|
Post by andrew on Oct 24, 2013 13:17:03 GMT -5
I see what you are saying, but I have doubts as to whether it could work like that, I see the whole system as too corrupt for change to come about that way. I do believe that there is a global elite, but that's not to say that there are no good people working within, in fact I'm confident there are. But what I see as more likely currently is more revolutionary in its nature, something along the lines of the main players just being removed. See, I think it is highly likely that 'free energy' is available. If the main players were removed, all the 'secrets' came out, and free energy became available, it would change everything. free energy? sounds like the perpetual motion machine to me. Or are you talking fusion or something? I think the perpetual motion machine is just one possible example, and is scratching the surface of something much bigger. I reckon there are technologies that are being kept under wraps that would very much stretch our imaginations, and which would change the face of the world.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 24, 2013 13:20:04 GMT -5
...and then there's the theory about fossil fuels not really being fossil fuels....is self-creating within the earth -- limitless supply -- made sense to me. I haven't heard that one. Do you have a link, or can explain a bit more please?
|
|
|
Post by silver on Oct 24, 2013 14:58:14 GMT -5
...and then there's the theory about fossil fuels not really being fossil fuels....is self-creating within the earth -- limitless supply -- made sense to me. I haven't heard that one. Do you have a link, or can explain a bit more please? Yes, I've listened to that radio show that comes on in the evening and plays all night where they interviewed him -- the below is a link to a book by one of the people who've researched and discovered that oil is abiotic -- far be it from me to explain science stuff. www.amazon.com/The-Great-Oil-Conspiracy-Government/dp/1620871629/ctocedit - I had trouble clicking on the above link, so here's one that will help: www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2012/09/03
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Oct 24, 2013 19:07:37 GMT -5
I agree. In addition, even though the not voting argument about the system being rigged is accurate, it is also the case that real people and the real planet are harmed more or less by different policies that are implemented based on voting. That is, it's possible to work towards overhauling/revolutionizing the system while also spending the few minutes a year to vote. It is far more important to be doing that revolutionary work but in minimal amount of effort in voting can also have a huge impact. What would be a waste of time is putting ones efforts in maintaining the rigged system. What is the "rigged system" that you think people want to maintain? I think parlamentiary democracy has come to a dead end because people aren't really punishing parties that abuse their trust, but still change has to come with the consent of the parliament. Maybe the next step is direct democracy where you get to vote on almost every single issue, which is of course impossible for any mortal, so you get the option to choose your personal representative (basically an expert you trust) and you can withdraw your choice and choose someone else at any time.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 25, 2013 3:17:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 25, 2013 3:33:02 GMT -5
I agree. In addition, even though the not voting argument about the system being rigged is accurate, it is also the case that real people and the real planet are harmed more or less by different policies that are implemented based on voting. That is, it's possible to work towards overhauling/revolutionizing the system while also spending the few minutes a year to vote. It is far more important to be doing that revolutionary work but in minimal amount of effort in voting can also have a huge impact. What would be a waste of time is putting ones efforts in maintaining the rigged system. What is the "rigged system" that you think people want to maintain? I think parlamentiary democracy has come to a dead end because people aren't really punishing parties that abuse their trust, but still change has to come with the consent of the parliament. Maybe the next step is direct democracy where you get to vote on almost every single issue, which is of course impossible for any mortal, so you get the option to choose your personal representative (basically an expert you trust) and you can withdraw your choice and choose someone else at any time. Its a system by which whatever political party is in charge, the money makers and controllers still make money and control the world through the technologies, resources, media and institutions. Bear in mind that I believe some of the conspiracy stuff. I like the idea of people stepping up and confronting the parties that abuse their trust and direct democracy would enable people to be more empowered...but as I see it, in order for there to be effective change, there has to be a change at levels higher than government. What I see of paramount importance is disclosure of all the secrets that have been held, technologies that have been suppressed, and the truth of what has been happening has to come out.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Oct 25, 2013 5:53:49 GMT -5
