Re: A scary theory about IS

[Telmo Menezes]

On Sun, Sep 27, 2015 at 10:24 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 9/27/2015 12:55 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Bruno, it seems I cannot shake you out from the 'classical' format that
>  -WHOEVER (Nominative, not: "whomever" which is Accusative) *lies*
> himself into getting the (questionable?) majority of the voting population
> (and THEN can do WHATEVER his interest dictates - in the name of such
> majority  - )
> means *D E M O C R A C Y *.  NO, it does not. You may call it a
> distortion, or any political malaise, but democracy (the cratos of the
> demos) is the rule of the (entire) population, not a select majority only,
> leaving any size of minority suppressed in the system.
> It is not timely, to implement such system in our (ongoing) World. - So be
> it. - I try to keep the vocabulary clean and do not compromise for ongoing
> corruptions.
>
>
> That's not even a system.  Rule by the entire population would require the
> entire population to agree on rules.  As Lyndon Johnson once said, "If two
> people agree on everything only one of them is doing the thinking."  A
> democracy necessarily must have some way of deciding rules that people do
> not all agree on.  Majority vote seem to be the only workable one; although
> there are many variants to deal with multiple choices (plurality, ranking,
> run-offs...).  The way to avoid suppression of minorities is to limit the
> range of action of the government.  Define individual rights which are
> beyond the reach of majority vote.
>

Right, but who does the suppressing? The common approach in the West seems
to be to have a constitution, that we respect for historical reasons and
make very hard to change. So, at this level, there's democracy with a lot
of drag built into the system, so that brash decisions and appealing to the
sensibilities of a narrow point in time is almost impossible.

In practice, this has been hacked. The trick is not to change the
constitution but to re-interpret it or just operate in secret.

The first trick grants immense power to special courts and a very small
priesthood, that gets to decide that words mean the opposite of what we
thought they meant.

The second trick is executed under our noses, through "trade agreements".
We are in the midst of the largest of such attempts, TTIP. Trade agreements
essentially work like this: your democracy can decide whatever it wants,
but my corporation can then go to an arbitration "court" and sue for loss
of profits. Guess who these arbitrators are? Layers from the same top layer
firms that big corporations employ. Mainstream media mostly does not report
on this (naturally, they are owned by the same corporations), Of course
these trade agreements are illegal in light of the constitution of most
countries, but there is really little we can do about it except going to
demonstrations and perhaps telling more people about them.

Check this talk if you're interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fDCbf4O-0s

Best,
Telmo.


>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A scary theory about IS

[Bruno Marchal]

On 27 Sep 2015, at 21:55, John Mikes wrote:

Bruno, it seems I cannot shake you out from the 'classical' format  
that  -WHOEVER (Nominative, not: "whomever" which is Accusative)  
lies himself into getting the (questionable?) majority of the voting  
population (and THEN can do WHATEVER his interest dictates - in the  
name of such majority  - )
means D E M O C R A C Y .  NO, it does not. You may call it a  
distortion, or any political malaise, but democracy (the cratos of  
the demos) is the rule of the (entire) population, not a select  
majority only, leaving any size of minority suppressed in the system.
It is not timely, to implement such system in our (ongoing) World. -  
So be it. - I try to keep the vocabulary clean and do not compromise  
for ongoing corruptions.



Well, we have just different definition. I can agree that voting is  
not equal to "cratos of the demos", but I have no clear understanding  
of what that would mean. Usually the demos ask for soccer game, and  
some bread, and I do see that in working democracy most people get  
what they want: that is games and bread.
I also agree that this is the case in working democracy, but that like  
any living system, it can get sick and corrputed, allowing a minority  
to steal the people.

I defend democracy as a pragmatist.






Religious authoritarian systems are not apt for a democratic  
instalment,


Absolutely.




unless every member of the society is equally devout to that religion.


If that is the case, democracy is still harder to install. It is  
easier to instal a deocracy when there is already a form of pluralism,  
and when people already understand that others can think differently.  
If they have all the same brainwashing, there is just no way to get a  
democracy. Democracy needs to separate the state from religion.






 (I don't mean the 'IS' method: to cut off the heads of all the  
infidels).


An example of the efficiency of the ongoing voting technique: We  
changed domicile (State) before election, so we could not vote. We  
wanted to vote for candidate A and in the new state candidate B got  
the majority of votes. We were not upset, because in the nationwide  
election candidate A became the president anyway. Our vote - if cast  
- would have been wasted, yet efficient.



Democracy is only only the beginning of the mean for an end, not the  
end itself. The real question for me is how to improve it. How to add  
the regulation system allowing the main powers to be efficaciously  
separated. Is bipartism to be prefered? proportional voting? Should  
everyone vote? etc.

Without voting, you get quickly the will of the most violent.

Best,

Bruno




On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 23 Sep 2015, at 21:24, Brent Meeker wrote:



On 9/23/2015 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 22 Sep 2015, at 23:55, John Mikes wrote:

Bruno, I am at a loss with your explanation. I lived the active  
first 50 years of my life in Europe and never heard about such  
'liberalism' (for a short time was even connected to the Hungarian  
Liberal Democratic Party).


In my counntry the right party has the name "parti libéral", for  
example. Liberal means "open to free markets".

May be that is only in West Europa.


"Liberal" was in no connection with right/wrong, or even right/left,  
only pointed to some freedom of action in the political arena. And  
the other thing:


Democracy IMO is an oxymoron, the full "demos" cannot exercise it's  
full "cratos" for ruling,



Democracy means, for me, presence of election. It can be partial,  
like in the beginning where woman did not have the right to vote, or  
like in the antic greece were election was for the educated class,  
and not for slaves, or it is "universal", meaning everyone can vote.  
In some country it is "everyone *must* vote (in Belgium election are  
obligatory).


Then a democracy can be corrupted, and/or under the influence of  
corporatism, and/or sick etc. Democracy is not the final state of  
politics, it is the prerequisite of having a representative  
politics. If the main powers (mainly justice and press) are not  
independent, a democracy can be de facto a tyranny disguised into  
democracy. I think that is the case today (since prohibition).


It is the like the Islamic bill or right, which is a copy of the  
universal definition except that they have added "as long as it  
verifies the Charia" for each principle (which of course changes the  
very idea). The same with Obama who signed a text which respect the  
human right except for a category or people, but something have to  
be universal to make sense. The human right applies to all humans,  
or there is no more human right at all.



Democracy is necessary but not sufficient for good government.

I agree.


Supposing that democracy is enough was the mistake of George W. Bush  
and the neo-conservatives.


That mistake, but also the mistake that we can impose 

Re: A scary theory about IS

[Brent Meeker]

On 9/27/2015 12:55 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno, it seems I cannot shake you out from the 'classical' format 
that  -WHOEVER (Nominative, not: "whomever" which is Accusative) 
*lies* himself into getting the (questionable?) majority of the voting 
population (and THEN can do WHATEVER his interest dictates - in the 
name of such majority  - )
means /D E M O C R A C Y /. NO, it does not. You may call it a 
distortion, or any political malaise, but democracy (the cratos of the 
demos) is the rule of the (entire) population, not a select majority 
only, leaving any size of minority suppressed in the system.
It is not timely, to implement such system in our (ongoing) World. - 
So be it. - I try to keep the vocabulary clean and do not compromise 
for ongoing corruptions.


That's not even a system.  Rule by the entire population would require 
the entire population to agree on rules.  As Lyndon Johnson once said, 
"If two people agree on everything only one of them is doing the 
thinking."  A democracy necessarily must have some way of deciding rules 
that people do not all agree on.  Majority vote seem to be the only 
workable one; although there are many variants to deal with multiple 
choices (plurality, ranking, run-offs...).  The way to avoid suppression 
of minorities is to limit the range of action of the government.  Define 
individual rights which are beyond the reach of majority vote.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A scary theory about IS

[John Mikes]

Bruno, it seems I cannot shake you out from the 'classical' format that
 -WHOEVER (Nominative, not: "whomever" which is Accusative) *lies* himself
into getting the (questionable?) majority of the voting population (and
THEN can do WHATEVER his interest dictates - in the name of such majority
 - )
means *D E M O C R A C Y *.  NO, it does not. You may call it a distortion,
or any political malaise, but democracy (the cratos of the demos) is the
rule of the (entire) population, not a select majority only, leaving any
size of minority suppressed in the system.
It is not timely, to implement such system in our (ongoing) World. - So be
it. - I try to keep the vocabulary clean and do not compromise for ongoing
corruptions.

Religious authoritarian systems are not apt for a democratic instalment,
unless *every member* of the society is equally devout to that religion.
 (I don't mean the 'IS' method: to cut off the heads of all the infidels).

An example of the efficiency of the ongoing voting technique: We changed
domicile (State) before election, so we could not vote. We wanted to vote
for candidate* A* and in the new state candidate* B* got the majority of
votes. We were not upset, because in the nationwide election candidate *A*
became the president anyway. Our vote - if cast - would have been wasted, *yet
efficient*.

Regards

John M



On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 23 Sep 2015, at 21:24, Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
>>
>> On 9/23/2015 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 22 Sep 2015, at 23:55, John Mikes wrote:
>>>
>>> Bruno, I am at a loss with your explanation. I lived the active first 50
 years of my life in Europe and never heard about such 'liberalism' (for a
 short time was even connected to the Hungarian Liberal Democratic Party).

>>>
>>> In my counntry the right party has the name "parti libéral", for
>>> example. Liberal means "open to free markets".
>>> May be that is only in West Europa.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Liberal" was in no connection with right/wrong, or even right/left,
 only pointed to some freedom of action in the political arena. And the
 other thing:

 Democracy IMO is an oxymoron, the full "demos" cannot exercise it's
 full "cratos" for ruling,

>>>
>>>
>>> Democracy means, for me, presence of election. It can be partial, like
>>> in the beginning where woman did not have the right to vote, or like in the
>>> antic greece were election was for the educated class, and not for slaves,
>>> or it is "universal", meaning everyone can vote. In some country it is
>>> "everyone *must* vote (in Belgium election are obligatory).
>>>
>>> Then a democracy can be corrupted, and/or under the influence of
>>> corporatism, and/or sick etc. Democracy is not the final state of politics,
>>> it is the prerequisite of having a representative politics. If the main
>>> powers (mainly justice and press) are not independent, a democracy can be
>>> de facto a tyranny disguised into democracy. I think that is the case today
>>> (since prohibition).
>>>
>>> It is the like the Islamic bill or right, which is a copy of the
>>> universal definition except that they have added "as long as it verifies
>>> the Charia" for each principle (which of course changes the very idea). The
>>> same with Obama who signed a text which respect the human right except for
>>> a category or people, but something have to be universal to make sense. The
>>> human right applies to all humans, or there is no more human right at all.
>>>
>>>
>> Democracy is necessary but not sufficient for good government.
>>
>
> I agree.
>
>
> Supposing that democracy is enough was the mistake of George W. Bush and
>> the neo-conservatives.
>>
>
> That mistake, but also the mistake that we can impose democracy to others,
> or the even more naïve idea that by eliminating a dictator will make people
> opting for a democracy.
>
> A democracy needs a lot of generation of thinking people.
>
> And just one generation of people can make it disappear, or weakened so
> much that it "stays" as a democracy only for a part of the population.
>
>
>
>
>  They thought that if we just held elections in Iraq all would be well.
>> But there must be limitations on government, constitutional restraints and
>> traditional restraints.  Otherwise whomever has the majority assumes that
>> democracy means they can oppress the minority.
>>
>
> The case of Egypt is quite remarkable in that respect. They made a
> successful revolution to set back a military dictatorship. They succeeded
> in making a democracy, that is, organizing election. They vote for the
> Muslim Brotherhood, and when they realized the Muslim Brotherhood was
> killing the democracy and imposing a religious dictatorship, the people
> made a second revolution to re-install the military dictatorship, and even
> to fight the Muslim Brotherhood (courtized and encouraged by Obama, by the
> way). They have understood that a secular 

Re: A scary theory about IS

[Bruno Marchal]

On 23 Sep 2015, at 21:24, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 9/23/2015 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 22 Sep 2015, at 23:55, John Mikes wrote:

Bruno, I am at a loss with your explanation. I lived the active  
first 50 years of my life in Europe and never heard about such  
'liberalism' (for a short time was even connected to the Hungarian  
Liberal Democratic Party).


