*But in the sense of dealing with the perverse realities of current authority structures.*
What is the best way to work within the current authority structures? It seems to me in this current day and age that the current authority structures are based on corporate control of governments by international companies who have the money, organization, propaganda outlets, and influence to move people and governments to their collective will. For example, maybe Fox news and Rupert Murdock would be an appropriated prototypical customer. A strategy based on this reality would be prudent, not bottom up popular attitude shifting. On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 12:56 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > As Alan Fletcher said "Sounds even worse than a Rossi event." > > Rossi events don't "prove the existence of" anything significant. They > "raise public awareness" and appear to have had no impact on *anything*. > Oh, we can *speculate* about *invisible* impact, but the fact remains > that there are no customers coming forth and saying that they have > purchased a Rossi device, nor are there any changes in public policy nor > even admitted behavior of stake-holding funding sources. > > Due to centralization, we live in a very perverse authority structure > that, even when vital interests are at stake, is impervious to all but very > carefully crafted presentations. Rossi's behavior I can understand if he's > willing to sacrifice share-holder opportunity in order to buy further > discredit of centralized authority structure. But when you have 2 > competitors racing for the market, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that > we are dealing with "fools" -- not in the technical sense, but in the sense > of dealing with the perverse realities of current authority structures. > > > > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Because you cannot do it without having proved the existance of >> something, that is, a high power reactor. So, you do both. >> >> >> 2013/7/16 James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> >> >>> If the point of raising public awareness is political then what is the >>> point of pursuing politics if not to change policy? >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> The difference it is that you wanted to change a policy. They want to >>>> raise awareness about the existance of something. >>>> >>>> >>>> 2013/7/16 James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> >>>> >>>>> You want to know what it takes to overcome political opposition from >>>>> bureaucratic insiders to outside competition: >>>>> >>>>> Look this guy >>>>> up<http://web.archive.org/web/20081212071704/http://www.geocities.com/jim_bowery/testimny.htm>. >>>>> He seems to have some experience dealing with that sort of thing. Clue: >>>>> Defkalion's approach to politics has a log way to go and there is no >>>>> evidence they are pursuing the route they need to make it work. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Daniel Rocha >>>>> <danieldi...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> But politics is important in this business. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2013/7/16 James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Public awareness works for politics. Market awareness works for >>>>>>> business. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>> Daniel Rocha - RJ >>>>>> danieldi...@gmail.com >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Daniel Rocha - RJ >>>> danieldi...@gmail.com >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Daniel Rocha - RJ >> danieldi...@gmail.com >> > >
