How close to reality is North Korea's threats?

[muir]

Didn't N.korea invade S.Korea in the 1st place starting this whole thing off?

I don't think you can discount the presence of the US and their influence on that situation

 

[muir]

Yes, it's rhetoric.
BUT HOW IS IT NOT NEWS?

The point i'm making is that the US is cranking up the heat here while telling their own population that the N.Koreans are a danger to them

This is the same sort of thing they did with Iraq, where they got the public scared of a threat that didn't exist....in effect the US creates its own monsters

 

[Stu]

I am getting the message that the north is a danger to nobody. most of the news focuses on the idea that mr un is bluffing about being set to attack.

 

[Apone]

The point i'm making is that the US is cranking up the heat here while telling their own population that the N.Koreans are a danger to them

This is the same sort of thing they did with Iraq, where they got the public scared of a threat that didn't exist....in effect the US creates its own monsters

You have the worst selective memory I've ever encountered. There were MASSIVE protests over Iraq, CONSTANT media scrutiny, and Bush left his second term with the lowest approval ratings of any president in history-- and a lot of that was because of the Iraq war.

But yes, monsters have been 'created' in the past-- that doesn't mean that it applies to this particular instance OR that there wasn't also extremely good reasons to genuinely dislike Stalin, Hitler, OR Kim Jong Eun.

You seem to have an extremely low opinion of the general public's ability to be critical of the news-- as if you've got a monopoly on informed opinions because you read Alex Jones and David Icke. Believe it or not, other people DO know what they're talking about-- they just don't agree with you.

 

[muir]

You have the worst selective memory I've ever encountered. There were MASSIVE protests over Iraq, CONSTANT media scrutiny, and Bush left his second term with the lowest approval ratings of any president in history-- and a lot of that was because of the Iraq war.

But yes, monsters have been 'created' in the past-- that doesn't mean that it applies to this particular instance OR that there wasn't also extremely good reasons to genuinely dislike Stalin, Hitler, OR Kim Jong Eun.

You seem to have an extremely low opinion of the general public's ability to be critical of the news-- as if you've got a monopoly on informed opinions because you read Alex Jones and David Icke. Believe it or not, other people DO know what they're talking about-- they just don't agree with you.

When did i say there wasn't? Youre trying to twist what i've said

What you're doing here is to write a new narrative....you're effectively trying to re-write reality

In your new narrative you've written here you've decided that i get all my information from Ike and Jones and that i have a low opinion of the publics ability to be critical of the news

Its my belief that you are doing that to try and garner sympathy with anyone who reads your post because you are trying to make me out to be someone who thinks they're better than others in an attempt to alienate me

This is a complete distortion of the truth. I've said many times that i believe that people will make the right decision when presented with the facts. I have argued again and again against centralised control where the decision making is taken away from the people

I have argued the case for de-centralisation where people are empowered to make the decisions in their communities. So far from the twisted narrative you are trying to spin i am actually the one who believes in the people and their ability to think for themselves when they have the facts

The point i was actually making in the post was that the tactics of the power elite are to use fear to rule. They do this by creating a perceived threat.

The central controllers in the US do it and the central controllers in N.Korea do it.

The neo-cons who orchestrated the Iraq wars with all the lies that justified them followed the teachings of Strauss who taught that a country needs an enemy to define themself against

So if the US didn't have an enemy they would need to create one; this is compounded by the fact that the US is a war economy

There's a good documentary about this rule by fear approach called 'the power of nightmares': http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-power-of-nightmares/

 

[Apone]

What you're doing here is to write a new narrative....you're effectively trying to re-write reality

In your new narrative you've written here you've decided that i get all my information from Ike and Jones and that i have a low opinion of the publics ability to be critical of the news

Its my belief that you are doing that to try and garner sympathy with anyone who reads your post because you are trying to make me out to be someone who thinks they're better than others in an attempt to alienate me

This is a complete distortion of the truth. I've said many times that i believe that people will make the right decision when presented with the facts.

Or maybe I just disagree with you and your 'facts' and there is no other agenda.
But I really do think you have a low opinion of other people... though this isn't something that you're going to admit to anyone including yourself.

I have argued again and again against centralised control where the decision making is taken away from the people

I have argued the case for de-centralisation where people are empowered to make the decisions in their communities. So far from the twisted narrative you are trying to spin i am actually the one who believes in the people and their ability to think for themselves when they have the facts

The point i was actually making in the post was that the tactics of the power elite are to use fear to rule. They do this by creating a perceived threat.

Yes, I know. The problem being that the US/UN isn't making North Korea out to be any kind of threat, and basically everything you can read about the subject is saying that the war would be over as soon as it began. And yes, the North IS the antagonist here.

