I haven't decided yet between wanting to understand and saving the world from all the idiots around me.
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > >
