A Psychological Exercise or 'Why Those At The Top Seem Able To Justify Anything'.

[Saru Inc]

Hi Saru

I've cut and pasted a definition of communism from wikipedia below; as you can see clearly from this definition fascism is not the same as communism, so i think it would be pretty missleading to call fascism 'national communism'. Perhaps a more objective approach is to see that fascism is about centralised control.....its when the corporations and the government merge and power consolidates. I think neither true capitalists or true socialists want to see that happen:

Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless, and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production


No I understand perfectly, but thank you for the patronization -- always appreciated. Of course Communism and Socialism are essentially the same thing, which I'm sure you'd disagree with me but oh well. Socialism is a heavily influenced by gov't society where Atheists elect the Government to be God because they think God doesn't exist, and so we turn to the Government for help in most scenarios, but there are still differing classes etc. Yippie. However Communism everyone is exactly the same, whatever. They both attempt to meter out fairness and both suck at it, because life isn't fair.


I think that all countries have blood on their hands and so do both political parties. The reality is that there is a power behind governments/states and behind political parties and if you are looking to point the finger of blame then i think they are probably more culpable than anyone

here's a president of the US warning you about this power behind government:

Yeah I can't view the video at work, so I'll watch later. I also hope you're not referring to the illuminati, its a little bit vague. However men are in political parties, so really the issue lies with the character of Man and Politics -- the scorpion and the frog scenario. I still side with what the majority of colonists did and their actions against native americans, again, I am not sure if that was even the genocide being refrred to.

 

[InvisibleJim]

I agree with you.

Why do you think governments are not being responsible?

Democratic institutions work on the basis of more of this, less of that, instead of 'this level is just right'. This creates an inherent opposition between segments of society. Democracy is a system which allows 51% of the population to disenfranchise the remaining 49%

 

[InvisibleJim]

In other stories [MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] I'm not your mother, go open a dictionary and stop wasting everyones time.

 

[palomica26.2]

Because they can. Because no one seems to be able to stop them. Have you read Atlas Shrugged?

 

[palomica26.2]

Democratic institutions work on the basis of more of this, less of that, instead of 'this level is just right'. This creates an inherent opposition between segments of society. Democracy is a system which allows 51% of the population to disenfranchise the remaining 49%

I agree completely. It is no way to rule a country. It creates division rather than unity IMO.

 

[Kgal]

Because they can. Because no one seems to be able to stop them. Have you read Atlas Shrugged?

No. I haven't read Atlas Shrugged. What are you thinking?

Because "No One" seems to be able to stop them?
In the US history there was a time where legislators passed laws to increase the vibrancy of the middle class - the working class. At one point in time they abolished corporations almost nationwide. We as a nation have been through a few "golden ages". I watched my parents live through one.

Perhaps it was a mistake creating a middle class. The Royals of Europe survived the plague because the working class/serfs/peasants worked to help them make it through. We saw the rise in power of the merchant class(middle class). Both classes needed each other and for a time each flourished until too many people started needing a piece of the pie.

This time of our history changed the way the majority perceived themselves in relation to one another. When the majority were able to utilize their own ideas and creativity to create their life as they wished to live it - it elevated human consciousness for the middle class. This carried over to the US and thus a whole country of people who wanted to direct the course of their own life was born. Pioneers...

So now it seems to me there is no more room for the pioneer on a material level. I guess we should give up and let the greedy people run our lives while we go back to the old model of peasants and the royals.

 

[Kgal]

In other stories @muir I'm not your mother, go open a dictionary and stop wasting everyones time.

Hmmph. I don't see where you get the right to do my thinking for me. You are insulting.

I'll be the judge of whether muir's information is of value to me or not.

 

[Kgal]

Democratic institutions work on the basis of more of this, less of that, instead of 'this level is just right'. This creates an inherent opposition between segments of society. Democracy is a system which allows 51% of the population to disenfranchise the remaining 49%

It sounds as if you're advocating for the government to establish the laws and then leave them be. Let the lawmakers show up once a year to handle foreign affairs I guess. That is the way it used to be here in the beginning....

If not Democracy - then what kind of governing system would you choose?

I once heard the best system is that of a benevolent dictator. I always cringe when I hear it...but on some level recognize the benefits.

 

[palomica26.2]

No. I haven't read Atlas Shrugged. What are you thinking?

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of Boy Scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
-Ayn Rand​

Because "No One" seems to be able to stop them?
In the US history there was a time where legislators passed laws to increase the vibrancy of the middle class - the working class. At one point in time they abolished corporations almost nationwide. We as a nation have been through a few "golden ages". I watched my parents live through one.

