I'll come back on that one BB - it does strike me we ought to be considering the Kennedys and Bushes as the same thing. I guess I'd have to vote Democrat, but it would be a lesser of two evils thing. Karl Popper wrote 'The Open Society and Its Enemies' long ago - one can clearly see 'dirty hands' is an enemy of openness. The mother of modern Parliaments is English and stems from a very restricted notion of representation and even who should be represented (following earlier models from classic times). I think we can make a good case our elections are not free and open and not geared to modern ideas of freedom. Mentioning conspiracy is dangerous as one is instantly branded a nutter believing we are run by lizards or such - often the term 'deep politics' is used instead. The most loony conspiracy theorist (other than boring UFO nutters) in my time was the CIA Director in the 60s convinced Russia and China were only bombing each other to convince the west they weren't communist buddies (Angleton?). The underlying science is that of thought experiments, which can be very wild indeed. Physics relies on them.
I may as well yawn on a while. Magna Carta addressed the Freemen of England, which meant not many people and no women. The Demos in Athens was also restricted and had no problem ethnically cleansing neighbours to increase grain production. The Soviets, with their alleged Marxism had no such problems either, nor the Maoist China. The eventual question is whether we are held in conspiracy - there have been many religious ones and I don't see the capitalist-communist ones as much different. Even in science, 'evidence' requires faith and understanding of approximation (the Ludwig and Snell programmes). I'd say the classic conspiracy theory takes the form of Bishop Usher's notion that the world began in 4004 BC complete with fossil record and memories. Such a theory is impervious to evidence as anything can be made to fit it. We don't see UFOs because they hide them and lie to us about sightings. There were WMDs in Iraq but we couldn't find them when we got there because they moved them ... Generally in science we don't put of faith in the truth of theory, but rather take the less risky stance of belief in evidence (even knowing this is in spin with theory). In the history of science, theories get falsified or amended as we understand the evidence differently. What we are short of in a theory of political economics as if people matter is an understanding of this. I can't explain in abstract in the space here. I'd want a vote that put people in charge of relatively small regional systems of fairness and representation in legal matters - almost local law centres. These people could largely remain local and vote electronically in national-international matters - we'd vote for more centralised Parliaments too. The overall aim would be to control people given power and stop us getting hung up on 'great leaders' and get on creating viable, sustainable, local working and living practices whilst working to wither away war. I can see many problems, but this is what I would want to vote for and cannot. I tend to believe we could have plenty in the world through more work for fair pay, intelligent uses of technology and so on. I'd like to see this as a world issue - groups of us committing to it and forming a policing-military umbrella designed to protect the democracy entailed. This would be the beginning of my thought experiment. It needs refinement. We could then look at what evidence fits. One could do the same with the idea that Blair, Brown and Mandelson are 'CIA' . The idea might not be to prove they are, but just how exposed to such infiltration our system is. We lack these debates in public discourse - they are stopped by forms of ad hominem attack (often silent) and because we are so interested in UFO drivel. We should know how are politicians get on and how anyone or any vested interest might influence that. We should be interested in other forms of representation - perhaps much more direct forms in the daily detail of living. I think we if surveyed TV, film and newspapers for a month we'd find only evidence of the absence of ideas other than business as usual and opiate programming. A survey of academic ideas would be a bit different (abolish poverty with one cent income tax - in an accounting journal and so on). We might even be able to understand the protocols on which people do vote and what people do think is fact (we sort of know but it's frightening). What we generally get is arguments that are not intended for anyone interested in evidence and those that are commercially attractive. That and the patronising repetition of drivel by presenters too stupid to think of anything other than their image and high salary. I'm not arguing here - just putting a few touches out. There is a question about whether we have any forum for real dialogue and how quickly anything we could create would last if it showed glimmers of success (Baudrillard's 'black hole'). On 31 Aug, 16:16, BB47 <[email protected]> wrote: > Do you have any thoughts on conspiracy theories? > > On Aug 31, 7:44 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I wonder what May Jo's family thought of the air time given to the > > great senator? > > > I go with Orn on what at bottom is a lack of honesty in our systems. > > I go with Molly in that we have to believe in something to create > > anything, though I don't see the dynasties as having any solutions - > > they are very much part of the problem to me, preventing people being > > connected for the right reasons. > > > We conflate issues in 'dirty hands'. Knowing one has tracked down a > > miserable kidnapping killer, it's hard to justify not using his foul > > engines on him or his female familiar to find out where the victims > > are to save them or bring closure for relatives, but it is rare > > outside literature to be in such a position. More likely, the cops > > and other agencies will screw up (as in Baby P or the recent US case > > currently in the news) and not act on the evidence and criminal > > records in plain view. In the Detroux case in Belgium, the cops > > actually sealed the last victims to their fate by sealing up the house > > they were captive in. When it comes to terrorism, the authorities are > > clearly demonising (as does literature) whilst the only people we are > > catching are either totally innocent or pathetic. We have seen one > > bungle after another - and this is surely the longer case in a history > > in which imperial plunder has continued. Here, even in military > > terms, Europe (then including Russia) blundered in 1861 because it was > > blind to the real threat (the USA) because we were more concerned to > > plunder Africa, the sub-continent, China and the middle east. This > > continued after WW2 with the US as the only major player, able to swat > > the old European players like flies. Think of the lies about Vietnam > > (in the UK this was a much more secret time of wars against Indonesia > > and so on). What one would like to see before engaging in dirty hands > > is real evidence of what the problems are. Given the record of our > > authorities in small-scale stuff like criminal cases, it appears we > > can't even see the obvious. > > I've met 'Jihadis' around the world and in my classrooms - some > > nutters, but generally decent people swayed by their own version of > > the propaganda oused around us - the decency taken advantage of. Many > > of these people were laughed at by their contemporaries. The Wahhabi > > extreme is very frightening, but even this is a creation of British > > atrocities in India (in large part) and the area generally. > > I'd say the idea of trying to negotiate peace looking down other > > people's gun-barrels is dumb. The is no point in conflating the ideal > > of peace with forcing an absolute ideal of non-violence on oneself - > > otherwise those women who choose to hate our soldiers could no doubt > > convert the men who would stick them in Burkhas if it were not for our > > soldiers. The notion of hordes of feminists in attack mode against > > tribal sexism is intriguing, but I have seen no volunteers. They are > > much more likely to beat up on those like me, who they must sense are > > no threat to their freedom to be what they want and have a just sense > > of what force can be used for. > > The dirty hands argument is 'Catch 22' - we can't have it in the open > > for 'reasons of national security' - yet without the true reasoning > > and evidence we can't do rational analysis. Here I think Orn has long > > pointed to a form of evidence in plain sight, yet behind the ouse or > > kitsch of edutainment and the lies of pride we are dragged up with. > > What literature I have seen (generally TV) on terrorism makes me > > believe our security services now dominate the popular genre, probably > > directly by using writers. James Bond, Sleeper Cell, Spooks and > > almost any action film are probably most people's 'reality' - NCIS is > > a personal favourite because it's so crude. I often hear the taught > > morality of dirty hands from these 'lectures' in my classes, almost > > exclusively from people who have never been anywhere other than a rock > > concert. The paranoid version of this was 'Three Days of the > > Condor' (title a bit wrong maybe) - even when you get the truth to the > > New York Times you are still screwed because 'they' control that too. > > There are counter-examples in book and film, but these don't have wide > > appeal (years back we had 'A Very British Coup'). > > > In all likelihood, the 'CIA' (several organisations really) has > > penetrated our secret service in Europe and I guess our main political > > parties in the UK. It is fatuous to believe the Soviets could do this > > with their scarce resources and that the 'CIA' has not with a vast > > budget and much greater familiarity. The idea that we don't spy on > > friends is known to be a lie. This may sound like the kind of > > paranoia they say you can find in the asylum (I have always found > > 'nutters' to be very conservative in their fantasies - don't bother > > with the research, I wasn't an in-patient!). The real point here is > > that our systems of democracy (should we agree to write this > > """democracy""") are prone to abuse by money, vested interest, dynasty > > and foreign powers because of the way our parties are structured and > > our representatives elected. There is no evidence these are our 'best > > people' for the job and also plenty of room to contest whether we just > > want the 'best people' (for surely they will inevitably be a > > 'class'). Constitution change rhetoric always blows hard about > > different ways to produce the same old 'business as usual' types. > > > I have some ideas about means to ends that switch the focus from dirty > > dealing and the need for it. I ain't swooned by the same kind of > > sweet smiling drug and sex addicts that have got to Molly, but only > > because I don't like men. Shirley Williams, Lynne Featherstone (the > > MP active in forcing the Baby P enquiry), Barbara Castle - now they > > smiled sweetly. So did Harriet Harmon, but she is clearly a dolt > > these days. I have changed - the very kind of socialist smile in a > > woman that would once get me walking a million miles just hits at > > points of total revulsion in me. What's got me thinking is the notion > > we don't need MPs, senators and the rest to have politics and > > democracy and they may well be in the way of it. > > > On 31 Aug, 14:07, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I have to go with Rigsy and Francis on this one. Casting our > > > conscientious votes is only one way for us to participate in our > > > larger communities - there are thousands available to us. We can sit > > > back and talk about the problems we see (thus bringing more of them > > > into our experience,) blame others, question motives etc,. but that > > > really doesn't do anything but isolate us further. Taking that first > > > step, say into public service, thinking and feeling in ways that > > > express our fraternity or connection will again, bring more of that > > > into individual and collective experience. We each must take > > > responsibility for ourselves and the whole, and visa versa. It begins > > > with each of us. No one is going to do it for us. > > > > There has been a great deal of air time to the Kennedy family and > > > their devotion to public service, especially Ted, who had a hand in > > > every US program that aids and equalizes opportunities for people it > > > seems. The Kennedy's are human, they fall and are redeemed before our > > > eyes. But they are not afraid to step into the thick of it, as Jack > > > did, inheriting the cold war with the bully Kruchev and going public > > > with the Cuban crisis, trying to unwrangle and warm things up. Jack, > > > Robert and Ted, it seems to me, never lost sight of the fact that we > > > are all connected, that any US hunger is hunger for all of us, each > > > success is success for all of us. It has been inspiring to watch this > > > family over the years because each of these men and many others in the > > > family have been golden examples of what it means to actually love > > > humanity. Not saying so to be polite or posture, but actually love > > > humanity...to be willing to get into the trenches like Neil and > > > negotiate and work hard with what is available to help people, get > > > your hands dirty, ease suffering, and lead others into hope and > > > brotherhood. It is not surprising to me that these three Kennedy's > > > were able to move so many people together into hope for a better > > > tomorrow, they believed that vision of tomorrow is possible today, and > > > people followed. It doesn't mean they weren't human, we all are. It > > > doesn't mean they didn't make mistakes, we all do. It means they > > > lived as if we are all connected, and what they did, thought and felt > > > effected everyone in the country and the world - and they showed us > > > that this is so. > > > > On Aug 31, 7:24 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > We get the system(s) we have allowed to exist so we are part of the > > > > problem. > > > > > On Aug 30, 11:37 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > “…The US electorate decided in 2002, 2004 and 2006 not to give them > > > > > practical majorities…” – fran > > > > > > Well, it might appear to be the case to many fran. And, knowing that > > > > > voting fraud is as old as voting is, I still will provide one list of > > > > > issues when it comes to the black box. > > > > > >http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/1954.html > > > > > > Here is another. I no longer wear rose colored glasses when it comes > > > > > to the veracity of vote tallies. > > > > > >http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/8.html > > > > > > For those who care about election results and wish to get any sleep at > > > > > night, > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
