Thanks for the careful examination of what I wrote. I said "demons" for you. I don't believe Soros is a demon, maybe a dwarf or a gremlin but not a demon, I don't think the problem is individual morality and I don't believe getting rid of one or two individuals would do a thing. I believe the problem is the system.
I also believe that you are a predator on the plant world. (you said you are a vegetarian) You may feel yourself superior to plants and that plants don't have consciousness but let's bury you and see if you prosper like burying a carrot or a potato would do for them. If we judge you according to plant consciousness you will be as hopeless and dumb as you believe them to be. I would wager that plant consciousness doesn't even register in your concerns. Whatever happened to the lessons supposedly learned at the Findhorne garden on the beach? We all are predators on other life. So give up trying not to be. The answers must lie elsewhere. The issue here is are we predators on each other and the answer is yes because of the system we choose to run our markets. The largest "market" in the world was at Tenochtitlan and probably still is but it wasn't a capital market. The issue of respect for all species can only come from growth and human freedom. We must be free to evolve. Change the system but don't touch individual choice. Instead call the individual's group into responsibility for the way they raise that individual as a balanced individual and how they teach the principles of personal harmony to the young. If you hold the group responsible for a criminal individual then those individual's will naturally feel the pressure to live peacefully or they will simply be exterminated for the safety of the group. Since each individual has a group to protect them, that rarely happens unless groups want to go to constant war. In the Art world the parallel structure to that is National styles and processes. Freedom demands that everyone be able to use each other's ideas but National ownership is sacrosanct. A genuine Artist will be too proud to claim that he is something that he isn't. So using another system's materials and ideas become transformed into a different system, not claiming something they are not. That's the way the Art world handles it and it's also what happened in my culture's until our system was replaced by the Patriarchic English Manor System of lineage and the European National system of laws. It made a mess of everything. Now no one is responsible and you can do anything that you can get away with or the system doesn't specifically ban. By "freedom" I'm not advocating Laissez Faire in market or in environment as America's idiot libertarians are. I believe that only a system that guarantees the evolution and growth of all life of the planet is moral. Simple. Love the world, Hurt no one. Since you must eat you must work out how you Love and don't hurt the world. We all have to accept responsibility for the model of the Garden. The world is a Garden and like the Garden at Findhorne or the ancient gardens here, the garden must be balanced and run for the good of all of the life in the Garden. The answer for capitalism is to privatize everything because the greatest good is personal ownership. How well that works is illustrated by the private army around the State Department in Iraq as the Public Army leaves. It is immoral, hopelessly expensive and yet the only answer to lovers of Laissez Faire and the privatization of everything. It is the true road to most of the country becoming the peasants of the few. It is my experience that the deep springs of Europe are Feudal. Isn't that why the European Mountain people arm themselves to the teeth and demand that every house have six months rations in the basement? Have a wonderful day and thanks again for your comments and analysis. REH -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Christoph Reuss Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 9:03 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Futurework] FW: Tremble, Banks, Tremble REH wrote: > As for Soros, I don't believe in the devil. Neither do I. But belief in a supernatural force of evil is NOT required to acknowledge the activities of unethical billionaires. > The problem is systemic. That's what Predators claim, to exculpate themselves. But Soros has been convicted in France for insider trading, so it was a lie that regulations would stop him. Worse, he contested the conviction up to the European court of human rights, so he doesn't even admit a mistake after being caught, but invests all energy into escaping punishment (the typical psychopath reaction). Philanthropist? > Change the system and the demons are absorbed back into the society as > tricksters. Funny that you imply that Soros is a demon -- so while you don't believe in the devil, you do believe in demons. > You constantly worry about wealth. But your wealth is about > money. I worry about competency and significance (my wealth) and money is > only necessary if I need to buy a Steinway You're being superficial again. Unfortunately, money (and lack thereof) often translates to issues of significance -- you should know, because you were poisoned with lead __for money__. And the whole genocide of your people happened for money (for predators, ultimately). And your complaints that the lack of money in the arts is taking away so much human potential, also points to the connection between money and significance. To try to paint me as a materialist, just because I point out these things, is the height of absurdity. I'm not a materialist, but I have learned the hard way how much materialists destroy human competency and significance. That's why predators have to be reigned in. > That's why I'm for socialized healthcare. Superficial again. "Obamacare" is a scheme by and for billionaires (to enrich Big Pharma). > But I don't have to have money as security except for defense from idiots > who are neurotic obsessive's about things in the market. ...such as Soros? > As for drugs, people should be free to have control over their own body and > life. I would legalize them all but put strict rules on abuse and on > predators who use them to hurt people. This is a contradiction in terms. The abuse and hurt is inherent to drugs, because addiction is the opposite of "having control over their own body", and because all drugs are harmful. > I would use the same rules urban > Native Americans had prior to 1492. Using a drug that causes a loss of > life or the addiction of a child demands a like return from the family of > the person who caused it. They can either turn the criminal in to be > executed or the aggrieved family can choose any member from the other family > to do with as they wish, as settlement of the debt. How would that work out in practice with today's tobacco & alcohol industries? Executing all the executives of the tobacco & alcohol companies, or even their workers, or their shareholders? You'll end up executing Soros & Co. ... This is in contradiction to your earlier statement that these people are just taking advantage of the system, in this case: fulfilling a "market demand". > We didn't have drug > abuse and we had a very low crime rate. The Europeans messed all of that > up with their "Prince of Peace" that causes a war every 25 years or so in > Europe and around the world. If you don't like "Europeans with their Prince of Peace", then why did you work in the US Army? Oh, singing for the killers doesn't kill anyone? Well, the Swiss bankers didn't kill anyone either... > Finally the problem with prohibition of substances is that unless the > substance is administered without a person's knowledge, it is a personal > decision. I believe in responsibility and that people can only evolve if > they have responsibility for their own decisions. Again, you're parroting tobacco industry PR and Soros PR of drug legalization. "Responsibility" is a double lie, because (1) most users start to use drugs (legal & illegal ones) in early youth, i.e. years before being adult = able to take responsibility, so (2) by the time they would be mature enough for a responsible decision, they're already addicted (the earlier they started with the drug, the stronger is the addiction), so again they are not free to make the responsible decision. Especially since the tobacco and alcohol industries use special additives that maximize addictiveness. Drugs are yet another example where Predators have to be reigned in before they destroy society. The lame Orwellian excuse of "responsibility" (of the user, instead of the drug pushers!) just blames the victims and intends to perpetuate the profit maximization. > For example I would have hung all > of those Swiss bankers that allowed the Nazis to steal from people they were > killing and hide that wealth Swiss banks. I believe in responsibility. So you also advocate the hanging of all of those Israeli Leumi bankers and American bankers who are still today sitting on dormant bank accounts? Then good luck with the prosecution... (but don't expect help from the WJC) Guess what, they don't care about ethics in business, they're just interested in eliminating the substantial competition by Swiss bankers... The current US Vice President Biden's state of Delaware alone is hoarding much more black money than Switzerland, and has much less strict regulations, but of course that's okay because might is right... If you believe in responsibility, then why do you defend Soros and other billionaire speculators who drive whole economies into bankruptcy and have been involved in civil wars? (Even EU commission president Barroso recently warned that civil wars could break out in the nearly bankrupt southern EU countries -- as a former PM of Portugal, Barroso should know.) It's not "the system" -- it's the Predators that mess up the system -- ANY system. > Not that you SHOULD be responsible but that the universe MAKES us all > responsible and the only control we have is by avoiding criminal activities > that cuts back on the retribution that is inevitable. Your archaic "an eye for an eye" sort of "tribal justice" actually _distorts_ responsibility, because the tribe of the victim can kill ANY member of the tribe of the perp, if the perp himself is not found out. That means, you kill a person that is NOT responsible for the initial crime, but is completely innocent. This kind of "logic" led to the Holocaust. Sippenhaft is not justice. This also applies to Gurstein's slurs against all Swiss, which you didn't object to. > I don't expect this to work for a small mountain country filled with so many > different languages and groups. It would probably create a civil war that > would destroy the place. But my people are mountain people as well. If the Swiss don't let themselves pit against each other by warring neighbors, they get smeared as "war profiteers"... Chris ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