My parents are Boomers. I personally believe that an individual can make a difference and if you get enough of these thinkers and doers together, you have the opportunity for another golden age. Do I think this is going to happen in America? I haven't the foggiest. I'm cynical and I just can't keep up at times.

Perhaps it was a mistake creating a middle class. The Royals of Europe survived the plague because the working class/serfs/peasants worked to help them make it through. We saw the rise in power of the merchant class(middle class). Both classes needed each other and for a time each flourished until too many people started needing a piece of the pie.

We don't live in a meritocracy any more (if ever). Everyone deserves a piece of what you have, right? All the rights and none of the responsibilities.

This time of our history changed the way the majority perceived themselves in relation to one another. When the majority were able to utilize their own ideas and creativity to create their life as they wished to live it - it elevated human consciousness for the middle class. This carried over to the US and thus a whole country of people who wanted to direct the course of their own life was born. Pioneers...

You might like Atlas Shrugged.....

So now it seems to me there is no more room for the pioneer on a material level. I guess we should give up and let the greedy people run our lives while we go back to the old model of peasants and the royals.

Not me. Just because you see people doing things doesn't mean you have to follow suit. What I want for America is a resurgence of the rugged individualism that made us a great country. Will I see it in my lifetime? God knows.

 

[InvisibleJim]

Hmmph. I don't see where you get the right to do my thinking for me. You are insulting.

I'll be the judge of whether muir's information is of value to me or not.

In actual fact, if I keep being quoted to redefine bloody simple terms I'll state what I want in reply to that and my opinion on it. If you wish to play 'everyone be nice with the lego blocks' then I'll leave you to waste time playing social worker.

 

[Kgal]

In actual fact, if I keep being quoted to redefine bloody simple terms I'll state what I want in reply to that and my opinion on it. If you wish to play 'everyone be nice with the lego blocks' then I'll leave you to waste time playing social worker.

Hahahahahahahaha....

 

[Nixie]

First of all, the broad basic cycle of any organism can be applied to systems. There is a long period of change (the arrow climbs on the chart) an section of little or no change (a flat line) and then decline (arrow goes down) until it is gone. The question becomes where are we at in this cycle as a country?

So indeed, if you want to maintain the increase in your society, you have to create change.

However, there is a specific curveball in our society. The fact that our economy is much more dependant upon the world economy and other nations. We used to be in a position of power after WWII (mainly because, oh I don't know, most of the other industrialized nations had been blown to hell) and relatively insular.

As a country we have failed to provide adequate funding to ensure our children are well educated to become innovative leaders. We are entrenching ourselves deeper into a class structure (which is a definate decline in our societial structure). Our corporations have become bloated and ineffective. There has been a marked decrease in R & D which is stagnating industries--especially manufacturing. Additionally a majority of said companies are more multinational entities which means they are not necessarily working to benefit the US economy. Indeed, our vaunted "superior" position after WWII has led to an overall tendency to see the US market as something to "capture" or drain funds from (which makes Buy US Made Goods a decent idea). We wonder why the war existed but don't realize a considerable amount of our funds have been used on warfare/military contracts which has created a bloat of these type of contracts and the companies that have historically profited on these spend millions of dollars to ensure they keep getting money. We cut programs that work to assist people who are disenfranchised and those people end up in our welfare system instead of learning a trade or whatnot to become successful. So we perpetuate a cycle of dependency. We give tax breaks to multimillion dollar corporations instead of taxing the crap out of them for hiring teenage workers to take the place that a working husband/wife could have and they don't pay for health insurance. So they get a tax break and then the people they hire burden the system when they are ill. The people they don't hire in favor of the kid burden the system because they don't have a job. Our cities are decaying because we have not invested in them so there are outdated homes (which pollute/cost too much money/are mold infested/you name it) inadequate public works, streets, policing--get the picture?--so they turn to tax based services which means the poor are further disenfranchised because the poorer counties end up getting the shaft while the richer counties maintain benefits. There is marked resistance to increasing/ensuring an adequate living wage is established. Companies are resistant to the idea of paying workers more without realizing that those workers will end up with a greater ability to invest (which strengthens not only the economy but can help stabalize the stock market) and their spending (without burdening them with debt) will stimulte the economy.

This is just crap off the top of my head.

There are many issues in play. IMO, you can spout whatever half baked scheme under the sun as the "solution" but you gotta freaking understand the problem first. That way you don't end up shooting off a bazooka at cockroaches or try and use a fly swatter on king kong.

 

[MindYourHead]

We give tax breaks to multimillion dollar corporations instead of taxing the crap out of them for hiring teenage workers to take the place that a working husband/wife could have and they don't pay for health insurance. So they get a tax break and then the people they hire burden the system when they are ill.

Just a couple things.
What corporations are hiring teens? Teenage unemployment is at the highest level seen in decades. 23.7% as of June 2012.
There was a time when it was easy for a teen to find a summer job. Now, adults raising a family are the ones taking jobs that were once almost exclusively reserved for teens. Working at fast food joints for example.
If we pile taxes onto corporations, and remove the tax loopholes they take full advantage of, they will just pass the cost of those taxes onto the consumer to protect their profits. So in the end the little person ends up paying the taxes of the corporation.

As a country we have failed to provide adequate funding to ensure our children are well educated to become innovative leaders.

The schools always approach the voters with their hat in hand asking for more money. The answer they say to their problems is always more money.
Yet the results are always lacking. It isn't a matter of not enough money, it is how they are spending it. When for example, school district superintendents are making $200,000 a year in a 5 year contract, given moving expenses, and then given golden parachutes when they leave a year later, something is wrong.
The money isn't getting spent in the class room were it counts, it is being spent outside of the classroom.
I also think our teaching methods are out of date. We are still teaching using a format that was developed back when we went from being an agrarian culture to the industrial age.
Is it still necessary for school age children to have the summer months off? It came about so farms would have the kids home to help with crops.

 

[Nixie]

Just a couple things.
What corporations are hiring teens? Teenage unemployment is at the highest level seen in decades. 23.7% as of June 2012.
There was a time when it was easy for a teen to find a summer job. Now, adults raising a family are the ones taking jobs that were once almost exclusively reserved for teens. Working at fast food joints for example.
If we pile taxes onto corporations, and remove the tax loopholes they take full advantage of, they will just pass the cost of those taxes onto the consumer to protect their profits. So in the end the little person ends up paying the taxes of the corporation

Don't know the statistics on teenage employment so that is something I can't quote on. However the prices will stabilize as competition becomes equalized. Sure they can raise prices but some upstart can trim their cost or profit and undermine their raised prices. It shouldn't be all about the bottom line but overall health for the company. Reputation and brand loyalty are underutilized components in a depressed economy.

 

[Nixie]

The schools always approach the voters with their hat in hand asking for more money. The answer they say to their problems is always more money.
Yet the results are always lacking. It isn't a matter of not enough money, it is how they are spending it. When for example, school district superintendents are making $200,000 a year in a 5 year contract, given moving expenses, and then given golden parachutes when they leave a year later, something is wrong.
The money isn't getting spent in the class room were it counts, it is being spent outside of the classroom.
I also think our teaching methods are out of date. We are still teaching using a format that was developed back when we went from being an agrarian culture to the industrial age.
Is it still necessary for school age children to have the summer months off? It came about so farms would have the kids home to help with crops.

As long as you let each state mandate school requirements and such, you will have a fractured system. It is working well in some communitities and not in others. Additionally you are using tax based funding in many counties which divides the gap between those that have the ability to pay 200k and those that can't pay their light bill. I don't think you can actually evaluate the level of education unless you can iron out the basic flaws in unequal and underfunded school systems coupled with a lack of cohesiveness.

Year round school sounds fine but then are you investing in education or daycare? I think it is important to maintain the overall health of the family structure and year round school just doesn't seem to cut that. Maybe do it is trimesters. 3 months on/one month off would make more sense. Let the parents have time to raise their kids and be responsible for their daily activities part of the year.

 

[MindYourHead]

However the prices will stabilize as competition becomes equalized. Sure they can raise prices but some upstart can trim their cost or profit and undermine their raised prices. It shouldn't be all about the bottom line but overall health for the company. Reputation and brand loyalty are underutilized components in a depressed economy.

Good point. Over time like water seeking it's own level, the marketplace will even it all out.

 

[muir]

In other stories @muir I'm not your mother, go open a dictionary and stop wasting everyones time.

It's you wasting peoples time by constantly missusing words

Youre so quick to tell me to open a dictionary but you clearly haven't done that yourself or you would see that i'm right

What you're doing by doing that is helping the process of doublethink. The elites don't want people knowing what true socialism is and if you also missuse the word then you're basically helping twist the meaning of language

If people can't even agree on language then we're really in trouble....can't you see that?

 

[muir]

Democratic institutions work on the basis of more of this, less of that, instead of 'this level is just right'. This creates an inherent opposition between segments of society. Democracy is a system which allows 51% of the population to disenfranchise the remaining 49%

There's different forms of democracy but what would you replace democracy with Jim i'm intrigued?

 

[Lerxst]

Since this thread seems to have meandered in every direction possible, here's an interesting clip:

[video]http://player.vimeo.com/video/45207887[/video]

 

[muir]

No I understand perfectly, but thank you for the patronization -- always appreciated.