And decentralization (at least in the sense I think you mean it) usually follows a complete collapse of civilization-- decentralization is what happened after the fall of Rome and was huge in western Europe through the dark ages. It also marked the end of centuries of accumulated science, art, and culture... as well as the rise of religious superstition. It saw Western Europe fall far far behind the east, at least until the Church grew terrified of the Muslim threat and began the crusades-- which restored centralized power and made it so that people could learn how to actually do things again. It was a time where people lived in the ruins of former great cities, clueless about how to restore them... and when villages were constantly being sacked by foreign tribes who would storm in, rape and murder whoever they wanted, take anything they wanted, and then repeat the process when they ran out of food and money a few months later. This is your utopia?

The central controllers in the US do it and the central controllers in N.Korea do it.

The neo-cons who orchestrated the Iraq wars with all the lies that justified them followed the teachings of Strauss who taught that a country needs an enemy to define themself against

So if the US didn't have an enemy they would need to create one; this is compounded by the fact that the US is a war economy

There's a good documentary about this rule by fear approach called 'the power of nightmares': http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-power-of-nightmares/

Yes, I already understand the concept, thank you.

 

[muir]

Or maybe I just disagree with you and your 'facts' and there is no other agenda.
But I really do think you have a low opinion of other people... though this isn't something that you're going to admit to anyone including yourself.

You have consistently supported the corporations and i have consistiently supported the people. It smacks of dishonesty for you to now try and turn that around

You seem to have a very dim view of people; at one point making a thread called 'hell is other people'

Yes, I know. The problem being that the US/UN isn't making North Korea out to be any kind of threat, and basically everything you can read about the subject is saying that the war would be over as soon as it began. And yes, the North IS the antagonist here.

And decentralization usually follows a complete collapse of civilization-- decentralization is what happened after the fall of Rome and was huge in western Europe through the dark ages. It also marked the end of centuries of accumulated science, art, and culture... as well as the rise of religious superstition. It saw Western Europe fall far far behind the east, at least until the Church grew terrified of the Muslim threat and began the crusades-- which restored centralized power and made it so that people could learn how to actually do things again. It was a time where people lived in the ruins of former great cities, clueless about how to restore them... and when villages were constantly being sacked by foreign tribes who would storm in, rape and murder whoever they wanted, take anything they wanted, and then repeat the process when they ran out of food and money a few months later. This is your utopia?

Historians don't tend to use the term 'dark age' anymore as its going through a revision. Its now being appreciated more

Rome was a monster. It became horribly corrupt and oppressive. It not only invaded many peoples it also enslaved many peoples. It eventually stretched itself too far and fell apart.

It saw unimaginable corruption and exploitation, which is why people describe sordid scenes as 'like the last days of rome'

It wasn't an enlightened time and was full of rape and murder. In my country the famous female cheif Boudicea lead a revolt against the romans after they raped one of her daughters

Yes, I already understand the concept, thank you.

I take it you won't be watching the documentary?

 

[Apone]

You have consistently supported the corporations and i have consistiently supported the people. It smacks of dishonesty for you to now try and turn that around

That's just blatantly wrong. I'm actually left moderate-- I've also posted on how the rich are getting richer and I don't think that extreme wealth inequality is in any way a good thing... but a little inequality isn't the monster you seem to think it is. I think we do need to go the other way-- it's this whole 'global elite conspiracy of evil capitalists' thing that is ridiculous. But yes, compared to you, who thinks that all corporations (and our current civilization as well) should be completely destroyed and not just regulated, yes, I suppose that I do seem extremely pro-establishment. But I don't 'support' the corporations... I just think that some are good and some are bad and the system can be regulated to the point where we can all have enough for ourselves while the successful people can have a little bit more.

The problem isn't that the government is too powerful, it's that it's not powerful enough to regulate the corporations, and that globalization has made it even more difficult. I also think that the causes of this aren't an intentional plot so much as the natural course of events-- the corporations didn't control themselves into being, they got that way because PEOPLE KEPT GIVING THEM THEIR MONEY.

You seem to have a very dim view of people; at one point making a thread called 'hell is other people'

On my 'Hell is Other People' thread you completely misinterpreted the content, bringing your paranoid lunacy into it, jumping to heaps of conclusions and getting a lot of things wrong as usual.

Historians don't tend to use the term 'dark age' anymore as its going through a revision. Its now being appreciated more

Rome was a monster. It became horribly corrupt and oppressive. It not only invaded many peoples it also enslaved many peoples. It eventually stretched itself too far and fell apart.

It saw unimaginable corruption and exploitation, which is why people describe sordid scenes as 'like the last days of rome'

It wasn't an enlightened time and was full of rape and murder. In my country the famous female cheif Boudicea lead a revolt against the romans after they raped one of her daughters

I take it you won't be watching the documentary?

I already get that nations use propaganda and yes, they attempted to make Iraq into something it wasn't with the WMDs-- but people found out about it and the media was extremely hostile to Bush over it, for good reasons. If the media is controlled by the states which are controlled by the corporations, then WHY would they ATTACK the president over Iraq???

