The imposition on others is a key element rigs. Here I think there are connections between mad types like Hitler, Mao, Stalin (and others) and what banksters do in, say, targeting the New Zealand currency for a fast buck or the whole of the USD system (once UK manipulations of gold standard - Boer War on) and the 'globalisation' that actually centralises resources in few hands. It may be that such power is necessary, but I don't see how we can have sensible dialogue without considering it. Most of us just want a fair system that broadly we can leave alone so we can get on with out lives. I often think we have descended to the kind of position that led to the two world wars and don't understand just how little freedom we have.We aren't even addressing population control - many of the real issues have a rather odious control feeling to them. Ignoring them or excluding them from the network of our dialogue is probably more dangerous than trying to sensibly address them.
For years in the UK we had a character playing a highly public role as everyone's uncle - Jimmy Saville - and he has turned out to have committed 200 series sex crimes in schools and hospitals. I think economics and the financial system is doing something as corrupt as this. Even worse the cursed Maxwell has chewed a baseball given to me after a slugfest game 40 years ago! Some things are trivial and to be shrugged off - others need much more serious consideration. Even preventing horrible cretins like Saville has some results we don't want and imposes constraints on the rest of us. Freedom is both freedom from and freedom to at the same time. We face a kind of global 'tragedy of the commons'. The facts seem beyond us - even global warming is contested - and on some reading the near-term consequence is a rise in sea levels that will temporarily make the weather colder and storms fiercer. Argument seems to go on like wager of law and old English custom where you won by bribing more witnesses than the opposition. We might call this wager of citation. What we lack is trustworthy investigation and a way to dismiss much of the argument from any side as merely consistent with assumptions made - paradigms almost in the rote sense in which we did French verbs - sophism in short. Much so-called journalism simply presents goons peddling a limited set of interests between them. I don't know what my technology to change this would be - but I have some ideas. On Jan 11, 1:35 am, rigs <[email protected]> wrote: > You need a massive movement to achieve any results and I don't see > this happening easily. And I think Ghandi used some tactic with cotten > trade (?), went on a hunger strike for publicity and caught Britain at > a low moment in their empire. 30% of all food is wasted each year. The > Security Council boasts the world's major arms dealers. Our technology > is only as wise/good as the programmers and sets the objectives beyond > personal control. The culture urges and rewards wealth, accumulation > and power. Even organic foods are a snob item. One can try to set an > example but it's another matter to impose it on others. But, you are > right, one's wallet is a place to start. > > On Jan 9, 11:11 am, andrew vecsey <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The wallet can be the technology/weapon that can destroy who ever is > > running the world. Stop buying brainwashing junk movies. Stop watching > > these movies or programs if it is offered for free and paid for by > > advertisements. Stop shopping in supermarkets, stop buying genetic modified > > food, stop playing the game. This approach is similar to passive resistance > > used by Gandhi. > > > On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 4:16:47 PM UTC+1, archytas wrote: > > > > The human world is in a mess. It's hard to express what is going on. > > > My guess is we are being ruled by a small, unelected, hidden politburo > > > we could call banksters. I take this as metaphor, much as I would the > > > notion the rulers are alien lizards. I also guess they have skewed > > > any dialogue we have to make it very difficult to identify the real > > > problem we face through argument. This is more or less a 'Dr Who' > > > predicament, though I suspect it is the real one we face. > > > > Those of us who are democrats (small d) know the answer. We want a > > > human world at peace and our institutions based on real democracy with > > > government as unobtrusive as possible in the lives of reasonable > > > individuals. This, sadly, is the easy bit. Even something as easy as > > > this is potentially totalising and fascist. > > > > Much, of course, has been written on this, and my conclusion is this > > > can't be helping much. My own country, Britain, has made some kind of > > > decision to give up empire, but we clearly cling to the coat-tails of > > > the USA through the dupes or war criminals we elect - or who know a > > > secret case not made to us that justifies war and other rotten > > > policies. If I was capable of listing all the literature I've read on > > > this matter I wouldn't finish until sometime after a week tomorrow and > > > I'm by no means a specialist. Even if the democratic parts of this > > > literature is right, it doesn't convince me of any course of action, > > > as almost none of it explains how we might lay down the arms of the US > > > umbrella without giving up to something worse or simply as bad run by > > > people less favourable to my ethnicity. > > > > My belief is we must change what dialogue and argument are to address > > > a move to real, global democracy. We have new technology that would > > > allow this, but currently it is being subsumed into the skewed form > > > that has allowed domination through the ages. It could be that this > > > technology would tell us we need the American Empire. I rather hope > > > it would rather be a call to democratic arms and very substantial > > > changes in what we do and can be. Any suggestions as to what this > > > technology is or would be?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --
