I weigh it against the effects the actions or events have, and what subsequent events or actions result.
"Even if it were factual, that makes no difference:"
It makes a MASSIVE difference.
"You select the facts you want that do support your view, and reject the facts that dont support your view as "PR" or "Disinformation" or "propaganda" or "distraction" or "media controlled pap for the masses" or whatever."
Call it what you want. You call it bullshit, and do the exact same thing.
"You are so emotionally involved in the problem you cannot see the problem objectively. You cannot see it scientifically."
I am working out the problem objectively, scientifically. I am looking at the common players to situations such as war, and their motivations and actions, and looking at ways to avoid conflict, environmental damage, etc.
As you stated previously, the motivation is usually SELFISHNESS, whether that be for power, money, resources, whatever.
We cannot solve a problem unless we study it.
And sure I'm emotionally involved, people are dying, and others are getting aweay with MURDER, and not only getting away with it, they reap gigantic profits, at our expense, the expense of our freedoms and safety, and the untold misery of the world.
"You cannot be trusted."
Right. You don't know me from Adam.
For all you know, I could BE AI.
"OK. Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he has committed a high crime."
That would be possible, if the only one to connect Bush to Enron wasn't found "suicided" in the middle of the street, shot from a distance farther than the length of his arms.
If nobody investigates, it's pretty hard to find out who did what.
"You cannot, of course, all you can point at is suggestive crap that is only suggestive because it doesnt take all the facts into account, only those that support your thesis."
All the facts are hidden behind a wall of secrecy.
You are absolutely right. I will not dispute this in the least.
I don't know who committed 9/11. But neither do you. You have been given no reliable evidence, and there has been no official investigation into this unprecedented event in a whole year.
Yet the government has given itself unquestioned power and resources, in direct violation of your Constitution, killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians (The UN report on same was supressed, due to pressure from the US), based upon its own conspiracy theory, and Unocal (the oil company intimately connected to the White House at present ...) has already begun to build its mid-Asian pipeline, a pipeline awarded to an Argentian company by the Taliban, right before the Argentine economy went bust, thanks to fleeing investorship and international policies lorded over by the United States.
Nope, can't prove it, but you cannot disprove it. And I really don't care. Regardless of what happened, the response, subsequent rise in world conflictand justified (in rhetoric, not truly justified) racism, from not only the People, but the "leaders", and the irresponsibel and dangerous talk about nuclear escalation, is unacceptable, and irresponsible, against all that we are taught to beleiev in, and puts us all in harm's way.
If it was a terrorist attack, the Government is at the very least guilty of collusion, because they would have had to ensure a lack of military response, not to mention the nullification of the AUTOMATIC defense systems of the most secure airspaces in the country, and possibly the world.
And the terrorists would not have acted simply because they "hate freedom and democracy". It's because they know America, real America, not the smiling, waving, friendly rhetoric.
They know, first hand, the means America uses to 'protect its interests" thoughout the world, because these alleged "terrorists" were trained by America.
They would have been responding to the America that views all other nations and peoples as inferior, subjects in their grand capitalist empire of "Fu*k U".
The Government has already admitted that they knew ... something. I thought that admission alone would spark massive outrage, but that would be "unpatriotic", wouldn't it?
If the Government did plan and carry out the attack (which even you can't disprove, or count as i | |