And to say that the US is 'creating' North Korea as a threat is to ignore everything that has happened there over the past 70 years. Are you saying that the cold war wasn't about two ideologically opposed nations vying for influence over the world? Are you saying that North and South Korea never went to war? That the North has always been only concerned with its own interests, hasn't tested any bombs, doesn't sell weapons to terrorists, doesn't threaten our allies in the South, didn't bomb an island a year or so ago, etc? Sometimes the people whom the media claims are hostile really are hostile.

And yes, Rome had problems.. most especially right before it fell completely apart. But you can't just say 'but someone got raped' or 'people didn't agree!' and then suddenly Rome is the worst thing to ever happen to humanity. No one is going to deny that it was a glorious civilization with a rich vibrant culture, or that it made incredible advances in science and math. What did the scattered tribes that followed the end of Rome accomplish exactly? I mean, besides stealing their technologies from Islam?

Look at the alternatives and weigh the pros and cons-- you honestly think that a lack of education, infrastructure, and culture is preferable? You think that famines, plagues and a complete lack of security is a good thing? Of course, this is only before feudalism makes a comeback (people will be begging for protection) and the centralization process starts again.

 

[muir]

Part1 (i can only post one video in each post!)

That's just blatantly wrong. I'm actually left moderate-- I've also posted on how the rich are getting richer and I don't think that extreme wealth inequality is in any way a good thing... but a little inequality isn't the monster you seem to think it is.

Youre trying to put words in my mouth!

I have not said that a little inequality is a monster! Stop trying to write your own narrative

You do yourself, me and the truth an injustice by constantly trying to twist what i'm saying

I think we do need to go the other way-- it's this whole 'global elite conspiracy of evil capitalists' thing that is ridiculous. But yes, compared to you, who thinks that all corporations (and our current civilization as well) should be completely destroyed and not just regulated, yes, I suppose that I do seem extremely pro-establishment. But I don't 'support' the corporations... I just think that some are good and some are bad and the system can be regulated to the point where we can all have enough for ourselves while the successful people can have a little bit more.

The problem isn't that the government is too powerful, it's that it's not powerful enough to regulate the corporations, and that globalization has made it even more difficult. I also think that the causes of this aren't an intentional plot so much as the natural course of events-- the corporations didn't control themselves into being, they got that way because PEOPLE KEPT GIVING THEM THEIR MONEY.

The corporations WANT a strong government. They want a strong government that will protect them from the people

Noam Chomsky explains this very clearly, making the point that the position of most US americans on the political spectrum is not reflected by the two dominating political parties that are more right wing than the public; this is because the two main parties represent the interests of the corporations who fund them; that is a conspiracy and it is not a theory but a fact:

[video=youtube;0x-kAGS_rPc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0x-kAGS_rPc[/video]

The corporations did not get into power because people kept giving them money they were created by financiers who manipulated currencies, bribed governments, orchestrated financial crashes, got hold of the money supply and basically created fortunes from criminal activities. these financiers then invested heavily in the US for example in banking, oil, steel, manufacturing etc

They funded and moulded politics so that people had less and less choice but to buy corporate products

At the moment the corporatocracy are trying to stop people being self sufficient for example this guy trying to live naturally:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26MCtGBb-Uw&feature=player_embedded#!

 

[muir]

Part 2

On my 'Hell is Other People' thread you completely misinterpreted the content, bringing your paranoid lunacy into it, jumping to heaps of conclusions and getting a lot of things wrong as usual.

No that's not what happened. What happened was that you posted a study that was from the LSE. The LSE is a Rockefeller influenced establishment and the Rockefellers have a clear agenda as outlined in the literature that they have produced through their vehicle 'the club of rome'

I explained to you the real context of the study and instead of asking me more about this new information i was presenting you responded defencively and started complaining

Having posted some pro-corporatocracy propaganda you then complained when someone criticised it! What do you expect, that you can post studies backed by eugenicists on a public chat forum and not meet any resistance? Now THAT'S 'lunacy'

You didn't need to respond that way...you could have instead looked into what i was saying and realised that i was making a very valid contribution to a thread that is essentially reflecting the views of the corporate elite in the war of perceptions they are waging against the minds of the public...or as Chomsky calls it 'manufacturing consent'....in this case it is manufacturing consent to the population depletion of the africans living on land in Africa that the zionists want to get their hands on

Why don't you use the internet to research how zionist global investors are buying up land in africa?

I already get that nations use propaganda and yes, they attempted to make Iraq into something it wasn't with the WMDs-- but people found out about it and the media was extremely hostile to Bush over it, for good reasons. If the media is controlled by the states which are controlled by the corporations, then WHY would they ATTACK the president over Iraq???

This is how it works:

The politicians are not the real power in the land. They are middle management. they are bit players who walk briefly onto the political stage do some speeches to the public and then dissapear from public view. The real power is held by those orchestrating the performance; the people with the wealth are the real power

Bush came in and became a hate figure of the public, so the corporatocracy bin him and then they wheel out their latest puppet obama who then sells everyone a story of hope for change. Obama however is also, like Bush funded and controlled by the zionist bankers

Bush...smoosh...the guy was an idiot...he could barely string a sentence together without fucking it up....you really think he was the mastermind behind US policy? No he was a front man for the real controllers in the shadows....the people that are always there regardless of who the public vote for in the political theatre of elections

The politicians are there to distract people away from where the real power is

Here's the mastermind Bush trying not to fuck up his lines:[video=youtube;OE59vpev-xU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE59vpev-xU[/video]

 

[muir]

Part 3

And to say that the US is 'creating' North Korea as a threat is to ignore everything that has happened there over the past 70 years. Are you saying that the cold war wasn't about two ideologically opposed nations vying for influence over the world? Are you saying that North and South Korea never went to war? That the North has always been only concerned with its own interests, hasn't tested any bombs, doesn't sell weapons to terrorists, doesn't threaten our allies in the South, didn't bomb an island a year or so ago, etc? Sometimes the people whom the media claims are hostile really are hostile.

No what i'm saying is that there is an elite in both those countries that sit on the backs of the workers in both those countries. These elites do not want to share their wealth with their own people and they certainly don't want to share their countries resources with other countries and it is because we allow these elites to continue controlling us all centrally that humanity will continue to have these deep divisions

The ego of those elites maintains divisions and inequality....all so that they can have power over their fellow man/women

And yes, Rome had problems.. most especially right before it fell completely apart. But you can't just say 'but someone got raped' or 'people didn't agree!' and then suddenly Rome is the worst thing to ever happen to humanity. No one is going to deny that it was a glorious civilization with a rich vibrant culture, or that it made incredible advances in science and math. What did the scattered tribes that followed the end of Rome accomplish exactly? I mean, besides stealing their technologies from Islam?

I'm sorry to break this to you but the romans stole their culture from the Greeks! The Europeans then relearned that greek knowledge from the muslims who had treasured knowledge and the sciences and had recorded it with a few innovations of the muslims

The roman historian tacitus made a great point about the Pax Romana; he said 'they created a desert and called it peace'

Look at the alternatives and weigh the pros and cons-- you honestly think that a lack of education, infrastructure, and culture is preferable? You think that famines, plagues and a complete lack of security is a good thing? Of course, this is only before feudalism makes a comeback (people will be begging for protection) and the centralization process starts again.

This is a complete distortion of history

Central control did not bring education. Education was kept for the power elites. This process was undermined by the rise of a merchant class and the creation of the printing press

Once the merchant class rose to power they did not push education out either to the populace and treated workers during the industrial revolution as little more than dumb beasts with the exception of more enlightened thinkers such as Robert Owen

The workers organised into trade unions and peoples societies and they fought for education for their children

Education hasn't been given freely by central powers it has been fought for by the oppressed

Nowadays the central powers see 'education' as a way of indoctrinating the next generation of workers which is why despite the increasing amounts of money thrown at education literacy levels are falling

Here is an MSNBC host saying that children do not belong to parents but to the state! This is because the zionists are state socialists like the nazis....they believe children should be raised by the state so that they can be indoctrinated. That is why Tony Blairs wife Cherie Blair has said women should return to work just weeks after having a child:

[video=youtube;N3qtpdSQox0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3qtpdSQox0&feature=player_embedded[/video]

The lack of security in the world is because of the policies of the elites who are driving conflict and division around the world

But you have struck on something with that idea of people rushing to neo-fuedalism....that is the plan of the power elites: they create crises to create a reaction in the public (fear) so that they can then justify the changes they want to make.

So the power elites will use fear to make people feel they need to be centrally controlled, but the people who created the dangers are the central controllers themselves! Its all a big con

Problem, reaction, solution

Centralised control has not made people feel safe.....i reckon many people around the world feel pretty unsafe right now because of the influence of central control

 

[Apone]

I'm sorry to break this to you but the romans stole their culture from the Greeks! The Europeans then relearned that greek knowledge from the muslims who had treasured knowledge and the sciences and had recorded it with a few innovations of the muslims

They had to relearn it because of decentralization… trade routes weren't safe and the cities were sacked by barbarians, so people moved out of the cities and into the rural areas-- Rome had been the CENTER of Europe, and when it was depopulated a lot of the knowledge that they had possessed became lost to that part of the world. Decentralization typically occurs when society has collapsed-- and that's when progress tends to stall. Meanwhile, the middle east and the Byzantines were still centralized and the spread of Islam helped to unite a lot of formerly independent states under Muslim rule, which is why they were so advanced.