There was no patronisation intended I just wanted to make the point effectively so i posted a definition to avoid further confusion

Of course Communism and Socialism are essentially the same thing, which I'm sure you'd disagree with me but oh well.

Its just not as simple as that man. Just as there is a spectrum in capitalism between those that want lots of government interferrance and those that want very little, so there is with socialism

So yeah you are right in saying that there are some people who call themselves 'socialists' who argue that we need a centralised power to control the economy. But we've seen centralised powers before in Nazi germany and the USSR and it wasn't pretty!

Ask yourself which section of society would most like to see power centralised? The monied interests would.....the concentrations of capital would. The average worker wouldn't because they know they wouldn't be chosen to be in that select few and it would mean that they get no say in the running of things. This is why trotsky got funding from bankers when he visited the US, because they wanted to do deals with the emerging government in Russia....they saw it as a new market to exploit.

However Stalin threw a spanner in the works by not doing business with the US corporations. Instead he threw up the 'iron curtain'

Socialism is a heavily influenced by gov't society where Atheists elect the Government to be God because they think God doesn't exist, and so we turn to the Government for help in most scenarios, but there are still differing classes etc. Yippie. However Communism everyone is exactly the same, whatever. They both attempt to meter out fairness and both suck at it, because life isn't fair.

Marx was a materialist but not all socialists are marxists...i'm not. I'm talking about libertarian socialism where people are free to believe what they want in religious/spiritual terms

I'm as wary as you of a central authority that seeks to control how people act and think which is why i see anarchist communism as the best of both worlds. Not only are you free to engage with the world of work how you want but you are also not being controlled by government

There is a lot of confusion around this stuff and there is a reason for that. People often say they are doing something but actually they do something totally different. In fact we see politicians do this all the time. They make promises when they are campaigning for election but when they get voted in they don't carry them through

This has happened with both capitalism and communism. For example in Russia a stateless communist society wasn't created....a centrally controlled market economy was created so regardless of the claims of their elite they were not communist.....the elite wanted power for themselves and didn't allow the process to pass beyond a dictatorship of the proletariat (in fact they didn't even achieve that!)
There are different kinds of 'socialism'. Some people believe that there should be no government some people believe that there should be a centrally controlled economy

I believe 'libertarian socialism' would offer people the greatest freedom from authoritarian control because it believes there should be no government

I do believe that there have been groups of people such as the Fabian society who have been working towards a centrally controlled government. Now they might call that a 'socialist' government but they don't mean socialist in the sense that i mean in where there is free association between people. They mean a centrally controlled government and what i am warning about when i'm talking about conspiracies is that there is a group of monied families who want to centralise their power and they don't care whether they call the system they are using to do this 'socialist' or 'capitalist'

If this seems outlandish just look at everything thats happening at the moment. If you apply this paradigm then everything makes sense

Yeah I can't view the video at work, so I'll watch later. I also hope you're not referring to the illuminati, its a little bit vague. However men are in political parties, so really the issue lies with the character of Man and Politics -- the scorpion and the frog scenario. I still side with what the majority of colonists did and their actions against native americans, again, I am not sure if that was even the genocide being refrred to.

Why the video is so important is because it is coming from a president! He is saying in very clear terms that a power block has formed in the US which has got rich and influential from a war economy (thats why the US is always at war)

Below is a clip of another US president (JFK) saying some interesting things in an address to the assembled US press (he obviously ended up being shot in the head). He very clearly says 'we as a people are opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings'. He also talks about a 'conspiracy'. Some people will say that he was talking about communism, but communism is not a 'secret society'....he is talking about something different


[video=youtube;FnkdfFAqsHA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnkdfFAqsHA[/video]

Then there was the 'McCarthy witchhunts' where senator McCarthy was trying to expose a 'communist threat' within the US. But this 'communist' threat he was talking about is the same people the two presidents above are talking about. They are a power block within the US. McCarthys reputation was destroyed as a result of this

Why some people have called them 'communist' is because this group have a plan (as outlined by Prof. Carrol Quigley in his book 'Tragedy and Hope') to create a centrally controlled consumer economy; he called the 'Milner group' after one of their founders

This group are called many different things by their political opponents: the military industrial complex, the power elite, the east coast establishment, the international bankers, the money trust and yes they are called by some the 'illuminati'

Below in my next post (it won't let me post more than one video per post!) is another of your past senators talking about them and their plan to create a global government. This senator was to become the only US politician to be killed supposedly by the enemy in the cold war when the commercial plane Korean flight 007 was shot down over alaska. There were supposed to be two of his political opponents also on the flight but they were diverted from it at the last minute: