what is it you want Gabby? Allan On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 4:50 PM, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. >> >> >> > -- ( ) |_D Allan Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