This is a complete distortion of history

Central control did not bring education. Education was kept for the power elites. This process was undermined by the rise of a merchant class and the creation of the printing press

Once the merchant class rose to power they did not push education out either to the populace and treated workers during the industrial revolution as little more than dumb beasts with the exception of more enlightened thinkers such as Robert Owen

The workers organised into trade unions and peoples societies and they fought for education for their children

Education hasn't been given freely by central powers it has been fought for by the oppressed

Technology changed the nature of work and the nature of society, which in turn lead to things like greater access to education and more opportunities. Activism didn't create the printing press--innovation did. The Enlightenment was a direct result of centralization being restored in Western Europe, the great powers organizing themselves, conquests and trade and all of those things. Centralization encourages TRADE, which brings not only material goods but also IDEAS into the west-- the west thrived as much because of innovative applications of other people's ideas as it did because of its own inventions-- that's what prosperity is! There were no such innovations during the decentralized Middle Ages.

And the influx of ideas and technology eventually made access to education SO much easier. Literacy rates have skyrocketed in the past 100 plus years-- not because people have demanded things, but because things have been invented. As soon as a thing is invented, it's only a matter of time before it finds its way into the hands of the people… that goes for anything-- weapons, computers, medicine, etc. It was because of the industrial revolution that our perspectives have changed-- people weren't sitting around demanding that they be given cars before they even knew what a car was, or medicine before they understood that the Black Death wasn't God punishing them for their sins. Decentralized societies are highly superstitious and this interferes with their ability to produce beyond the level of basic subsistence.

Centralization has also made us more of an urban society whereas we used to be rural-- seriously, go to the countryside and you won't find very much culture, but the cities are booming because that's where the money and power are, and that's how civilizations work.

But you have struck on something with that idea of people rushing to neo-fuedalism....that is the plan of the power elites: they create crises to create a reaction in the public (fear) so that they can then justify the changes they want to make.

So the power elites will use fear to make people feel they need to be centrally controlled, but the people who created the dangers are the central controllers themselves! Its all a big con

Problem, reaction, solution

Centralised control has not made people feel safe.....i reckon many people around the world feel pretty unsafe right now because of the influence of central control

This is just so incredibly backwards I don't know where to begin. The 'elites', if they do exist, do NOT want feudalism-- feudalism is highly decentralized.
LOOK:

http://mrfarshtey.net/whnotes/feudalism.pdf

THE FEUDAL MODEL Definition: a decentralized sociopolitical structure in which a weak monarchy attempts to control the lands of the realm with regional leaders.

That's the meaning of the term.

Feudalism is the direct result of a decentralized government too weak to control the people so it basically hires gangs to police the people, and the rulers of these gangs enslave the weak. If the central government were to collapse, then the military would probably splinter and the US would end up being run by the generals-- or whoever could command the loyalty of the troops. These gangs would fight for territory and life would be much much harder than it is now. The most decentralized states in existence today are probably the unstable African nations where the ruler only lasts until the other tribe receives their shipment of guns from North Korea. That's decentralization.

Centralization isn't without its dangers as well, but compared to warlords constantly fighting for territory, I really don't think it's so bad. Yes, uprisings are suppressed and trade is so vital to progress that sometimes it is forced forward unethically, but the alternative is fewer advances and a dark age for technology and progress, etc. Think of how much information would vanish if we lost the Internet-- which could easily happen if things are decentralized-- people would forget how to do things because they would be too focused on their own survival. Sooner or later, that broken computer sitting in the corner of your office (that you couldn't get fixed, because nobody ever bothered to learn how to fix it) would turn into a mystery device. Generations later, it would be found at the bottom of an ocean and people would be clueless as to how it worked.

If we ARE in a decline, then decentralization will occur naturally when society finally completely crumbles, and people will end up scattered across the countryside-- possibly even start bulldozing the suburbs to make room for local farms. Priorities will simply shift away from everything we know, and vast amounts of knowledge WILL be lost.

If the elites are brilliant enough to be manipulating absolutely EVERYONE, then how are they not brilliant enough to know that the 'rulers' of feudal society do not have as much power as the rulers of a democratic society? How are they not brilliant enough to know that feudal society is simply NOT as productive, not as literate, not as capable of moving itself forward. If the elites exist, then they probably want a productive society more than anyone else-- power is a means to an end, not an end in itself-- the same goes for money. There is NO POINT in ruling over a bunch of peasants… and forcing people into dehumanizing roles or back to basic subsistence lowers the quality of life for EVERYONE, not just the lower classes.

Added to this is that fact that without a central authority to maintain order, the monarchs would live in fear of the gangs usurping them and stealing their crown (which happened when the Roman Empire was breaking apart). Even if our system only offers the 'illusion' of choice, the point is that if the elites want to hold onto their power, then they NEED to placate and NOT suppress the public… and again, the easiest way to placate the public is with things that they actually like. Things like luxuries and comforts and various 'freedoms' (education, health care, travel, entertainment, etc).

Sharing the wealth is key to maintaining a vibrant and productive society… the trouble right now isn't that our central authority is too strong, it's that it's not strong enough to resist the influence of the corporations, and they've reached an impasse in terms of exactly how to deal with the corruption and maintain the nations' competitive edge. Like it or not, those corporations are still a large part of why we enjoy the standard of living that we do… they make up a large percentage of the economy, and are connected to almost everything-- so much that if you take one of them down, you're going to be hurting everyone.