In my counntry the right party has the name "parti libéral", for  
example. Liberal means "open to free markets".

May be that is only in West Europa.


"Liberal" was in no connection with right/wrong, or even right/ 
left, only pointed to some freedom of action in the political  
arena. And the other thing:


Democracy IMO is an oxymoron, the full "demos" cannot exercise  
it's full "cratos" for ruling,



Democracy means, for me, presence of election. It can be partial,  
like in the beginning where woman did not have the right to vote,  
or like in the antic greece were election was for the educated  
class, and not for slaves, or it is "universal", meaning everyone  
can vote. In some country it is "everyone *must* vote (in Belgium  
election are obligatory).


Then a democracy can be corrupted, and/or under the influence of  
corporatism, and/or sick etc. Democracy is not the final state of  
politics, it is the prerequisite of having a representative  
politics. If the main powers (mainly justice and press) are not  
independent, a democracy can be de facto a tyranny disguised into  
democracy. I think that is the case today (since prohibition).


It is the like the Islamic bill or right, which is a copy of the  
universal definition except that they have added "as long as it  
verifies the Charia" for each principle (which of course changes  
the very idea). The same with Obama who signed a text which respect  
the human right except for a category or people, but something have  
to be universal to make sense. The human right applies to all  
humans, or there is no more human right at all.




Democracy is necessary but not sufficient for good government.


I agree.


Supposing that democracy is enough was the mistake of George W. Bush  
and the neo-conservatives.


That mistake, but also the mistake that we can impose democracy to  
others, or the even more naïve idea that by eliminating a dictator  
will make people opting for a democracy.


A democracy needs a lot of generation of thinking people.

And just one generation of people can make it disappear, or weakened  
so much that it "stays" as a democracy only for a part of the  
population.





 They thought that if we just held elections in Iraq all would be  
well.  But there must be limitations on government, constitutional  
restraints and traditional restraints.  Otherwise whomever has the  
majority assumes that democracy means they can oppress the minority.


The case of Egypt is quite remarkable in that respect. They made a  
successful revolution to set back a military dictatorship. They  
succeeded in making a democracy, that is, organizing election. They  
vote for the Muslim Brotherhood, and when they realized the Muslim  
Brotherhood was killing the democracy and imposing a religious  
dictatorship, the people made a second revolution to re-install the  
military dictatorship, and even to fight the Muslim Brotherhood  
(courtized and encouraged by Obama, by the way). They have understood  
that a secular military dictatorship is far better than a religious  
dictatorship. Somehow, they understood they were not ready for  
democracy. too much people still believe that they know the truth and  
impose it to others.
That was a bit of a relief, and it is sad this occurred only in Egypt  
although in Tunisia some bit of reason to hope remains.












becuase every person has different aims, goals, interests, etc.  
Those, who call a "majority-rule" a democracy are establishing a  
minority whose interests are trampled down by the so called  
"majority" which is not even so sure, to BE a majority indeed.  
Voting is cheating, candidates LIE in the campaign and the voters  
compromise their (real?) interests for the least controversial  
lies. What is even worse: the "elected" persons don't even follow  
their own lies later on in practice. They go after their  
(untold???) interest. Impeachment is difficult.


Yes, but that is because our democracies are sick. It is not  
because a car is broken that a car is not supposed to be driven.


And I wish the minority having no power, but a problem with more  
than two parties is that the minority can have tremendous infuence.  
Indeed the minority will often makes the difference when the  
majorities disagree. But the french Condorcet has already studied  
the impossibility of satisfying everybody by a voting procedure,  
and democracies can evolve, and we can change the rules, ... unless  
the system has been corrupted.


It is not because we can die of cancer that we are not alive. It is  
the same with democracy, they 

Re: A scary theory about IS

[Bruno Marchal]

On 23 Sep 2015, at 01:18, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 9/22/2015 2:55 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno, I am at a loss with your explanation. I lived the active  
first 50 years of my life in Europe and never heard about such  
'liberalism' (for a short time was even connected to the Hungarian  
Liberal Democratic Party).
"Liberal" was in no connection with right/wrong, or even right/ 
left, only pointed to some freedom of action in the political  
arena. And the other thing:


Democracy IMO is an oxymoron, the full "demos" cannot exercise it's  
full "cratos" for ruling, becuase every person has different aims,  
goals, interests, etc. Those, who call a "majority-rule" a  
democracy are establishing a minority whose interests are trampled  
down by the so called "majority" which is not even so sure, to BE a  
majority indeed. Voting is cheating, candidates LIE in the campaign  
and the voters compromise their (real?) interests for the least  
controversial lies. What is even worse: the "elected" persons don't  
even follow their own lies later on in practice. They go after  
their (untold???) interest. Impeachment is difficult.


One word about 'capitalism' - with a caveat not to fall into  
Marxist traps:
it is the open exploitation of the power of wealth over the have- 
nots, be it by employment, marketing, or production policy. Not the  
"haves" - mind you, but the oligarchs, super-wealthy owners,  
political donors, etc. etc. established since Adam Smith. Growth is  
NOT maintainable with the limited resources existing. And a

(cut-throat?) Competition as life? thanks, but no thanks. .
Do you mean cooperative and collaborating goodwilling people dead?


Capitalism is the use of money to make more money.


OK. In fact the number e (2.71828...) has been discovered when Neper  
discovered how money tend to grow once we let a market free. Bank are  
then institution in which people can let grow the money without taking  
action, (which are supposed to be done by the bankers). It reflects  
that money can be used to invest in things which will bring back more  
money. The laws is a simple self-bootstrapping type of differential  
equation: dC = KCdt, and so C = Ke^Bt, with B a parameter depending on  
the economical situation. That entails grows and expansion, but that  
is already the case with self-dividing amoeba, and the fact that the  
repeated mutiplications lead to exponentials.


This is natural, and unless a tyranny, cannot be avoided. But that  
does not mean that people are free to use money to lie and create huge  
amount of money based on lies. That is just stealing everyone.





 If you don't like it, what freedom will you take away to prevent  
investing money to make things of value and hence more money?  Who  
will decide on which freedoms will be forbidden?


Exactly. I am for universal allocation, but also for the free  
enterprise. But again, free enterprise does not mean enterprise freely  
based on deluding the population about their need. False advertising,  
like defamation, should be illegal and rather severely punished.


Bruno



Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A scary theory about IS

[Bruno Marchal]

On 22 Sep 2015, at 23:55, John Mikes wrote:

Bruno, I am at a loss with your explanation. I lived the active  
first 50 years of my life in Europe and never heard about such  
'liberalism' (for a short time was even connected to the Hungarian  
Liberal Democratic Party).


 In my counntry the right party has the name "parti libéral", for  
example. Liberal means "open to free markets".

May be that is only in West Europa.


"Liberal" was in no connection with right/wrong, or even right/left,  
only pointed to some freedom of action in the political arena. And  
the other thing:


Democracy IMO is an oxymoron, the full "demos" cannot exercise it's  
full "cratos" for ruling,



Democracy means, for me, presence of election. It can be partial, like  
in the beginning where woman did not have the right to vote, or like  
in the antic greece were election was for the educated class, and not  
for slaves, or it is "universal", meaning everyone can vote. In some  
country it is "everyone *must* vote (in Belgium election are  
obligatory).


Then a democracy can be corrupted, and/or under the influence of  
corporatism, and/or sick etc. Democracy is not the final state of  
politics, it is the prerequisite of having a representative politics.  
If the main powers (mainly justice and press) are not independent, a  
democracy can be de facto a tyranny disguised into democracy. I think  
that is the case today (since prohibition).


It is the like the Islamic bill or right, which is a copy of the  
universal definition except that they have added "as long as it  
verifies the Charia" for each principle (which of course changes the  
very idea). The same with Obama who signed a text which respect the  
human right except for a category or people, but something have to be  
universal to make sense. The human right applies to all humans, or  
there is no more human right at all.





becuase every person has different aims, goals, interests, etc.  
Those, who call a "majority-rule" a democracy are establishing a  
minority whose interests are trampled down by the so called  
"majority" which is not even so sure, to BE a majority indeed.  
Voting is cheating, candidates LIE in the campaign and the voters  
compromise their (real?) interests for the least controversial lies.  
What is even worse: the "elected" persons don't even follow their  
own lies later on in practice. They go after their (untold???)  
interest. Impeachment is difficult.


Yes, but that is because our democracies are sick. It is not because a  
car is broken that a car is not supposed to be driven.


And I wish the minority having no power, but a problem with more than  
two parties is that the minority can have tremendous infuence. Indeed  
the minority will often makes the difference when the majorities  
disagree. But the french Condorcet has already studied the  
impossibility of satisfying everybody by a voting procedure, and  
democracies can evolve, and we can change the rules, ... unless the  
system has been corrupted.


It is not because we can die of cancer that we are not alive. It is  
the same with democracy, they can get sick, and the election might no  
more represent what the people desire.
I am opposed to referendum and participative democracies, because this  
can give all the power to the media.





One word about 'capitalism' - with a caveat not to fall into Marxist  
traps:
it is the open exploitation of the power of wealth over the have- 
nots, be it by employment, marketing, or production policy. Not the  
"haves" - mind you, but the oligarchs, super-wealthy owners,  
political donors, etc. etc. established since Adam Smith.


I disagree, even if in practice, some facts can lead to the  
perversion. But the non-democratic ruling consist in putting the  
perversion right at the beginning. Free-market is a win-win game, when  
it is not perverted by a minority (like today). The rich needs, in  
that case, to enrich the poor, as they have interest to make the poor  
into clients. It works, in the sense that most democracies have much  
less people starving than tyrannies. Now, when the rich exploit the  
poor, it means that the democracy is not functioning.







Growth is NOT maintainable with the limited resources existing.


Computer science provides a non limited resources.




And a
(cut-throat?) Competition as life? thanks, but no thanks. .


I would defend the universal allocation, and the right of laziness,  
but for this, we have to be lucid and realist on the economical  
difficulties which can rise in that case.


I personally hate competition, but it is right, and without  
progressing in politics, instead of regressing, it is a necessity.





Do you mean cooperative and collaborating goodwilling people dead?


On the contrary, without a democracy, cooperation is quickly  
impossible. It leads to the ruling of the strongest, like with mafia.  
democracy, I think, is the main tool for cooperation. people do my  

Re: A scary theory about IS

[Brent Meeker]

On 9/23/2015 3:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 22 Sep 2015, at 23:55, John Mikes wrote:

Bruno, I am at a loss with your explanation. I lived the active first 
50 years of my life in Europe and never heard about such 'liberalism' 
(for a short time was even connected to the Hungarian Liberal 
Democratic Party).


 In my counntry the right party has the name "parti libéral", for 
example. Liberal means "open to free markets".

May be that is only in West Europa.


"Liberal" was in no connection with right/wrong, or even right/left, 
only pointed to some freedom of action in the political arena. And 
the other thing:


Democracy IMO is an oxymoron, the full "demos" cannot exercise it's 
full "cratos" for ruling,



Democracy means, for me, presence of election. It can be partial, like 
in the beginning where woman did not have the right to vote, or like 
in the antic greece were election was for the educated class, and not 
for slaves, or it is "universal", meaning everyone can vote. In some 
country it is "everyone *must* vote (in Belgium election are obligatory).


Then a democracy can be corrupted, and/or under the influence of 
corporatism, and/or sick etc. Democracy is not the final state of 
politics, it is the prerequisite of having a representative politics. 
If the main powers (mainly justice and press) are not independent, a 
democracy can be de facto a tyranny disguised into democracy. I think 
that is the case today (since prohibition).


It is the like the Islamic bill or right, which is a copy of the 
universal definition except that they have added "as long as it 
verifies the Charia" for each principle (which of course changes the 
very idea). The same with Obama who signed a text which respect the 
human right except for a category or people, but something have to be 
universal to make sense. The human right applies to all humans, or 
there is no more human right at all.




Democracy is necessary but not sufficient for good government. Supposing 
that democracy is enough was the mistake of George W. Bush and the 
neo-conservatives.   They thought that if we just held elections in Iraq 
all would be well.  But there must be limitations on government, 
constitutional restraints and traditional restraints.  Otherwise 
whomever has the majority assumes that democracy means they can oppress 
the minority.






becuase every person has different aims, goals, interests, etc. 
Those, who call a "majority-rule" a democracy are establishing a 
minority whose interests are trampled down by the so called 
"majority" which is not even so sure, to BE a majority indeed. Voting 
is cheating, candidates LIE in the campaign and the voters compromise 
their (real?) interests for the least controversial lies. What is 
even worse: the "elected" persons don't even follow their own lies 
later on in practice. They go after their (untold???) interest. 
Impeachment is difficult.


Yes, but that is because our democracies are sick. It is not because a 
car is broken that a car is not supposed to be driven.


And I wish the minority having no power, but a problem with more than 
two parties is that the minority can have tremendous infuence. Indeed 
the minority will often makes the difference when the majorities 
disagree. But the french Condorcet has already studied the 
impossibility of satisfying everybody by a voting procedure, and 
democracies can evolve, and we can change the rules, ... unless the 
system has been corrupted.


It is not because we can die of cancer that we are not alive. It is 
the same with democracy, they can get sick, and the election might no 
more represent what the people desire.
I am opposed to referendum and participative democracies, because this 
can give all the power to the media.





One word about 'capitalism' - with a caveat not to fall into Marxist 
traps:
it is the open exploitation of the power of wealth over the 
have-nots, be it by employment, marketing, or production policy. Not 
the "haves" - mind you, but the oligarchs, super-wealthy owners, 
political donors, etc. etc. established since Adam Smith.


I disagree, even if in practice, some facts can lead to the 
perversion. But the non-democratic ruling consist in putting the 
perversion right at the beginning. Free-market is a win-win game, when 
it is not perverted by a minority (like today). The rich needs, in 
that case, to enrich the poor, as they have interest to make the poor 
into clients. It works, in the sense that most democracies have much 
less people starving than tyrannies. Now, when the rich exploit the 
poor, it means that the democracy is not functioning.







Growth is NOT maintainable with the limited resources existing.


Computer science provides a non limited resources.




And a
(cut-throat?) Competition as life? thanks, but no thanks. .


I would defend the universal allocation, and the right of laziness, 
but for this, we have to be lucid and realist on the economical 
difficulties which 

Re: A scary theory about IS

[John Mikes]

Bruno, I am at a loss with your explanation. I lived the active first 50
years of my life in Europe and never heard about such 'liberalism' (for a
short time was even connected to the Hungarian Liberal Democratic Party).
"Liberal" was in no connection with right/wrong, or even right/left, only
pointed to some freedom of action in the political arena. And the other
thing:

Democracy IMO is an oxymoron, the full "demos" cannot exercise it's full
"cratos" for ruling, becuase every person has different aims, goals,
interests, etc. Those, who call a "majority-rule" a democracy are
establishing a minority whose interests are trampled down by the so called
"majority" which is not even so sure, to BE a majority indeed. Voting is
cheating, candidates LIE in the campaign and the voters compromise their
(real?) interests for the least controversial lies. What is even worse: the
"elected" persons don't even follow their own lies later on in practice.
They go after their (untold???) interest. Impeachment is difficult.

One word about 'capitalism' - with a caveat not to fall into Marxist traps:
it is the open exploitation of the power of wealth over the have-nots, be
it by employment, marketing, or production policy. Not the "haves" - mind
you, but the oligarchs, super-wealthy owners, political donors, etc. etc.
established since Adam Smith. Growth is NOT maintainable with the limited
resources existing. And a
(cut-throat?) Competition as life? thanks, but no thanks. .
Do you mean cooperative and collaborating goodwilling people dead?




On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 21 Sep 2015, at 22:49, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Bruno wrote.
> *That is capitalism, or equivalent. I don't use capitalism is the Marxist
> sense, but in the sense of european liberalism (liberal = right, in
> europa). The idea is that the state is limited in power as much as
> possible. Ideally, it might even disappear, or become itself competitive by
> allowing any human to choose the state, real or virtual, to live in (= to
> pay tax for)*.
>
> Capitalism (in Adam Smith's sense?) means FOr Profit, Growth, competition,
> etc.
>
>
> That is what I would call life.
>
>
> Liberalism comes from your langiage (Liberte' - freedom).
>
>
> Liberalism means "right" in Europa. It means that adults can sign (job)
> contracts to do things and are free to sell them to any adults, or kids if
> it is legal, without any or very few intervention of the state. This leads
> necessarily to grow, profit, competition. It is opposed to economy planned
> by a state, like it was in China and the ex-URSS where all companies were
> owned by the state. Today we have mafia, which is like an unregulated
> liberal economy, except that violence is used between the competitors for
> the market attribution.
>
> Democracy allows, in principle, to vote for the left when the country go
> too much on the right, and to vote for the right when the country go too
> much on the left. But this works only if the system is regulated by
> different powers which are kept well separated, which is not really the
> case today (the Press is rarely really independent, nor is Justice; even
> some academies are under the influence of non academical powers, usually of
> the type religious).
>
> Bruno
>
>
> JM
>
> On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 19 Sep 2015, at 21:16, John Mikes wrote:
>>
>> Bruno,
>> even before (your?) prohibition-S there was some capitalistic system in
>> the US,
>> leading to inequality and injustice in the economical status of the
>> population.
>> I am not talking Marxism.
>> The diverse prohibition-S (and other installments)  just made it worse.
>> The basic question is *"FREEDOM" *- in my terms: *no restrictions of
>> one's acting **decisions AS LONG as it doesnot hurt the 'freedom' of
>> others.*
>>
>>
>>
>> That is capitalism, or equivalent. I don't use capitalism is the Marxist
>> sense, but in the sense of european liberalism (liberal = right, in
>> europa). The idea is that the state is limited in power as much as
>> possible. Ideally, it might even disappear, or become itself competitive by
>> allowing any human to choose the state, real or virtual, to live in (= to
>> pay tax for).
>>
>>
>>
>> Within such all subchapters are viable.
>>
>>
>> We might agree, and have only vocabulary problem. If you defend freedom,
>> we are on the same political side.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> (About 'offer/demand': how local would you go with it? the neighbor's
>> demand may be high and drives up prices, while a local overproduction is
>> not even paying for
>> susistence of the workers. Global is not practical.)
>>
>>
>> Global is new, and we have to adapt and revise many things. But that
>> cannot be enforced: it needs good education and less lies.
>>
>> Prohibition must be stopped, like any violent crimes, but as you say, it
>> is not the deeper culprit, which is 1500 years of authoritative argument 

Re: A scary theory about IS

[Brent Meeker]

On 9/22/2015 2:55 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno, I am at a loss with your explanation. I lived the active first 
50 years of my life in Europe and never heard about such 'liberalism' 
(for a short time was even connected to the Hungarian Liberal 
Democratic Party).
"Liberal" was in no connection with right/wrong, or even right/left, 
only pointed to some freedom of action in the political arena. And the 
other thing:


Democracy IMO is an oxymoron, the full "demos" cannot exercise it's 
full "cratos" for ruling, becuase every person has different aims, 
goals, interests, etc. Those, who call a "majority-rule" a democracy 
are establishing a minority whose interests are trampled down by the 
so called "majority" which is not even so sure, to BE a majority 
indeed. Voting is cheating, candidates LIE in the campaign and the 
voters compromise their (real?) interests for the least controversial 
lies. What is even worse: the "elected" persons don't even follow 
their own lies later on in practice. They go after their (untold???) 
interest. Impeachment is difficult.


One word about 'capitalism' - with a caveat not to fall into Marxist 
traps:
it is the open exploitation of the power of wealth over the have-nots, 
be it by employment, marketing, or production policy. Not the "haves" 
- mind you, but the oligarchs, super-wealthy owners, political donors, 
etc. etc. established since Adam Smith. Growth is NOT maintainable 
with the limited resources existing. And a

(cut-throat?) Competition as life? thanks, but no thanks. .
Do you mean cooperative and collaborating goodwilling people dead?


Capitalism is the use of money to make more money.  If you don't like 
it, what freedom will you take away to prevent investing money to make 
things of value and hence more money?  Who will decide on which freedoms 
will be forbidden?


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A scary theory about IS

[Bruno Marchal]

On 21 Sep 2015, at 22:49, John Mikes wrote:


Bruno wrote.
That is capitalism, or equivalent. I don't use capitalism is the  
Marxist sense, but in the sense of european liberalism (liberal =  
right, in europa). The idea is that the state is limited in power as  
much as possible. Ideally, it might even disappear, or become itself  
competitive by allowing any human to choose the state, real or  
virtual, to live in (= to pay tax for).


Capitalism (in Adam Smith's sense?) means FOr Profit, Growth,  
competition, etc.


That is what I would call life.



Liberalism comes from your langiage (Liberte' - freedom).


Liberalism means "right" in Europa. It means that adults can sign  
(job) contracts to do things and are free to sell them to any adults,  
or kids if it is legal, without any or very few intervention of the  
state. This leads necessarily to grow, profit, competition. It is  
opposed to economy planned by a state, like it was in China and the ex- 
URSS where all companies were owned by the state. Today we have mafia,  
which is like an unregulated liberal economy, except that violence is  
used between the competitors for the market attribution.


Democracy allows, in principle, to vote for the left when the country  
go too much on the right, and to vote for the right when the country  
go too much on the left. But this works only if the system is  
regulated by different powers which are kept well separated, which is  
not really the case today (the Press is rarely really independent, nor  
is Justice; even some academies are under the influence of non  
academical powers, usually of the type religious).


Bruno



JM

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 19 Sep 2015, at 21:16, John Mikes wrote:


Bruno,
even before (your?) prohibition-S there was some capitalistic  
system in the US,
leading to inequality and injustice in the economical status of the  
population.

I am not talking Marxism.
The diverse prohibition-S (and other installments)  just made it  
worse.
The basic question is "FREEDOM" - in my terms: no restrictions of  
one's acting decisions AS LONG as it doesnot hurt the 'freedom' of  
others.



That is capitalism, or equivalent. I don't use capitalism is the  
Marxist sense, but in the sense of european liberalism (liberal =  
right, in europa). The idea is that the state is limited in power as  
much as possible. Ideally, it might even disappear, or become itself  
competitive by allowing any human to choose the state, real or  
virtual, to live in (= to pay tax for).





Within such all subchapters are viable.


We might agree, and have only vocabulary problem. If you defend  
freedom, we are on the same political side.






(About 'offer/demand': how local would you go with it? the  
neighbor's demand may be high and drives up prices, while a local  
overproduction is not even paying for

susistence of the workers. Global is not practical.)


Global is new, and we have to adapt and revise many things. But that  
cannot be enforced: it needs good education and less lies.


Prohibition must be stopped, like any violent crimes, but as you  
say, it is not the deeper culprit, which is 1500 years of  
authoritative argument in the most fundamental human science, itself  
supprted in part by billions years of nature's brainwashing. We are  
too much mammals, we can learn from the invertebrates.


Let each of us do what is possible. The necessary will care of itself.

Bruno





JM

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 18 Sep 2015, at 21:37, John Mikes wrote:


Bruno:
 could you please define "free market" (system?) into YOUR terms?
Free, but not free indeed, as you wrote:

"only with a regulating system making it not breaking some  
laws,... "



Basically that was the state in the US before prohibition.

Free market means free contract between adults, and laws must  
ensure the respect of the contracts, not the content of the contract.





where could you STOP the list of those 'laws'?


Laws must evolve, jurisprudence, etc. I am OK with punishing people  
doing false advertisement in the matter of health.


I would like we avoid making something illegal because it cures  
some important disease, and of course is a threat for those doing  
money on that disease, like today with cannabis and cancer to take  
a notorious example. I think that the illegality of cannabis is a  
crime against humanity, given that the danger have been debunked,  
and the benefits have been proved (in the sense of having been able  
to be repeated in all laboratories which are not dependent of a big  
lucrative organization.






Is a 'regulating system a power?


Like the immune system in biological organism. It is a sort of  
power, OK.




(I had a similar problem with identifying "free speech"- not only  
by the Supremes'
"MONEY"definition). If market is free, it has a goal: P RO F I T  
Imaking. It would

Re: A scary theory about IS

[John Mikes]

Bruno wrote.
*That is capitalism, or equivalent. I don't use capitalism is the Marxist
sense, but in the sense of european liberalism (liberal = right, in
europa). The idea is that the state is limited in power as much as
possible. Ideally, it might even disappear, or become itself competitive by
allowing any human to choose the state, real or virtual, to live in (= to
pay tax for)*.

Capitalism (in Adam Smith's sense?) means FOr Profit, Growth, competition,
etc.
Liberalism comes from your langiage (Liberte' - freedom).
JM

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 19 Sep 2015, at 21:16, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Bruno,
> even before (your?) prohibition-S there was some capitalistic system in
> the US,
> leading to inequality and injustice in the economical status of the
> population.
> I am not talking Marxism.
> The diverse prohibition-S (and other installments)  just made it worse.
> The basic question is *"FREEDOM" *- in my terms: *no restrictions of
> one's acting **decisions AS LONG as it doesnot hurt the 'freedom' of
> others.*
>
>
>
> That is capitalism, or equivalent. I don't use capitalism is the Marxist
> sense, but in the sense of european liberalism (liberal = right, in
> europa). The idea is that the state is limited in power as much as
> possible. Ideally, it might even disappear, or become itself competitive by
> allowing any human to choose the state, real or virtual, to live in (= to
> pay tax for).
>
>
>
> Within such all subchapters are viable.
>
>
> We might agree, and have only vocabulary problem. If you defend freedom,
> we are on the same political side.
>
>
>
>
> (About 'offer/demand': how local would you go with it? the neighbor's
> demand may be high and drives up prices, while a local overproduction is
> not even paying for
> susistence of the workers. Global is not practical.)
>
>
> Global is new, and we have to adapt and revise many things. But that
> cannot be enforced: it needs good education and less lies.
>
> Prohibition must be stopped, like any violent crimes, but as you say, it
> is not the deeper culprit, which is 1500 years of authoritative argument in
> the most fundamental human science, itself supprted in part by billions
> years of nature's brainwashing. We are too much mammals, we can learn from
> the invertebrates.
>
> Let each of us do what is possible. The necessary will care of itself.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> JM
>
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 18 Sep 2015, at 21:37, John Mikes wrote:
>>
>> Bruno:
>>  could you please define* "free market"* (system?) into YOUR terms?
>> Free, but not free indeed, as you wrote:
>>
>> "*only with a regulating system making it not breaking some laws,... "*
>>
>>
>>
>> Basically that was the state in the US before prohibition.
>>
>> Free market means free contract between adults, and laws must ensure the
>> respect of the contracts, not the content of the contract.
>>
>>
>>
>> where could you STOP the list of those 'laws'?
>>
>>
>> Laws must evolve, jurisprudence, etc. I am OK with punishing people doing
>> false advertisement in the matter of health.
>>
>> I would like we avoid making something illegal because it cures some
>> important disease, and of course is a threat for those doing money on that
>> disease, like today with cannabis and cancer to take a notorious example. I
>> think that the illegality of cannabis is a crime against humanity, given
>> that the danger have been debunked, and the benefits have been proved (in
>> the sense of having been able to be repeated in all laboratories which are
>> not dependent of a big lucrative organization.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Is a 'regulating system a power?
>>
>>
>> Like the immune system in biological organism. It is a sort of power, OK.
>>
>>
>>
>> (I had a similar problem with identifying "free speech"- not only by the
>> Supremes'
>> "MONEY"definition). If market is free, it has a goal: P RO F I T Imaking.
>> It would
>> undergo the rules of offer and demand, leading to inequality.
>>
>>
>> That is why a regulating system is very important: it verifies if the law
>> of offer and demand is respected. It prevents as much as possible genuine
>> competition.
>>
>>
>>
>> The word "free"is ambigious and hard to control. Free travel? we see it
>> in EU.
>> And so on.
>>
>>
>> I agree with you. "free" designates often plausible "protagorean virtue",
>> which in machine theology can be shown to be destroyed when asserted on
>> people. That is the case with free-thinking, which leads to more hidden
>> dogma, or free-exam, etc.
>> But I am not sure for free-market, which just means that the state does
>> not intervene in the content of what is sold, with few exceptions (perhaps)
>> like radioactive material, or anything which is known to be problematic
>> (meaning the proof of the problem exist and are not political propaganda).
>> If you study the case of cannabis, all statements on its danger comes 

Re: A scary theory about IS

[Bruno Marchal]

On 19 Sep 2015, at 21:16, John Mikes wrote:


Bruno,
even before (your?) prohibition-S there was some capitalistic system  
in the US,
leading to inequality and injustice in the economical status of the  
population.

I am not talking Marxism.
The diverse prohibition-S (and other installments)  just made it  
worse.
The basic question is "FREEDOM" - in my terms: no restrictions of  
one's acting decisions AS LONG as it doesnot hurt the 'freedom' of  
others.



That is capitalism, or equivalent. I don't use capitalism is the  
Marxist sense, but in the sense of european liberalism (liberal =  
right, in europa). The idea is that the state is limited in power as  
much as possible. Ideally, it might even disappear, or become itself  
competitive by allowing any human to choose the state, real or  
virtual, to live in (= to pay tax for).





Within such all subchapters are viable.


We might agree, and have only vocabulary problem. If you defend  
freedom, we are on the same political side.






(About 'offer/demand': how local would you go with it? the  
neighbor's demand may be high and drives up prices, while a local  
overproduction is not even paying for

susistence of the workers. Global is not practical.)


Global is new, and we have to adapt and revise many things. But that  
cannot be enforced: it needs good education and less lies.


Prohibition must be stopped, like any violent crimes, but as you say,  
it is not the deeper culprit, which is 1500 years of authoritative  
argument in the most fundamental human science, itself supprted in  
part by billions years of nature's brainwashing. We are too much  
mammals, we can learn from the invertebrates.


Let each of us do what is possible. The necessary will care of itself.

Bruno





JM

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 18 Sep 2015, at 21:37, John Mikes wrote:


Bruno:
 could you please define "free market" (system?) into YOUR terms?
Free, but not free indeed, as you wrote:

"only with a regulating system making it not breaking some laws,... "



Basically that was the state in the US before prohibition.

Free market means free contract between adults, and laws must ensure  
the respect of the contracts, not the content of the contract.





where could you STOP the list of those 'laws'?


Laws must evolve, jurisprudence, etc. I am OK with punishing people  
doing false advertisement in the matter of health.


I would like we avoid making something illegal because it cures some  
important disease, and of course is a threat for those doing money  
on that disease, like today with cannabis and cancer to take a  
notorious example. I think that the illegality of cannabis is a  
crime against humanity, given that the danger have been debunked,  
and the benefits have been proved (in the sense of having been able  
to be repeated in all laboratories which are not dependent of a big  
lucrative organization.






Is a 'regulating system a power?


Like the immune system in biological organism. It is a sort of  
power, OK.




(I had a similar problem with identifying "free speech"- not only  
by the Supremes'
"MONEY"definition). If market is free, it has a goal: P RO F I T  
Imaking. It would

undergo the rules of offer and demand, leading to inequality.


That is why a regulating system is very important: it verifies if  
the law of offer and demand is respected. It prevents as much as  
possible genuine competition.




The word "free"is ambigious and hard to control. Free travel? we  
see it in EU.

And so on.


I agree with you. "free" designates often plausible "protagorean  
virtue", which in machine theology can be shown to be destroyed when  
asserted on people. That is the case with free-thinking, which leads  
to more hidden dogma, or free-exam, etc.
But I am not sure for free-market, which just means that the state  
does not intervene in the content of what is sold, with few  
exceptions (perhaps) like radioactive material, or anything which is  
known to be problematic (meaning the proof of the problem exist and  
are not political propaganda). If you study the case of cannabis,  
all statements on its danger comes from paper which have not been  
made available to the public, and was contradicted by all papers  
available to the public. The cannabis set-up was gross, immense,  
obvious, and nobody was failed, except the general public and the  
physicians. Many doctor, askd to vote for the inegality of  
marijuana, said that they were not aware that marijuana was  
cannabis, at that time, and took some time to realize the maneuver.  
We had to wait 10 years before the paper by Nahas gave the protocols  
used to prove that cannabis demolish brain cells, and indeed, now we  
have them, and it is just ridiculous (the rabbit were smoking ten  
joints simultaneously for seven days 24/24, and the neurons have  
been shown since dying from asphyxia, just to give one example among  
many).

Re: A scary theory about IS

[John Mikes]

Brent, you wrote:


*...You also need such an organization to say who owns what and who has
violated a contract and who has committed murder and who has committed
fraud, etc.Brent...*

would you please write your OWN* Bible*? a* "Noch Nie Dagewesene"*? (one
that so far never existed here-around)
JM

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 9/18/2015 7:34 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015  Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> ​ > ​
>> Well, the term "capitalism" is ambiguous. I am all for the free market,
>> but only with a regulating system making it not breaking some laws, like
>> defamation of products and misinformation of the public.
>
>
> ​ I think it would be preferable for people to decide for themselves what
> is a fact and what is not, b
> ut to do what you say above you've got to have some organization get into
> the truth determining business, and it must be far far more powerful than
> any other organization. That might be OK if there was some way to guarantee
> that such a organization was always led by a genius who was also a saint,
> but unfortunately such paragons are a little hard to find.   ​
>
>
>
> You also need such an organization to say who owns what and who has
> violated a contract and who has committed murder and who has committed
> fraud, etc.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A scary theory about IS

[Brent Meeker]

On 9/18/2015 7:34 PM, John Clark wrote:



On Fri, Sep 18, 2015  Bruno Marchal > wrote:


​ > ​
Well, the term "capitalism" is ambiguous. I am all for the free
market, but only with a regulating system making it not breaking
some laws, like defamation of products and misinformation of the
public.


​ I think it would be preferable for people to decide for themselves 
what is a fact and what is not, b
ut to do what you say above you've got to have some organization get 
into the truth determining business, and it must be far far more 
powerful than any other organization. That might be OK if there was 
some way to guarantee that such a organization was always led by a 
genius who was also a saint, but unfortunately such paragons are a 
little hard to find.   ​


You also need such an organization to say who owns what and who has 
violated a contract and who has committed murder and who has committed 
fraud, etc.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A scary theory about IS

[John Mikes]

Bruno,
even before (your?) prohibition-S there was some capitalistic system in the
US,
leading to inequality and injustice in the economical status of the
population.
I am not talking Marxism.
The diverse prohibition-S (and other installments)  just made it worse.
The basic question is *"FREEDOM" *- in my terms: *no restrictions of one's
acting **decisions AS LONG as it doesnot hurt the 'freedom' of others.*
Within such all subchapters are viable.

(About 'offer/demand': how local would you go with it? the neighbor's
demand may be high and drives up prices, while a local overproduction is
not even paying for
susistence of the workers. Global is not practical.)

JM

On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 3:33 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 18 Sep 2015, at 21:37, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Bruno:
>  could you please define* "free market"* (system?) into YOUR terms?
> Free, but not free indeed, as you wrote:
>
> "*only with a regulating system making it not breaking some laws,... "*
>
>
>
> Basically that was the state in the US before prohibition.
>
> Free market means free contract between adults, and laws must ensure the
> respect of the contracts, not the content of the contract.
>
>
>
> where could you STOP the list of those 'laws'?
>
>
> Laws must evolve, jurisprudence, etc. I am OK with punishing people doing
> false advertisement in the matter of health.
>
> I would like we avoid making something illegal because it cures some
> important disease, and of course is a threat for those doing money on that
> disease, like today with cannabis and cancer to take a notorious example. I
> think that the illegality of cannabis is a crime against humanity, given
> that the danger have been debunked, and the benefits have been proved (in
> the sense of having been able to be repeated in all laboratories which are
> not dependent of a big lucrative organization.
>
>
>
>
> Is a 'regulating system a power?
>
>
> Like the immune system in biological organism. It is a sort of power, OK.
>
>
>
> (I had a similar problem with identifying "free speech"- not only by the
> Supremes'
> "MONEY"definition). If market is free, it has a goal: P RO F I T Imaking.
> It would
> undergo the rules of offer and demand, leading to inequality.
>
>
> That is why a regulating system is very important: it verifies if the law
> of offer and demand is respected. It prevents as much as possible genuine
> competition.
>
>
>
> The word "free"is ambigious and hard to control. Free travel? we see it in
> EU.
> And so on.
>
>
> I agree with you. "free" designates often plausible "protagorean virtue",
> which in machine theology can be shown to be destroyed when asserted on
> people. That is the case with free-thinking, which leads to more hidden
> dogma, or free-exam, etc.
> But I am not sure for free-market, which just means that the state does
> not intervene in the content of what is sold, with few exceptions (perhaps)
> like radioactive material, or anything which is known to be problematic
> (meaning the proof of the problem exist and are not political propaganda).
> If you study the case of cannabis, all statements on its danger comes from
> paper which have not been made available to the public, and was
> contradicted by all papers available to the public. The cannabis set-up was
> gross, immense, obvious, and nobody was failed, except the general public
> and the physicians. Many doctor, askd to vote for the inegality of
> marijuana, said that they were not aware that marijuana was cannabis, at
> that time, and took some time to realize the maneuver. We had to wait 10
> years before the paper by Nahas gave the protocols used to prove that
> cannabis demolish brain cells, and indeed, now we have them, and it is just
> ridiculous (the rabbit were smoking ten joints simultaneously for seven
> days 24/24, and the neurons have been shown since dying from asphyxia, just
> to give one example among many).
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> John Mikes
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 10 Sep 2015, at 23:17, John Mikes wrote:
>>
>> Excellent historical analysis, Smitra. Thanks. I was a contemporary
>> witness
>> during my adult years (40s to 70s) and vouch for your ideas.
>> Bruno, however, picked prohibitionism as the main (sole?) culprit what
>> does not match my conclusions. It was part of it, for sure.
>>
>>
>> I think I agree with all what Saibal said, but I believe that nothing can
>> progress in any direction as long as prohibitionism exist. It might be that
>> stopping prohibition is not enough, but it is a necessary step. It is not
>> that difficult, as the lies exists only since 75 years. It is another
>> matter about theology (1500 years of lies), and matter (billions years of
>> lies).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I found as main culprit the dissatisfaction of the overwhelming majority
>> of people with their lives as slaves in a capitalistic system to work for
>> less than what they may have produced.

Re: A scary theory about IS

[Bruno Marchal]

On 18 Sep 2015, at 21:37, John Mikes wrote:


Bruno:
 could you please define "free market" (system?) into YOUR terms?
Free, but not free indeed, as you wrote:

"only with a regulating system making it not breaking some laws,... "



Basically that was the state in the US before prohibition.

Free market means free contract between adults, and laws must ensure  
the respect of the contracts, not the content of the contract.





where could you STOP the list of those 'laws'?


Laws must evolve, jurisprudence, etc. I am OK with punishing people  
doing false advertisement in the matter of health.


I would like we avoid making something illegal because it cures some  
important disease, and of course is a threat for those doing money on  
that disease, like today with cannabis and cancer to take a notorious  
example. I think that the illegality of cannabis is a crime against  
humanity, given that the danger have been debunked, and the benefits  
have been proved (in the sense of having been able to be repeated in  
all laboratories which are not dependent of a big lucrative  
organization.






Is a 'regulating system a power?


Like the immune system in biological organism. It is a sort of power,  
OK.




(I had a similar problem with identifying "free speech"- not only by  
the Supremes'
"MONEY"definition). If market is free, it has a goal: P RO F I T  
Imaking. It would

undergo the rules of offer and demand, leading to inequality.


That is why a regulating system is very important: it verifies if the  
law of offer and demand is respected. It prevents as much as possible  
genuine competition.




The word "free"is ambigious and hard to control. Free travel? we see  
it in EU.

And so on.


I agree with you. "free" designates often plausible "protagorean  
virtue", which in machine theology can be shown to be destroyed when  
asserted on people. That is the case with free-thinking, which leads  
to more hidden dogma, or free-exam, etc.
But I am not sure for free-market, which just means that the state  
does not intervene in the content of what is sold, with few exceptions  
(perhaps) like radioactive material, or anything which is known to be  
problematic (meaning the proof of the problem exist and are not  
political propaganda). If you study the case of cannabis, all  
statements on its danger comes from paper which have not been made  
available to the public, and was contradicted by all papers available  
to the public. The cannabis set-up was gross, immense, obvious, and  
nobody was failed, except the general public and the physicians. Many  
doctor, askd to vote for the inegality of marijuana, said that they  
were not aware that marijuana was cannabis, at that time, and took  
some time to realize the maneuver. We had to wait 10 years before the  
paper by Nahas gave the protocols used to prove that cannabis demolish  
brain cells, and indeed, now we have them, and it is just ridiculous  
(the rabbit were smoking ten joints simultaneously for seven days  
24/24, and the neurons have been shown since dying from asphyxia, just  
to give one example among many).


Bruno





John Mikes



On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 10 Sep 2015, at 23:17, John Mikes wrote:

Excellent historical analysis, Smitra. Thanks. I was a contemporary  
witness

during my adult years (40s to 70s) and vouch for your ideas.
Bruno, however, picked prohibitionism as the main (sole?) culprit  
what does not match my conclusions. It was part of it, for sure.


I think I agree with all what Saibal said, but I believe that  
nothing can progress in any direction as long as prohibitionism  
exist. It might be that stopping prohibition is not enough, but it  
is a necessary step. It is not that difficult, as the lies exists  
only since 75 years. It is another matter about theology (1500 years  
of lies), and matter (billions years of lies).






I found as main culprit the dissatisfaction of the overwhelming  
majority of people with their lives as slaves in a capitalistic  
system to work for less than what they may have produced.


Well, the term "capitalism" is ambiguous. I am all for the free  
market, but only with a regulating system making it not breaking  
some laws, like defamation of products and misinformation of the  
public. We must avoid mafia-like merchandising of fears, diseases  
and wars. Only a few minority makes big benefits, but it go with a  
lot of suffering.




Also the 'ownership' claim of Nature, including her products,  
beyond the effort the claimant has put into getting them, plus an  
ownership of the so called law-enforcement forces to suppress any  
opposition - making the advanced society an economical inequality  
of haves and have-nots, the latter being forced to work FOR the  
former for their mere survival.


Free-market is a win-win strategy. The "capitalism" of today is  
everything but free-market. The rich get enrieced by 

Re: A scary theory about IS

[Bruno Marchal]

On 19 Sep 2015, at 04:34, John Clark wrote:




On Fri, Sep 18, 2015  Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​> ​Well, the term "capitalism" is ambiguous. I am all for the  
free market, but only with a regulating system making it not  
breaking some laws, like defamation of products and misinformation  
of the public.


​I think it would be preferable for people to decide for themselves  
what is a fact and what is not,


Exactly, that is my point.



but to do what you say above you've got to have some organization  
get into the truth determining business,


No, people must judge by themselves. law can enforce the presence of  
warning, traceability of subproducts, etc.
But today, we do have (in the US and elsewhere) a political  
institution, like the FDA, which approves or not the presence of this  
or that type of drugs and foods.





and it must be far far more powerful than any other organization.


It should not exist at all.


That might be OK if there was some way to guarantee that such a  
organization was always led by a genius who was also a saint, but  
unfortunately such paragons are a little hard to find.


Indeed, when money and health are mixed, you converge toward  
medication and food which hook the people in medications. The state  
becomes a monopolistic drug dealer, as it is today. This makes  
efficacious and non toxic drug illegal, and non efficacious toxic drug  
legal. Today legal drugs kills more than all illegal drugs combined.





  ​

 ​> ​We must avoid mafia-like merchandising of fears

​The reason that organized crime exists is that people want to do  
certain things that the government doesn't want them to do, things  
like consume alcohol and other drugs, watch pornography, gamble, get  
high interest rate loans and visit prostitutes.


Which are non violent crime, without complains, and that should not  
been considered as criminal.




The Mafia is providing services that people want that government  
says they can't have, and the only reason they're so violent is  
because  violence is the only way they have of dealing with  
disagreement.


Indeed.


If government made chocolate bars illegal then people would still  
demand ​them​, and the underground Hershey candy company and the  
underground Mars candy company would have no way to settle disputes  
except through baseball bats and machine guns.



Indeed.

Bruno





​  John K Clark​









On 10 Sep 2015, at 23:17, John Mikes wrote:

Excellent historical analysis, Smitra. Thanks. I was a contemporary  
witness

during my adult years (40s to 70s) and vouch for your ideas.
Bruno, however, picked prohibitionism as the main (sole?) culprit  
what does not match my conclusions. It was part of it, for sure.


I think I agree with all what Saibal said, but I believe that  
nothing can progress in any direction as long as prohibitionism  
exist. It might be that stopping prohibition is not enough, but it  
is a necessary step. It is not that difficult, as the lies exists  
only since 75 years. It is another matter about theology (1500 years  
of lies), and matter (billions years of lies).






I found as main culprit the dissatisfaction of the overwhelming  
majority of people with their lives as slaves in a capitalistic  
system to work for less than what they may have produced.


Well, the term "capitalism" is ambiguous. I am all for the free  
market, but only with a regulating system making it not breaking  
some laws, like defamation of products and misinformation of the  
public. We must avoid mafia-like merchandising of fears, diseases  
and wars. Only a few minority makes big benefits, but it go with a  
lot of suffering.




Also the 'ownership' claim of Nature, including her products,  
beyond the effort the claimant has put into getting them, plus an  
ownership of the so called law-enforcement forces to suppress any  
opposition - making the advanced society an economical inequality  
of haves and have-nots, the latter being forced to work FOR the  
former for their mere survival.


Free-market is a win-win strategy. The "capitalism" of today is  
everything but free-market. The rich get enrieced by stealing the  
money of the less rich. It is not free-market, it is organized  
banditism.





Governments are exponents of the rich and powerful and force the  
have-nots into their armies to die in wars for the interest of the  
wealthy. It is called patriotism. The exploited slaves (dead,  
injured casualties of wars) of the system are called heros.


Just to vent off


I agree with you, but I think that it is not the system which is  
faulty, but a well prepared perversion of the system, that the  
founders of America were quite aware of the possibility.


They did not find a way to solve the problem, except by the US  
Constitution, which has been indeed eroded more and more (and is  
virtually dead with the NDAA 2012, actually).


It is not a question of politics: it is a question of good and bad 

Re: A scary theory about IS

[John Mikes]

Bruno:
 could you please define* "free market"* (system?) into YOUR terms?
Free, but not free indeed, as you wrote:

"*only with a regulating system making it not breaking some laws,... "*

where could you STOP the list of those 'laws'? Is a 'regulating system a
power?
(I had a similar problem with identifying "free speech"- not only by the
Supremes'
"MONEY"definition). If market is free, it has a goal: P RO F I T Imaking.
It would
undergo the rules of offer and demand, leading to inequality.
The word "free"is ambigious and hard to control. Free travel? we see it in
EU.
And so on.

John Mikes



On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 10 Sep 2015, at 23:17, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Excellent historical analysis, Smitra. Thanks. I was a contemporary
> witness
> during my adult years (40s to 70s) and vouch for your ideas.
> Bruno, however, picked prohibitionism as the main (sole?) culprit what
> does not match my conclusions. It was part of it, for sure.
>
>
> I think I agree with all what Saibal said, but I believe that nothing can
> progress in any direction as long as prohibitionism exist. It might be that
> stopping prohibition is not enough, but it is a necessary step. It is not
> that difficult, as the lies exists only since 75 years. It is another
> matter about theology (1500 years of lies), and matter (billions years of
> lies).
>
>
>
>
> I found as main culprit the dissatisfaction of the overwhelming majority
> of people with their lives as slaves in a capitalistic system to work for
> less than what they may have produced.
>
>
> Well, the term "capitalism" is ambiguous. I am all for the free market,
> but only with a regulating system making it not breaking some laws, like
> defamation of products and misinformation of the public. We must avoid
> mafia-like merchandising of fears, diseases and wars. Only a few minority
> makes big benefits, but it go with a lot of suffering.
>
>
>
> Also the 'ownership' claim of Nature, including her products, beyond the
> effort the claimant has put into getting them, plus an ownership of the so
> called law-enforcement forces to suppress any opposition - making the
> advanced society an *economical inequality* of haves and have-nots, the
> latter being forced to work FOR the former for their mere survival.
>
>
> Free-market is a win-win strategy. The "capitalism" of today is everything
> but free-market. The rich get enrieced by stealing the money of the less
> rich. It is not free-market, it is organized banditism.
>
>
>
>
> Governments are exponents of the rich and powerful and force the have-nots
> into their armies to die in wars for the interest of the wealthy. It is
> called patriotism. The exploited slaves (dead, injured casualties of wars)
> of the system are called heros.
>
> Just to vent off
>
>
> I agree with you, but I think that it is not the system which is faulty,
> but a well prepared perversion of the system, that the founders of America
> were quite aware of the possibility.
>
> They did not find a way to solve the problem, except by the US
> Constitution, which has been indeed eroded more and more (and is virtually
> dead with the NDAA 2012, actually).
>
> It is not a question of politics: it is a question of good and bad people.
> The liars, the lied which parrots, and the lied which lives the lies.
>
> The applied human science, except for laws and democracy (in principle) is
> still governed by the "the boss is right" principle. People are still
> discouraged to make the thinking and take the responsibility. Only in
> movies.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> John Mikes
>
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 31 Aug 2015, at 16:52, smitra wrote:
>>
>> The real problem i.m.o. is that big powers tend to have a big inertia, it
>>> takes them a long time to see that the World has changed and that they need
>>> to focus on other issues than they currently are engaged with. In some
>>> cases that can lead to escalation of a pointless conflict that has its
>>> roots in past issues that are no longer relevant, as is the case with the
>>> war on drugs. And that then can cause a lot of harm.
>>>
>>> But I think the general issue is this huge inertia. So, when Gorbachov
>>> was in power and he was ready to deal seriously with the West, it took us a
>>> very long time to engage with him. A point on which we never engaged with
>>> the Soviets in a constructive way was Afghanistan.
>>>
>>> The Soviets were willing to withdraw from  Afghanistan, even before
>>> Gorbachov came to power, but on certain conditions like leaving behind a
>>> stable government. We never wanted to engage with the Soviets on that,
>>> because of pur mondset that the root of all evil was communism, and the
>>> Soviets were just talking bullshit about our allies there, the Jihadists.
>>>
>>> Them posing a threat to the World? that to us was just ridiculous. We
>>> knew for sure that with the Soviets gone out 

Re: A scary theory about IS

[John Clark]

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015  Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​> ​
> Well, the term "capitalism" is ambiguous. I am all for the free market,
> but only with a regulating system making it not breaking some laws, like
> defamation of products and misinformation of the public.


​I think it would be preferable for people to decide for themselves what is
a fact and what is not, b
ut to do what you say above you've got to have some organization get into
the truth determining business, and it must be far far more powerful than
any other organization. That might be OK if there was some way to guarantee
that such a organization was always led by a genius who was also a saint,
but unfortunately such paragons are a little hard to find.   ​



> ​> ​
> We must avoid mafia-like merchandising of fears


​The reason that organized crime exists is that people want to do certain
things that the government doesn't want them to do, things like consume
alcohol and other drugs, watch pornography, gamble, get high interest rate
loans and visit prostitutes. The Mafia is providing services that people
want that government says they can't have, and the only reason they're so
violent is because  violence is the only way they have of dealing with
disagreement. I
f government made chocolate bars illegal then people would still demand
​them​
, and the underground Hershey candy company and the underground Mars candy
company would have no way to settle disputes except through baseball bats
and machine guns.

​  John K Clark​









> On 10 Sep 2015, at 23:17, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Excellent historical analysis, Smitra. Thanks. I was a contemporary
> witness
> during my adult years (40s to 70s) and vouch for your ideas.
> Bruno, however, picked prohibitionism as the main (sole?) culprit what
> does not match my conclusions. It was part of it, for sure.
>
>
> I think I agree with all what Saibal said, but I believe that nothing can
> progress in any direction as long as prohibitionism exist. It might be that
> stopping prohibition is not enough, but it is a necessary step. It is not
> that difficult, as the lies exists only since 75 years. It is another
> matter about theology (1500 years of lies), and matter (billions years of
> lies).
>
>
>
>
> I found as main culprit the dissatisfaction of the overwhelming majority
> of people with their lives as slaves in a capitalistic system to work for
> less than what they may have produced.
>
>
> Well, the term "capitalism" is ambiguous. I am all for the free market,
> but only with a regulating system making it not breaking some laws, like
> defamation of products and misinformation of the public. We must avoid
> mafia-like merchandising of fears, diseases and wars. Only a few minority
> makes big benefits, but it go with a lot of suffering.
>
>
>
> Also the 'ownership' claim of Nature, including her products, beyond the
> effort the claimant has put into getting them, plus an ownership of the so
> called law-enforcement forces to suppress any opposition - making the
> advanced society an *economical inequality* of haves and have-nots, the
> latter being forced to work FOR the former for their mere survival.
>
>
> Free-market is a win-win strategy. The "capitalism" of today is everything
> but free-market. The rich get enrieced by stealing the money of the less
> rich. It is not free-market, it is organized banditism.
>
>
>
>
> Governments are exponents of the rich and powerful and force the have-nots
> into their armies to die in wars for the interest of the wealthy. It is
> called patriotism. The exploited slaves (dead, injured casualties of wars)
> of the system are called heros.
>
> Just to vent off
>
>
> I agree with you, but I think that it is not the system which is faulty,
> but a well prepared perversion of the system, that the founders of America
> were quite aware of the possibility.
>
> They did not find a way to solve the problem, except by the US
> Constitution, which has been indeed eroded more and more (and is virtually
> dead with the NDAA 2012, actually).
>
> It is not a question of politics: it is a question of good and bad people.
> The liars, the lied which parrots, and the lied which lives the lies.
>
> The applied human science, except for laws and democracy (in principle) is
> still governed by the "the boss is right" principle. People are still
> discouraged to make the thinking and take the responsibility. Only in
> movies.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> John Mikes
>
> On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 31 Aug 2015, at 16:52, smitra wrote:
>>
>> The real problem i.m.o. is that big powers tend to have a big inertia, it
>>> takes them a long time to see that the World has changed and that they need
>>> to focus on other issues than they currently are engaged with. In some
>>> cases that can lead to escalation of a pointless conflict that has its
>>> roots in past issues that are no longer relevant, as is the case with the

Re: A scary theory about IS

[Bruno Marchal]

On 10 Sep 2015, at 23:17, John Mikes wrote:

Excellent historical analysis, Smitra. Thanks. I was a contemporary  
witness

during my adult years (40s to 70s) and vouch for your ideas.
Bruno, however, picked prohibitionism as the main (sole?) culprit  
what does not match my conclusions. It was part of it, for sure.


I think I agree with all what Saibal said, but I believe that nothing  
can progress in any direction as long as prohibitionism exist. It  
might be that stopping prohibition is not enough, but it is a  
necessary step. It is not that difficult, as the lies exists only  
since 75 years. It is another matter about theology (1500 years of  
lies), and matter (billions years of lies).






I found as main culprit the dissatisfaction of the overwhelming  
majority of people with their lives as slaves in a capitalistic  
system to work for less than what they may have produced.


Well, the term "capitalism" is ambiguous. I am all for the free  
market, but only with a regulating system making it not breaking some  
laws, like defamation of products and misinformation of the public. We  
must avoid mafia-like merchandising of fears, diseases and wars. Only  
a few minority makes big benefits, but it go with a lot of suffering.




Also the 'ownership' claim of Nature, including her products, beyond  
the effort the claimant has put into getting them, plus an ownership  
of the so called law-enforcement forces to suppress any opposition -  
making the advanced society an economical inequality of haves and  
have-nots, the latter being forced to work FOR the former for their  
mere survival.


Free-market is a win-win strategy. The "capitalism" of today is  
everything but free-market. The rich get enrieced by stealing the  
money of the less rich. It is not free-market, it is organized  
banditism.





Governments are exponents of the rich and powerful and force the  
have-nots into their armies to die in wars for the interest of the  
wealthy. It is called patriotism. The exploited slaves (dead,  
injured casualties of wars) of the system are called heros.


Just to vent off


I agree with you, but I think that it is not the system which is  
faulty, but a well prepared perversion of the system, that the  
founders of America were quite aware of the possibility.


They did not find a way to solve the problem, except by the US  
Constitution, which has been indeed eroded more and more (and is  
virtually dead with the NDAA 2012, actually).


It is not a question of politics: it is a question of good and bad  
people. The liars, the lied which parrots, and the lied which lives  
the lies.


The applied human science, except for laws and democracy (in  
principle) is still governed by the "the boss is right" principle.  
People are still discouraged to make the thinking and take the  
responsibility. Only in movies.


Bruno





John Mikes

On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 31 Aug 2015, at 16:52, smitra wrote:

The real problem i.m.o. is that big powers tend to have a big  
inertia, it takes them a long time to see that the World has changed  
and that they need to focus on other issues than they currently are  
engaged with. In some cases that can lead to escalation of a  
pointless conflict that has its roots in past issues that are no  
longer relevant, as is the case with the war on drugs. And that then  
can cause a lot of harm.