Its a system by which whatever political party is in charge, the money makers and controllers still make money and control the world through the technologies, resources, media and institutions. Bear in mind that I believe some of the conspiracy stuff. I agree, but my point is that in the discourse and media work you have to be precise about the demands. I think what you're talking about is corruption/plutocracy, and that's something that nobody wants to perpetuate. These things are not an inherent flaw of representative democracy and they can be avoided without removing repr.democracy, for example severely increase the punishment for corruption, full financial disclosure of all politicians, an agency that monitors all their financial flow, etc. Agreed, but again, it's not part of "the system", it's a deviation from the ideal of what our current system is supposed to be, it's an outside influence. One of the biggest weapons of the fascists is that by way of rhetoric they push leftists in a corner where they appears as stupid and stoned hippies, conspiracy theorists, etc, and the subtext is to just shut up and let the big guys do it cos they know better cos they are "realists" and "experts". The weapon against it is simply to know how the rhetoric tricks work, and you must know exactly what you want, you have to avoid infinite demands. The fascists are objectively wrong, and that's why they can be crushed by any skilled debator, unfortunately the fascists are still a lot more skilled at debates and propaganda.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2013 8:01:44 GMT -5
I agree. In addition, even though the not voting argument about the system being rigged is accurate, it is also the case that real people and the real planet are harmed more or less by different policies that are implemented based on voting. That is, it's possible to work towards overhauling/revolutionizing the system while also spending the few minutes a year to vote. It is far more important to be doing that revolutionary work but in minimal amount of effort in voting can also have a huge impact. What would be a waste of time is putting ones efforts in maintaining the rigged system. What is the "rigged system" that you think people want to maintain? I think parlamentiary democracy has come to a dead end because people aren't really punishing parties that abuse their trust, but still change has to come with the consent of the parliament. Maybe the next step is direct democracy where you get to vote on almost every single issue, which is of course impossible for any mortal, so you get the option to choose your personal representative (basically an expert you trust) and you can withdraw your choice and choose someone else at any time. It's as andrew described. A plutocracy mascarading as a representative democracy. The point I was making, however, is that the elite which is interested in maintaining this system is not entirely in agreement about everything. At the micro level votes matter because the party that controls the legislative process enacts policies that have REAL consequences. REAL civil liberties are at stake, REAL environmental issues are in the balance. So the very minimal amount of effort to vote actually does matter even though what really really matters is unveiling the faux representative democracy for what it is and then overhauling it so that it can closer resemble one.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 26, 2013 3:51:49 GMT -5
Its a system by which whatever political party is in charge, the money makers and controllers still make money and control the world through the technologies, resources, media and institutions. Bear in mind that I believe some of the conspiracy stuff. I agree, but my point is that in the discourse and media work you have to be precise about the demands. I think what you're talking about is corruption/plutocracy, and that's something that nobody wants to perpetuate. These things are not an inherent flaw of representative democracy and they can be avoided without removing repr.democracy, for example severely increase the punishment for corruption, full financial disclosure of all politicians, an agency that monitors all their financial flow, etc. Agreed, but again, it's not part of "the system", it's a deviation from the ideal of what our current system is supposed to be, it's an outside influence. One of the biggest weapons of the fascists is that by way of rhetoric they push leftists in a corner where they appears as stupid and stoned hippies, conspiracy theorists, etc, and the subtext is to just shut up and let the big guys do it cos they know better cos they are "realists" and "experts". The weapon against it is simply to know how the rhetoric tricks work, and you must know exactly what you want, you have to avoid infinite demands. The fascists are objectively wrong, and that's why they can be crushed by any skilled debator, unfortunately the fascists are still a lot more skilled at debates and propaganda. Yeah. good points. And I have no issue with representative democracy, its the plutocracy that I see as the problem.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 26, 2013 3:59:24 GMT -5