It would be easier to deal with the corporations if we didn't have democracy and equal consideration of everyone's perspective-- that's the only way that s$%t would actually get done… the trouble with that being that if the wrong person has power, then it could just as easily go the wrong way.

 

[muir]

They had to relearn it because of decentralization… trade routes weren't safe and the cities were sacked by barbarians, so people moved out of the cities and into the rural areas-- Rome had been the CENTER of Europe, and when it was depopulated a lot of the knowledge that they had possessed became lost to that part of the world. Decentralization typically occurs when society has collapsed-- and that's when progress tends to stall. Meanwhile, the middle east and the Byzantines were still centralized and the spread of Islam helped to unite a lot of formerly independent states under Muslim rule, which is why they were so advanced.

You're missing the point

The whole thing came crashing down around their ears. This will always happen with centralisation

The chaos that ensues is not organised decentralisation it is simply the collapse of centralisation

I'm advocating organised decentralisation not chaos

Technology changed the nature of work and the nature of society, which in turn lead to things like greater access to education and more opportunities. Activism didn't create the printing press--innovation did.

The innovation was that a new class of people rose up to challenge the landed class. This new merchant class were very shrewd and valued education. Their literacy provided a demand for the product of the printing press and they used the printing press as a tool for activism by printing many radical pamphlets

Their challenge to the established order WAS the innovation

The Enlightenment was a direct result of centralization being restored in Western Europe, the great powers organizing themselves, conquests and trade and all of those things. Centralization encourages TRADE, which brings not only material goods but also IDEAS into the west-- the west thrived as much because of innovative applications of other people's ideas as it did because of its own inventions-- that's what prosperity is! There were no such innovations during the decentralized Middle Ages.

The Middle ages weren't 'decentralised'. People were still grouping together around power centres the same way they were during the enlightenment

The enlightenment was due to a shift in consciousness

Humanism was pushing back against the church and reason was held in the highest regard. Europe was divided into many kingdoms at that time just like it was in the middle ages.

It wasn't all great though as certain modes of thinking have become entrenched which have moved us away from perceiving reality certain ways which has had certain effects on us; sorry if that sounds a bit vague but its a difficult thing to outline

And the influx of ideas and technology eventually made access to education SO much easier. Literacy rates have skyrocketed in the past 100 plus years-- not because people have demanded things, but because things have been invented. As soon as a thing is invented, it's only a matter of time before it finds its way into the hands of the people… that goes for anything-- weapons, computers, medicine, etc. It was because of the industrial revolution that our perspectives have changed-- people weren't sitting around demanding that they be given cars before they even knew what a car was, or medicine before they understood that the Black Death wasn't God punishing them for their sins. Decentralized societies are highly superstitious and this interferes with their ability to produce beyond the level of basic subsistence.

You have no comparison to compare to because the fuedal system has enforced itself. If we had a decentrliased system innovation might have been able to floursih far more. For example in an anarcho-communist system because the work is shared around and based on needs and not wants and is thus less wasteful people would have more spare time to pursue their interests such as science

The current centralised system under its current ideology of consumerism is not sustainable and is heading for a brick wall

There are people living under anarchist communist principles who are thriving

Centralization has also made us more of an urban society whereas we used to be rural-- seriously, go to the countryside and you won't find very much culture, but the cities are booming because that's where the money and power are, and that's how civilizations work.

That's not true there is culture in the countryside. In my country the gaelic culture has been attacked repeatedly by the forces of centralisation

This is just so incredibly backwards I don't know where to begin. The 'elites', if they do exist, do NOT want feudalism-- feudalism is highly decentralized.
LOOK:

http://mrfarshtey.net/whnotes/feudalism.pdf

That's the meaning of the term.

In the UK the southern people had local meetings called 'moots' where local affairs were sorted out. The king sometimes called 'witans' where he consulted various nobles and advisors. These were transplanted by the arrival of the normans in 1066. These guys built a castle by every settlement to control the settlement. Each area was run by a baron who viewed the people with deep suspicion. The barons reported to the king. They carried out a massive survey of everything in the land: people, land, livestock etc called the doomsday book

This allowed a centralised control of a populace of a different culture, language and outlook

The english you speak is a mixture of their language and older languages

Those people retained the land and became the aristocracy. Their ancestors hold much of the land and power to this day. In Scotland, a country of 5 million people, half the land is held by 180 people. Their figurehead is the queen or king who is a living embodiment of the principle of privilege

That is centralisation

They did not like the idea of meritocracies. It doesn't matter of you were a gifted peasant, you were still a peasant and therefore your influence was restricted. today our current governments cabinet (top approx 20 politicians making up the heads of governmental departments...the core of the government) has 13 out of 20 people who went to an elite aristocratic school called 'eton'