But I think the general issue is this huge inertia. So, when  
Gorbachov was in power and he was ready to deal seriously with the  
West, it took us a very long time to engage with him. A point on  
which we never engaged with the Soviets in a constructive way was  
Afghanistan.


The Soviets were willing to withdraw from  Afghanistan, even before  
Gorbachov came to power, but on certain conditions like leaving  
behind a stable government. We never wanted to engage with the  
Soviets on that, because of pur mondset that the root of all evil  
was communism, and the Soviets were just talking bullshit about our  
allies there, the Jihadists.


Them posing a threat to the World? that to us was just ridiculous.  
We knew for sure that with the Soviets gone out of Afghanistan,  
their communist puppet government dismantled, the Afghan population  
would be able to form a democratic state. We were so sure about this  
that we never critically analyzed all the hidden assumptions made  
here.


It later turned out that we were wrong and that the Soviets were  
right, not in their general approach but about seeing the threat of  
Jihadism that we helped to fuel. Also they were right about the  
dangers of having failed states. Our ideology at the time was that a  
failed state would quickly get itself organized into  a flourishing  
democracy if you could only keep the evil communists out.


Another fallout of this was that Gorbachov's political position was  
weakened in the Soviet Union, which made his  nationalist 

Re: A scary theory about IS

[John Mikes]

Excellent historical analysis, Smitra. Thanks. I was a contemporary witness
during my adult years (40s to 70s) and vouch for your ideas.
Bruno, however, picked prohibitionism as the main (sole?) culprit what does
not match my conclusions. It was part of it, for sure.

I found as main culprit the dissatisfaction of the overwhelming majority of
people with their lives as slaves in a capitalistic system to work for less
than what they may have produced. Also the 'ownership' claim of Nature,
including her products, beyond the effort the claimant has put into getting
them, plus an ownership of the so called law-enforcement forces to suppress
any opposition - making the advanced society an *economical inequality* of
haves and have-nots, the latter being forced to work FOR the former for
their mere survival. Governments are exponents of the rich and powerful and
force the have-nots into their armies to die in wars for the interest of
the wealthy. It is called patriotism. The exploited slaves (dead, injured
casualties of wars) of the system are called heros.

Just to vent off

John Mikes

On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 31 Aug 2015, at 16:52, smitra wrote:
>
> The real problem i.m.o. is that big powers tend to have a big inertia, it
>> takes them a long time to see that the World has changed and that they need
>> to focus on other issues than they currently are engaged with. In some
>> cases that can lead to escalation of a pointless conflict that has its
>> roots in past issues that are no longer relevant, as is the case with the
>> war on drugs. And that then can cause a lot of harm.
>>
>> But I think the general issue is this huge inertia. So, when Gorbachov
>> was in power and he was ready to deal seriously with the West, it took us a
>> very long time to engage with him. A point on which we never engaged with
>> the Soviets in a constructive way was Afghanistan.
>>
>> The Soviets were willing to withdraw from  Afghanistan, even before
>> Gorbachov came to power, but on certain conditions like leaving behind a
>> stable government. We never wanted to engage with the Soviets on that,
>> because of pur mondset that the root of all evil was communism, and the
>> Soviets were just talking bullshit about our allies there, the Jihadists.
>>
>> Them posing a threat to the World? that to us was just ridiculous. We
>> knew for sure that with the Soviets gone out of Afghanistan, their
>> communist puppet government dismantled, the Afghan population would be able
>> to form a democratic state. We were so sure about this that we never
>> critically analyzed all the hidden assumptions made here.
>>
>> It later turned out that we were wrong and that the Soviets were right,
>> not in their general approach but about seeing the threat of Jihadism that
>> we helped to fuel. Also they were right about the dangers of having failed
>> states. Our ideology at the time was that a failed state would quickly get
>> itself organized into  a flourishing democracy if you could only keep the
>> evil communists out.
>>
>> Another fallout of this was that Gorbachov's political position was
>> weakened in the Soviet Union, which made his  nationalist opposition who
>> were critical of the West politically stronger. When Yeltsin took over he
>> had to deal with an economically weak Russia while in the background there
>> were forces lurking who were extremely critical of the West. In any country
>> you'll have the opposition that tends to question the government's policy
>> especially if things are not going well economically and especially when
>> there has been a recent radical change. In the years after the collapse of
>> communism that move was democratization, liberalization of the economy etc.
>> etc.
>>
>> It's easy for us to say that the Russians who were critical at the time
>> were stupid, just look at the opposition in the US against a universal
>> health care system. Now, if we could turn back the clock and had dealt with
>> Afghanistan differently, then the outcome of that might not just have
>> prevented the rise of international Jihadism, you would also have had the
>> pro-Western reformists in Russia to be in a politically far stronger
>> position. Likely you would not have had Putin in power today, or Putin may
>> not have become that anti-Western (he wasn't when came into power).
>>
>> Another thing is that we would have improved the UN Security Council
>> System to deal with complex problems. As it currently functions, the UNSC
>> is a panel of prosecutors who are the World's policemen, prosecutor, jury
>> and judge at the same time without a requirement for members to recuse
>> themselves when they are involved.
>>
>> The system works fine in emergency situations, like when Iraq invaded
>> Kuwait, just like a police can intervene effectively when there is a bank
>> robbery going on. But when the emergency situation is dealt with, we all
>> know that you need a proper 

Re: A scary theory about IS

[Bruno Marchal]

On 31 Aug 2015, at 16:52, smitra wrote:

The real problem i.m.o. is that big powers tend to have a big  
inertia, it takes them a long time to see that the World has changed  
and that they need to focus on other issues than they currently are  
engaged with. In some cases that can lead to escalation of a  
pointless conflict that has its roots in past issues that are no  
longer relevant, as is the case with the war on drugs. And that then  
can cause a lot of harm.


But I think the general issue is this huge inertia. So, when  
Gorbachov was in power and he was ready to deal seriously with the  
West, it took us a very long time to engage with him. A point on  
which we never engaged with the Soviets in a constructive way was  
Afghanistan.


The Soviets were willing to withdraw from  Afghanistan, even before  
Gorbachov came to power, but on certain conditions like leaving  
behind a stable government. We never wanted to engage with the  
Soviets on that, because of pur mondset that the root of all evil  
was communism, and the Soviets were just talking bullshit about our  
allies there, the Jihadists.


Them posing a threat to the World? that to us was just ridiculous.  
We knew for sure that with the Soviets gone out of Afghanistan,  
their communist puppet government dismantled, the Afghan population  
would be able to form a democratic state. We were so sure about this  
that we never critically analyzed all the hidden assumptions made  
here.


It later turned out that we were wrong and that the Soviets were  
right, not in their general approach but about seeing the threat of  
Jihadism that we helped to fuel. Also they were right about the  
dangers of having failed states. Our ideology at the time was that a  
failed state would quickly get itself organized into  a flourishing  
democracy if you could only keep the evil communists out.


Another fallout of this was that Gorbachov's political position was  
weakened in the Soviet Union, which made his  nationalist opposition  
who were critical of the West politically stronger. When Yeltsin  
took over he had to deal with an economically weak Russia while in  
the background there were forces lurking who were extremely critical  
of the West. In any country you'll have the opposition that tends to  
question the government's policy especially if things are not going  
well economically and especially when there has been a recent  
radical change. In the years after the collapse of communism that  
move was democratization, liberalization of the economy etc. etc.


It's easy for us to say that the Russians who were critical at the  
time were stupid, just look at the opposition in the US against a  
universal health care system. Now, if we could turn back the clock  
and had dealt with Afghanistan differently, then the outcome of that  
might not just have prevented the rise of international Jihadism,  
you would also have had the pro-Western reformists in Russia to be  
in a politically far stronger position. Likely you would not have  
had Putin in power today, or Putin may not have become that anti- 
Western (he wasn't when came into power).


Another thing is that we would have improved the UN Security Council  
System to deal with complex problems. As it currently functions, the  
UNSC is a panel of prosecutors who are the World's policemen,  
prosecutor, jury and judge at the same time without a requirement  
for members to recuse themselves when they are involved.


The system works fine in emergency situations, like when Iraq  
invaded Kuwait, just like a police can intervene effectively when  
there is a bank robbery going on. But when the emergency situation  
is dealt with, we all know that you need a proper justice system to  
deal with the problem on the longer term. We know that what cannot  
work is a system where the local police can have a caucus with  
other  police officers from neighboring areas to deal with that.  
Even if you assume that police officers can be 100% objective, you  
would still not have much faith in a system where the police  
officers could be the prosecutors juries, judges, appeals judges   
and Supreme Court judges all at the same time.


This i.m.o. is the reason why Iraq was invaded. Iraq under Saddam  
Hussein (supported by both superpowers in the 1980s) could never  
prove that it had no WMD within the current system once some  
prosecutors decided to throw the book at him.


Had instead the Western powers thought critically about how to  
improve the international institutions instead of seeing the  
collapse of the Soviet Union as a big gain in their power within the  
current system, the UNSC could have been reformed.  You can think of  
a system where the UNSC continues to exist in its present form but  
that it creates a new institution where judges rule on contentious  
fundings of facts. The UNSC could then have referred difficult  
dossiers like the Iraq WMD case, Iran's nuclear program 

Re: A scary theory about IS

[smitra]

The real problem i.m.o. is that big powers tend to have a big inertia, 
it takes them a long time to see that the World has changed and that 
they need to focus on other issues than they currently are engaged with. 
In some cases that can lead to escalation of a pointless conflict that 
has its roots in past issues that are no longer relevant, as is the case 
with the war on drugs. And that then can cause a lot of harm.


But I think the general issue is this huge inertia. So, when Gorbachov 
was in power and he was ready to deal seriously with the West, it took 
us a very long time to engage with him. A point on which we never 
engaged with the Soviets in a constructive way was Afghanistan.


The Soviets were willing to withdraw from  Afghanistan, even before 
Gorbachov came to power, but on certain conditions like leaving behind a 
stable government. We never wanted to engage with the Soviets on that, 
because of pur mondset that the root of all evil was communism, and the 
Soviets were just talking bullshit about our allies there, the 
Jihadists.


Them posing a threat to the World? that to us was just ridiculous. We 
knew for sure that with the Soviets gone out of Afghanistan, their 
communist puppet government dismantled, the Afghan population would be 
able to form a democratic state. We were so sure about this that we 
never critically analyzed all the hidden assumptions made here.


It later turned out that we were wrong and that the Soviets were right, 
not in their general approach but about seeing the threat of Jihadism 
that we helped to fuel. Also they were right about the dangers of having 
failed states. Our ideology at the time was that a failed state would 
quickly get itself organized into  a flourishing democracy if you could 
only keep the evil communists out.


Another fallout of this was that Gorbachov's political position was 
weakened in the Soviet Union, which made his  nationalist opposition who 
were critical of the West politically stronger. When Yeltsin took over 
he had to deal with an economically weak Russia while in the background 
there were forces lurking who were extremely critical of the West. In 
any country you'll have the opposition that tends to question the 
government's policy especially if things are not going well economically 
and especially when there has been a recent radical change. In the years 
after the collapse of communism that move was democratization, 
liberalization of the economy etc. etc.


 It's easy for us to say that the Russians who were critical at the time 
were stupid, just look at the opposition in the US against a universal 
health care system. Now, if we could turn back the clock and had dealt 
with Afghanistan differently, then the outcome of that might not just 
have prevented the rise of international Jihadism, you would also have 
had the pro-Western reformists in Russia to be in a politically far 
stronger position. Likely you would not have had Putin in power today, 
or Putin may not have become that anti-Western (he wasn't when came into 
power).


Another thing is that we would have improved the UN Security Council 
System to deal with complex problems. As it currently functions, the 
UNSC is a panel of prosecutors who are the World's policemen, 
prosecutor, jury and judge at the same time without a requirement for 
members to recuse themselves when they are involved.


The system works fine in emergency situations, like when Iraq invaded 
Kuwait, just like a police can intervene effectively when there is a 
bank robbery going on. But when the emergency situation is dealt with, 
we all know that you need a proper justice system to deal with the 
problem on the longer term. We know that what cannot work is a system 
where the local police can have a caucus with other  police officers 
from neighboring areas to deal with that. Even if you assume that police 
officers can be 100% objective, you would still not have much faith in a 
system where the police officers could be the prosecutors juries, 
judges, appeals judges  and Supreme Court judges all at the same time.


This i.m.o. is the reason why Iraq was invaded. Iraq under Saddam 
Hussein (supported by both superpowers in the 1980s) could never prove 
that it had no WMD within the current system once some prosecutors 
decided to throw the book at him.


Had instead the Western powers thought critically about how to improve 
the international institutions instead of seeing the collapse of the 
Soviet Union as a big gain in their power within the current system, the 
UNSC could have been reformed.  You can think of a system where the UNSC 
continues to exist in its present form but that it creates a new 
institution where judges rule on contentious fundings of facts. The UNSC 
could then have referred difficult dossiers like the Iraq WMD case, 
Iran's nuclear program etc. to such an institution where decisions are 
made on the basis of real evidence instead of political rhetoric.

Re: A scary theory about IS

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Yes, big powers do have inertia. The old soviets played a weak hand in 
Afghanistan, simply because they did not wish to rouse the Muslims against 
them, which would have occurred if the soviets had sent in more than 150,000 
troops to eliminate the mujaheddin. Self constraint loses wars, and please view 
the US in Vietnam as an example. I am guessing that the US was more afraid of 
rousing a hydrogen bomb owning-China, (1967), and kept 600,000 troops (1969) 
out of the DMZ. The way to have won, was to take troops to the North and won 
there. Now would it have been worth it for the US to do this? China and Russia 
had a bloody border skirmish in 69, that set in motion Kissinger and Nixon's 
Entente with China. We are now pals with the government of Vietnam 
(supposedly), and the entente with China is ending. 


A side issue with IS is not IS as a radical and successful radical Sunni 
movement, but it's clash with the Shia and Alwawi, in Syria and Iraq. WE have 
now a low-grade war between Sunni and Shia (more or less) in the Near East. As 
of this morning, I learned of a interview with retired US air force general, 
James Vallaley (sp?) who claimed that Iran now has a fission weapon, which 
Putin and China's Ji, helped the Iranians test, and along with North Korea, 
helped miniaturize the warhead for rocket and telemetry development. Moreover, 
Iran doesn't need 10,000 gaseous centrifuges to make enough weapons to explode 
on Israel, for it seems the Iranians (Shia) are going for bigger game, the US. 
This, coming from a guy in a position to know, is shocking, if true. The 
Iranians have long institutionalized the barbarism that the IS uses everyday in 
their propaganda videos. The Iranians use the Basiji as well as the 
Revolutionary Guard, against internal opposition. The are audacious, while the 
Persians are nuclear armed jihadists (like Pakistan?) and seek a direct path to 
Janah, like their Sunni brethren, and avoid hell, for being peaceable. Janah is 
Muslim paradise, and hell is punishment for not taking up the sword for Allah.  
Putin and China and North Korea are underwriting Iran, in hopes of  
Destabilization of the US and EU?  Avoiding a nuclear retaliation if, the US is 
hit by many fission war heads?? 


I am just a small player, a nothing, but I am guessing this is what is going 
on, unreported, or unappreciated. The world may or may not become suddenly very 
ugly indeed. Sigh!





-Original Message-
From: smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Mon, Aug 31, 2015 10:52 am
Subject: Re: A scary theory about IS


The real problem i.m.o. is that big powers tend to have a big inertia, 
it
takes them a long time to see that the World has changed and that 
they need to
focus on other issues than they currently are engaged with. 
In some cases that
can lead to escalation of a pointless conflict that 
has its roots in past
issues that are no longer relevant, as is the case 
with the war on drugs. And
that then can cause a lot of harm.

But I think the general issue is this huge
inertia. So, when Gorbachov 
was in power and he was ready to deal seriously
with the West, it took 
us a very long time to engage with him. A point on
which we never 
engaged with the Soviets in a constructive way was
Afghanistan.

The Soviets were willing to withdraw from  Afghanistan, even
before 
Gorbachov came to power, but on certain conditions like leaving behind
a 
stable government. We never wanted to engage with the Soviets on that,

because of pur mondset that the root of all evil was communism, and the

Soviets were just talking bullshit about our allies there, the

Jihadists.

Them posing a threat to the World? that to us was just
ridiculous. We 
knew for sure that with the Soviets gone out of Afghanistan,
their 
communist puppet government dismantled, the Afghan population would be

able to form a democratic state. We were so sure about this that we 
never
critically analyzed all the hidden assumptions made here.

It later turned out
that we were wrong and that the Soviets were right, 
not in their general
approach but about seeing the threat of Jihadism 
that we helped to fuel. Also
they were right about the dangers of having 
failed states. Our ideology at the
time was that a failed state would 
quickly get itself organized into  a
flourishing democracy if you could 
only keep the evil communists
out.

Another fallout of this was that Gorbachov's political position was

weakened in the Soviet Union, which made his  nationalist opposition who

were critical of the West politically stronger. When Yeltsin took over 
he
had to deal with an economically weak Russia while in the background 
there
were forces lurking who were extremely critical of the West. In 
any country
you'll have the opposition that tends to question the 
government's policy
especially if things are not going well economically 
and especially when there
has been a recent ra

Re: A scary theory about IS

[Bruno Marchal]

On 30 Aug 2015, at 22:34, meekerdb wrote:


On 8/30/2015 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 - the governments know that prohibition is the main fuel of  
criminality and terrorism.


So Muslims flew planes into buildings government (which one?)  
prohibited something (what?).


?

I am just saying that the prohibition of drugs create a huge  
underground markets. We know also that a big percentage of the  
benefits is used to corrupt the governments notably to pursue the  
politics of prohibition.
In fact prohibition create the criminals. The black money is often  
used directly to buy weapon, organize armed groups, etc. The  
international prohibition of drugs lead to international mafia, whose  
budget is bigger than many government. There are accomplices with  
weapon constructers, jail builders, arm dealers, the alcohol  
industries, tobacco industries, etc., but also with sects, like  
notably scientology. The banks have all been taken into hostages by a  
clever reinvestment of the black money in "normal societies": they  
can't no more live without it. All this is a false secret, well  
explained in document that you can find on the LEAP site.


They made recently a beautiful documentary (deeper than it can seem)  
on the failure of the war on drug:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=407=gqdVXnrYSAs

Bruno






Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A scary theory about IS

[meekerdb]

On 8/30/2015 10:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

 - the governments know that prohibition is the main fuel of criminality and 
terrorism.


So Muslims flew planes into buildings government (which one?) prohibited 
something (what?).

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A scary theory about IS

[Bruno Marchal]

On 19 Aug 2015, at 19:17, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

What I am guessing is the fear of those nasty Yanks that is driving  
all this. One doesn't need to be politically radical to be paranoid.  
In the US ATT has been sending its comm records directly to NSA, it  
was revealed a few days ago. Tell yer mum, Liz, that to paraphrase  
US dude Ben Franklin once responded, It's a Oligarchy M'am, if you  
can keep it.  It was a Republic in the early days, and under those  
days of this Republic, we had slavery, the massacres of Native  
Americans, and a civil war to correct the slavery thing. I don't see  
Google as being more nefarious, than say, Zuckerbeg, the young multi- 
billionaire who owns Facebook. Are you ever on facebook, Liz? ò¿ó  
h?


Tell Mum that it centuries past it was also called a Plutocracy.  
Rule by the rich. Liz, many of the Rich fund the now, socialist,  
Democratic Party, here in the States. Hedge Fund managers, like Tom  
Steyer, The Blackstone Group, The Carlyle Group, etc. As that  
fearful, man, Donald Trump, shouted during his meet up with the  
other Republican politicians 3 weeks ago, They all take donations  
for their campaigns, that's why they listen to us, this is why  
Hilary Clinton came to my wedding 10 years ago!


What do we all have to fear? Well, the billionaires are real smart,  
but they can make enormous blunders.




-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com; foar f...@googlegroups.com 


Sent: Wed, Aug 19, 2015 3:42 am
Subject: A scary theory about IS

It seems completely bonkers, butthinking about it.it might  
just be made enough to make sense.


(This was sent to me by my 81 year old mother-in-law, by the way.  
She isn't known for being politically radical.)


https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/why-google-made-the-nsa-2a80584c9c1




Let us assume that the governments are not infinitely incompetent.

Then,

 - the governments know that prohibition does not work.
 - the governments know that prohibition is the main fuel of  
criminality and terrorism.


From this you can conclude that the war on terror is fake. Indeed, if  
there was a genuine problem of terrorism, the first thing to do is to  
stop prohibition, and the war on drug.


Drug and terror are very plausibly imaginary enemies, made real by  
prohibition, directly or indirectly.


5 years of prohibition of alcohol has given Al Capone
70 years of prohibition of cannabis has given ... the war on terror,  
very plausibly, I think (as I hardly believe that a government can be  
*that* much incompetent).


I am sure of nothing, but to make us believe that hemp, the most  
cultivated plant by human beings, is a dangerous drug, and hide the  
1974 discovery (that mice brain tumors shrink with THC), and that  
after 9/11 cannabis is still schedule one, you do need a conspiracy.  
Infinite incompetence is not enough.


Now the problem with the text above, is that there are a lot of  
informations, and it take time to verify them, so I am neutral on that.


Yet, as long as prohibition exist, we should better be a priori  
skeptical with whatever the governments tell us, as usually liars lie  
and very often lie again, if only to distract from the previous lies.


Bruno






--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: A scary theory about IS

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

What I am guessing is the fear of those nasty Yanks that is driving all this. 
One doesn't need to be politically radical to be paranoid. In the US ATT has 
been sending its comm records directly to NSA, it was revealed a few days ago. 
Tell yer mum, Liz, that to paraphrase US dude Ben Franklin once responded, 
It's a Oligarchy M'am, if you can keep it.  It was a Republic in the early 
days, and under those days of this Republic, we had slavery, the massacres of 
Native Americans, and a civil war to correct the slavery thing. I don't see 
Google as being more nefarious, than say, Zuckerbeg, the young 
multi-billionaire who owns Facebook. Are you ever on facebook, Liz? ò¿ó h? 

Tell Mum that it centuries past it was also called a Plutocracy. Rule by the 
rich. Liz, many of the Rich fund the now, socialist, Democratic Party, here in 
the States. Hedge Fund managers, like Tom Steyer, The Blackstone Group, The 
Carlyle Group, etc. As that fearful, man, Donald Trump, shouted during his meet 
up with the other Republican politicians 3 weeks ago, They all take donations 
for their campaigns, that's why they listen to us, this is why Hilary Clinton 
came to my wedding 10 years ago! 

What do we all have to fear? Well, the billionaires are real smart, but they 
can make enormous blunders. 

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com; foar 
f...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Aug 19, 2015 3:42 am
Subject: A scary theory about IS


 
  
It seems completely bonkers, butthinking about it.it might just be made 
enough to make sense.   
   
  
(This was sent to me by my 81 year old mother-in-law, by the way. She isn't 
known for being politically radical.)  
  
   
   https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/why-google-made-the-nsa-2a80584c9c1  
 
   
  
 
  
 --  
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group. 
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to  everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
 To post to this group, send email to  everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
 Visit this group at  http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. 
 For more options, visit  https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.