Dawn. The Golden Dawn. In between light and darkness there is The Golden Dawn. And the question is: Who is going to own our future generations. The Scandinavians have already bought a lot of our houses ...
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > when a person gets looking at trust money it gets very scary when you look > at them from the long term.. example in dollars because the symbol is on > my computer > > $1,000.oo 3% interest added annually > for > 50 years value will be $ 4,383.91 > 100 years value will be $ 19.2818. 63 > Now what gets scary is this. leave the same $1,000.oo in for;; > ready > 500 years. value will be $ 2,621,877,234.-- > > Now that is some serious money even I can come up with that thousand in > cash.. > > Indecently that is why there are laws against perpetual trusts... (",) > > to prevent major universities from extreme wealth.. > > but that would not keep a ?Secret? society from doing it.... ah the secret > society of "The Golden Calf." > It is shear madness.. but easily do able when you look in the long term.. > now just look at adding several zeros to the original 1,000 and see what > happens.. > which countries do we want our future generations to Own?? > Allan > > > On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 3:34 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I agree most of that Allan. We could have banks small enough to >> compete for our business with very little regulation. On the current >> banks - it's doubtful many are really worth anything. >> >> On Oct 22, 1:45 pm, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Back to what I was saying,, I see a society today including bankerism >> that >> > is based an economy based off debt.. As I see it a trust that could be >> set >> > up that (actually split as to not draw attention) it could be used to >> help >> > people, I am thinking about a small economy strictly toursit based >> where >> > it could be used to help people doing things like develop wind >> generators >> > then selling the power to pay for themselves and at the same time grow >> the >> > fund.. other things like building vertical green houses for supplying >> > food to make sure every one ate.. >> > >> > I do not think charity is a way to go,, but the process of growing a >> > business designed to help people is not to bad.. it can get into >> things >> > like the skycat and transporting goods across oceans to pay for >> themselves >> > and grow the trust,, when it came to times like the big earth quakes >> and >> > natural disasters,, where the could be actually flown into >> > the disaster areas to supply aid directly .. helping to keep it out of >> > the corruption cycle. >> > >> > As the trust fund{s} grew they could actually buy out the greed banks >> stock >> > taking them over.. ending the cycle that way.. >> > >> > Transferring the economy from a debt economy to a stable debt free >> > economy.. you will be well on your way to ending Bankerism.. It can be >> > done simple because they are based on debt,, remember a share actually >> sez >> > they owe you money.. >> > >> > Allan >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 10:24 AM, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > Thank you for the ideas Neil,, I for one actually believe ?bankerism? >> can >> > > be controlled but not necessarily with regulations.. It is well known >> and I >> > > think it was discussed here on the financial power of the trust fund >> > > especially non-expiring ones,, to the point that they are regulated >> by >> > > the government requiring them to spend the interest.. I have to run >> I >> > > will get back to this when I return.. >> > > Allan >> > >> > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:37 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> My guess is that modern rationality starts with Descartes - though he >> > >> doesn't provide a template, just some ground we can get into the >> > >> issues through. The great warnings to us on 'solutions' is real >> > >> history and the failure of Germany as the most cultured and >> scientific >> > >> nation culminating in "Hitler" - the lesson being so-called triumphs >> > >> in rationality, science and culture are dreadful fantasies. I would >> > >> hope in this that German friends would not see any blaming in this - >> > >> the culpability is wider-set in imperialism and our still stupid >> > >> notions of leadership. In intellectual terms we are supposedly in >> > >> postmoderism (really read that and weep in a different way from >> > >> Gabby's sonnet). The crisis is one of legitimation and the need for >> > >> an incredulous stance towards grand narratives like religion and the >> > >> 'wealth creation' espoused in the status quo of oligarchy (rather >> than >> > >> competitive capitalism). >> > >> > >> I'd say the big issue is dishonesty and the ease with which we >> swallow >> > >> chronic lies whole as the facts stand up against them. The idiocy is >> > >> in demanding paragons of virtue in politics. Honesty is not so >> easily >> > >> produced. As a population we remain crudely ignorant and politicians >> > >> can rely on this. I can prove over and again that voters don't know >> > >> what they vote for - the result being my regard as a smartarse, >> > >> "commie" or whatever suits. We get bogged down by popular opinion >> > >> (Idols in Bacon) and inane rationalist fantasies as to whether god >> > >> exists or not to which there is only 'answer' in sentient (Hume). We >> > >> rightly point to failures in communism whilst failing to spot we have >> > >> already been carried away in the anti-communism (even anti-democratic >> > >> management - see the use of the UnAmerican stuff against quite mild >> > >> adherents of such) that drives our resources into the hands of a tiny >> > >> few, leaving even 1 in 5 Americans poor etc. and wars all over -let >> > >> alone poverty through massive over-breeding and climate change. >> > >> > >> The answer is a massive change in our ways, including >> world-government >> > >> - but the rub here is this can't involve the kind of people doing >> > >> politics at the whim of banksterism and it does mean not allowing >> > >> 'riches' as currently conceived, which many think 'fair' owing to >> > >> propaganda. The statement on population ignorance itself needs >> review >> > >> as it can't itself be just another bid for leadership and power. On >> > >> the odd occasion I do chemistry for schoolkids I do experiments that >> > >> go bang, flash light and then a tame one in which heating Lead >> > >> Carbonate turns it yellow before it melts. The kids rarely >> understand >> > >> (which isn't the point). Teaching economics is much the same in >> > >> result - most end up with no clue and would need to be in intensive >> > >> educational care to get a grok. I am much more confident in my >> > >> scientific prognostications than on those of how we should live and a >> > >> viable economics. Yet the world of science is much less >> authoritarian >> > >> than that of public opinion, despite the techniques being much more >> > >> reliable. If you don't want to listen properly on how to make,say, >> > >> gunpowder - then you're free to blow your hands off. Yet how do I >> > >> tell anyone not to have children in excess? Recruit Indira Gandhi? >> > >> How do we get work done - sit around drinking tea voting? >> > >> > >> The basic idea is often to get everyone up to western standards - yet >> > >> what 'standard' do we offer? Planet burning firsts? A model that >> has >> > >> always favoured a few rich with a minor blip after WW2 and is as >> debt- >> > >> ridden as ancient Mesopotamia? A big part of the answer is the >> > >> setting up of complex regulation that prevents undue power accretion. >> > >> The human tendency in this is towards bureaucracy and that runs into >> n >> > >> iron cage (Weber). I believe computing offers new avenues -but we'd >> > >> have to guard against this being perverted in the usual ways. The >> key >> > >> roadblock is world peace and not believing we could have it and the >> > >> daft assumption just laying down our 'guns' would produce it. >> > >> > >> There's a massive literature that could help - the problem being few >> > >> read and would even watch if our media could summarise it. Should I >> > >> issue a bibliography? This doesn't even work at university. >> > >> > >> The first solution is getting resources into individual and >> collective >> > >> control with banking as a utility (rather than designed to steal them >> > >> as happens now even with micro-credit). This itself should produce >> > >> enough argument to fill several books - but watch this space. The >> > >> move is broadly capitalist but anti-oligarchy pro-democracy in the >> > >> sense of (Popper's) control of those allocated 'power'. Questions >> > >> immediately arise as to what is not allowable - like a bunch of >> > >> Taliban mistreating women and trying to build an H-bomb or burning >> > >> coal for the hell of it. >> > >> > >> To see this as other than 'castle-in-the-air' one needs an >> > >> understanding of social economics and the mad stuff of the mainstream >> > >> and what its results are. This requires a lot of negation -something >> > >> widely perceived (still, long after science) perceived as negative >> > >> because of Idols. Rigsy started a thread on Freud in which this and >> > >> the paranoid-schizoid and 'depressive' positions could have been >> > >> explored. This level of intellectualism can even lead to 'academic >> > >> bullying' claims in universities in these dumbed-down days. A good >> > >> start would be Naomi Klein's 'Shock Doctrine' would be a start, but >> > >> only a start (you can get it on Movshare and the like). >> > >> > >> I'm much more positive than most people I know in spirit, from >> running >> > >> myself into the ground and desperate tackles to trying new stuff. >> One >> > >> meets this negative stuff everywhere from underperforming sports >> teams >> > >> to simple changes like not buying vastly over priced ink and toner >> and >> > >> getting advice from the data protection officer that means don't put >> > >> anything on your project website. The 'highly positive', of course >> > >> ain't going through the Pillars of Hercules because they'll fall off >> > >> the edge. The positive question is nearly always 'what junk are we >> in >> > >> thrall to now' - what is today's "flat earth theory". The big >> > >> challenge isn't ignorance but incompetence even to the point of not >> > >> recognising one's own. The arguments many think they take part in are >> > >> carefully structured inside highly parochial propaganda (Idols). >> > >> Rather than learning through gleaning the facts, most people just >> > >> reinforce there dullard positions - this means you (or me if I don't >> > >> check myself). >> > >> > >> Most, even in this group,lack enough knowledge to have more than mere >> > >> opinion, whether on how to make TNT or understand what the banking >> > >> crisis is. Much of what I say won't work would not be negative if >> you >> > >> knew more, but seen as pointing to reasons for radical change. >> > >> Classic moves include atheism meaning I must lack morality or am not >> > >> open-minded about god possibilities - you know the form. With, say, >> > >> nitroglycerin manufacture you can leave it to me (at a safe distance) >> > >> - but why are we generally so reluctant to learn what is available on >> > >> ideological and economic-practical issues? What model of the >> positive >> > >> do you guys work with - Mollyarian letting fear slip away (which is >> > >> complex in her elaborations, not barking), how would you get across a >> > >> street under fire (the answer is you don't unless there is no >> > >> alternative) - how do you assess what is negative? >> > >> > >> Many of the issues discussed in groups like this are deeply >> > >> constrained because most people don't study and have false views on >> > >> fact. I see this as key in developing 'democracy' - I'm >> anti-democrat >> > >> in the same terms as Joseph Heller's lovely book - but how many have >> > >> read it and would recognise I'm not being negative but asking for a >> > >> review of the ideas and practices for better, wider control of >> > >> authority and how we might achieve it? Try making nitro by just >> > >> bunging the constituents >> > >> > ... >> > >> > read more ยป > > > > > -- > ( > ) > |_D Allan > > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living. > > >