What is the "rigged system" that you think people want to maintain? I think parlamentiary democracy has come to a dead end because people aren't really punishing parties that abuse their trust, but still change has to come with the consent of the parliament. Maybe the next step is direct democracy where you get to vote on almost every single issue, which is of course impossible for any mortal, so you get the option to choose your personal representative (basically an expert you trust) and you can withdraw your choice and choose someone else at any time. It's as andrew described. A plutocracy mascarading as a representative democracy. The point I was making, however, is that the elite which is interested in maintaining this system is not entirely in agreement about everything. At the micro level votes matter because the party that controls the legislative process enacts policies that have REAL consequences. REAL civil liberties are at stake, REAL environmental issues are in the balance. So the very minimal amount of effort to vote actually does matter even though what really really matters is unveiling the faux representative democracy for what it is and then overhauling it so that it can closer resemble one. yep that's also a fair point. And I agree that (based on what I have heard), the plutocracy are not united, and are split into many factions. What is interesting about them is that they do embrace a particular kind of spirituality/mysticism, its hard for me to understand, but it seems almost like a 'spiritual darwinism'. My feeling is that without their shared goal of keeping the general population under control, they would probably turn on each other.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 26, 2013 11:39:59 GMT -5
Notice how the conversation went: Rus: We should stop destroying the planet. Pax: Agreed. Rus: Better distribution of wealth. Pax: Agreed. Rus: Tax the hell out of big corporations. Pax: Agreed. Rus: Stop corrupton. Pax: Agreed. But how do you want to change the system. Rus: Um, well, hm... Zackly. I'm wondering if Russel Brand is the English Charlie Sheen.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 26, 2013 11:44:28 GMT -5
The big problem is that in our system for an individual agent conflict outperforms cooperation. The prisoner's dilemma is perhaps the standard way to illustrate the issue. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemmaOur system is greedy. I see it as the biggest problem our world faces today. For example the prison systems could be healing centers and not correctional centers. Not homeless kitchens but community kitchens. For anyone in the community to come eat. It would bring communities together. 'The system' is a reflection of mass consciousness.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 26, 2013 11:53:45 GMT -5
The big mistake of naive/uninformed leftists and the old trick of the conservatives is to have the leftist defend the impossible position of "changing the system". It's an impossible infinite demand and nobody can say what it's supposed to actually mean, that's why they start to studder. Instead what they need to do is embrace the democratic parlamentiary system and focus on finite and precise issues. Notice how the conversation went: Rus: We should stop destroying the planet. Pax: Agreed. Rus: Better distribution of wealth. Pax: Agreed. Rus: Tax the hell out of big corporations. Pax: Agreed. Rus: Stop corrupton. Pax: Agreed. But how do you want to change the system. Rus: Um, well, hm... I see what you are saying, but I have doubts as to whether it could work like that, I see the whole system as too corrupt for change to come about that way. I do believe that there is a global elite, but that's not to say that there are no good people working within, in fact I'm confident there are. But what I see as more likely currently is more revolutionary in its nature, something along the lines of the main players just being removed. See, I think it is highly likely that 'free energy' is available. If the main players were removed, all the 'secrets' came out, and free energy became available, it would change everything. As long as folks complain about a rigged system they are not ready for free energy.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 26, 2013 12:21:57 GMT -5
Notice how the conversation went: Rus: We should stop destroying the planet. Pax: Agreed. Rus: Better distribution of wealth. Pax: Agreed. Rus: Tax the hell out of big corporations. Pax: Agreed. Rus: Stop corrupton. Pax: Agreed. But how do you want to change the system. Rus: Um, well, hm... Zackly. I'm wondering if Russel Brand is the English Charlie Sheen. I don't think so. From what I have seen, Charlie is somewhat joked about and mocked in the US...has become a bit of a 'caricature'. Though from what I have seen I do not think he lacks wisdom, and he can be well worth listening to. Russell's exploits are popular tabloid material, and he is disliked by some, but he not joked about and mocked in the same way, I'm not very in touch with American popular consciousness but a better comparison MIGHT be Dave Chapelle or even Jim Carrey.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 26, 2013 12:26:16 GMT -5
It's as andrew described. A plutocracy mascarading as a representative democracy. The point I was making, however, is that the elite which is interested in maintaining this system is not entirely in agreement about everything. At the micro level votes matter because the party that controls the legislative process enacts policies that have REAL consequences. REAL civil liberties are at stake, REAL environmental issues are in the balance. So the very minimal amount of effort to vote actually does matter even though what really really matters is unveiling the faux representative democracy for what it is and then overhauling it so that it can closer resemble one. yep that's also a fair point. And I agree that (based on what I have heard), the plutocracy are not united, and are split into many factions. What is interesting about them is that they do embrace a particular kind of spirituality/mysticism, its hard for me to understand, but it seems almost like a 'spiritual darwinism'. My feeling is that without their shared goal of keeping the general population under control, they would probably turn on each other. Money and power are interchangeable and they necessarily implicate control -- anyone with power, regardless of the system or the policies pursued, would be subject to the description of having that goal of keeping the general population under control.
|
|