This is not a reflection of british society and that is why there is so much inequality. Recently one of their heros, an ex tory prime minister called margaret thatcher died; they have been praising her in their media. She destroyed the manufacturing base in britian so that we don't produce tangible things anymore, leading to massive unemployment and the social ills that go with it. She replaced manufacturing with arms dealing and finance. Britain is now in the pocket of the city of london (financial sector). Our debt to GDP is 800% and we are looking at a bond bubble that is due to burst anytime now which will wreak havoc to our economy

All because of centralised control by people who do not reflect the will of the many

The tory partys main political campaign contributor is the financial sector which is why there is no regulation and why all the banking scandals eg LIBOR, MF Gloabl, London Whale etc have all operated through the city of london

What these bankers and corporate entities want is a strong but compliant government that will enforce their will against the people; that is clearly what we are seeing as the millionaires are goven tax breaks whilst the poor are taxed more

This is 'neo-fuedalism'

Please see interview with Prof Michael Hudson at 14 minutes:

[video=youtube;sU4Nvv5yqVg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sU4Nvv5yqVg[/video]

Feudalism is the direct result of a decentralized government too weak to control the people so it basically hires gangs to police the people, and the rulers of these gangs enslave the weak. If the central government were to collapse, then the military would probably splinter and the US would end up being run by the generals-- or whoever could command the loyalty of the troops. These gangs would fight for territory and life would be much much harder than it is now. The most decentralized states in existence today are probably the unstable African nations where the ruler only lasts until the other tribe receives their shipment of guns from North Korea. That's decentralization.

No that's chaos which is fed by centralised powers

The warlords themselves concentrate power

Centralization isn't without its dangers as well, but compared to warlords constantly fighting for territory, I really don't think it's so bad. Yes, uprisings are suppressed and trade is so vital to progress that sometimes it is forced forward unethically, but the alternative is fewer advances and a dark age for technology and progress, etc. Think of how much information would vanish if we lost the Internet-- which could easily happen if things are decentralized-- people would forget how to do things because they would be too focused on their own survival. Sooner or later, that broken computer sitting in the corner of your office (that you couldn't get fixed, because nobody ever bothered to learn how to fix it) would turn into a mystery device. Generations later, it would be found at the bottom of an ocean and people would be clueless as to how it worked.

The world wide web flourished because Tim Berners Lee refused to keep it under central control

The internet is a great form of decentralisation. It shares information and business around. It has the potential to bring more and more people into the democratic system

It could allow people to take regular votes on many things if only we can take the power out of the hands of the centralists. The centralists want central control of the internet which is why they are trying to pass so much legislation to control it eg CISPA, ACTA, PIPA, SOPA

At the moment it is largely run through servers, many of which are in the US which allows the central intelligence agencies to hoard knowledge about us and therefore power eg new super spy computer in UTAH

The decentralists want to create a mesh net internet that is not centrally controlled so that the world can continue communicating and can continue sharing and doing business: that's decentralisation...that's encouraging innovation

The centralists want to stifle innovation, they want to control everything, patent everything and control access to everything. See for example Monsanto trying to buy up food DNA patents to control a natural resource! The corporations have controlled the energy industry stopping new energy technology from hitting the market place and have instead been running an oil/banking cartel

If we ARE in a decline, then decentralization will occur naturally when society finally completely crumbles, and people will end up scattered across the countryside-- possibly even start bulldozing the suburbs to make room for local farms. Priorities will simply shift away from everything we know, and vast amounts of knowledge WILL be lost.

It depends how we handle the technology

The internet could be used as the ultimate spy and control technology or it could be used as a way to keep everyone in touch right around the world, enabling the sharing of resources over large geographic areas, the sharing of ideas and innovation and the storage of knowledge.

But for that to happen we have to wrestle control of it off the forces of central control and keep it in the hands of the people

If the elites are brilliant enough to be manipulating absolutely EVERYONE, then how are they not brilliant enough to know that the 'rulers' of feudal society do not have as much power as the rulers of a democratic society? How are they not brilliant enough to know that feudal society is simply NOT as productive, not as literate, not as capable of moving itself forward. If the elites exist, then they probably want a productive society more than anyone else-- power is a means to an end, not an end in itself-- the same goes for money. There is NO POINT in ruling over a bunch of peasants… and forcing people into dehumanizing roles or back to basic subsistence lowers the quality of life for EVERYONE, not just the lower classes.

It's difficult to discuss the 'elites' without straying into what some will term conspiracy theory eg the black nobility

What we can see clearly is the central bankers who are said to work for the black nobility. They are the high priests of finance.

If you take the Rothschilds for example they have given loans to royalty and aristocracy. They have kept wealth out of the hands of the people, prevented meritocracy, prevented innovation, prevented society from evolving and helped to keep reactionary forces in power

They are preservers of the status quo

They have been very canny for exmaple by funding both sides in wars in europe for over two centuries but their system is ultimately unsustainable. So they are canny but not wise. i wouldn't call them 'brilliant' i would call them sharp

They know that the world is changing however and they know they must change the game to stay at the top. This is why they are centralising the banks and governments eg ECB, EU, IMF, Bank for International Settlements and so on

They want a centralised world government that they will control from behind the scenes which will enforce their property rights against the people. Its the same strategy they have always used they just keep expanding it at the cost of everyone elses freedom

Added to this is that fact that without a central authority to maintain order, the monarchs would live in fear of the gangs usurping them and stealing their crown (which happened when the Roman Empire was breaking apart). Even if our system only offers the 'illusion' of choice, the point is that if the elites want to hold onto their power, then they NEED to placate and NOT suppress the public… and again, the easiest way to placate the public is with things that they actually like. Things like luxuries and comforts and various 'freedoms' (education, health care, travel, entertainment, etc).

There are differing views amongst libertarians. by libertarians i don't mean what the US media means whn it uses the word libertarian. They are following an Orwellian programme of double think where they are politically dissempowering the public by robbing them of the effective use of language

I mean people who believe in the right of people to be able to do what they want to do as long as they are not hurting others

There are libertarian capitalists and there are libertarian socialists. There are various ideas as to whether or not government is necessary and if it should exist how limited it should be

For example some believe that government should exist just to enforce contracts. So you could have people trading over the internet globally but with a government that would enforce the agreement but would not have departments spying on what you are doing

Sharing the wealth is key to maintaining a vibrant and productive society… the trouble right now isn't that our central authority is too strong, it's that it's not strong enough to resist the influence of the corporations, and they've reached an impasse in terms of exactly how to deal with the corruption and maintain the nations' competitive edge. Like it or not, those corporations are still a large part of why we enjoy the standard of living that we do… they make up a large percentage of the economy, and are connected to almost everything-- so much that if you take one of them down, you're going to be hurting everyone.

They hold society to ransom. if we are to progress we need to break them up. the legal power to do so exists in the US with RICO and anti-trust laws, it just isn't enforced because of the corruption

Central power will always attract the corrupt who will use it as a vehicle to force their will on others

It would be easier to deal with the corporations if we didn't have democracy and equal consideration of everyone's perspective-- that's the only way that s$%t would actually get done… the trouble with that being that if the wrong person has power, then it could just as easily go the wrong way.

No that is what we already have

We don't really have democracy that is an illusion

It is because the bankers/corporations have control of the levers of power that regulation has been neutered allowing them to run rampant. It is because the will of the few is given control and the will of the many has no influence (in the political system) that the current mess has happened

 

[Stu]

[video=youtube;N3qtpdSQox0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3qtpdSQox0&feature=player_embedded[/video]

I may well be wholly reliant on kids that have not yet been born, in forty odd years. Do I not have some responsibility to now ensure their well being?

 

[muir]

I may well be wholly reliant on kids that have not yet been born, in forty odd years. Do I not have some responsibility to now ensure their well being?

Yeah there's no problem with that

They're not talking about a community sharing resources for the good of all; what they're talking about is the state having ownership of your child

This means they can inject them with any drug they see fit, hold them where and when they like, indoctrinate them with any nonsense they like and implant them with microchips

They want to control thought because thought precedes action. They do not want diversity, they want their state sanctioned modes of thought imposed on EVERYONE

They are going to try and close down home schooling. They are deeply threatened by individuality. There's a guy in the states who runs a community in the blue ridge mountains; i first heard about him on a documentary called mountain men but was saddened to see this recent youtube clip which shows the government trying to shut him down.

He teaches practical, traditional skills and self reliance:

[video=youtube;8ktC3lLFfcQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ktC3lLFfcQ[/video]

 

[muir]

They want to build a wall around the human mind, brick by brick:

[video=youtube;Nn5idKWC3g0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn5idKWC3g0[/video]

 

[Stu]

I listen to mellisa perry a lot, she is really an academic liberal black american woman. I find it hard to imagine her snatching children and mind altering them .....

But you know, i am just a stooge.

 

[muir]

I listen to mellisa perry a lot, she is really an academic liberal black american woman. I find it hard to imagine her snatching children and mind altering them .....

But you know, i am just a stooge.

Liberalism is often the trojan horse

For example womens liberation. Looks great on the surface with women gaining equal rights....i'm all for that, i'm sure most people are

But that's not why they've done it. They've done it so that they can tax more people and so the children can be raised by the state

Aldous Huxley wrote about this in his book 'A Brave New World'. He was involved with members of the Fabian Society and he knew what their agenda was

One of the most powerful families in the US is the Rockefellers. David Rockefeller has been the patriarch of the family for a while now. He wrote his thesis at Harvard university on Fabian socialism. So what is a trillionaire doing writing about socialism? Is he sharing his wealth around to help his fellow man? No

What he means when he talks about socialism is state socialism ie a centrally controlled, planned economy, run by people like him; democracy will be dead under such a system

Here is film maker Aaron Russo speaking about his friendship with one of the Rockefeller family:

[video=youtube;7gwcQjDhZtI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gwcQjDhZtI[/video]

 

[Stu]

The Trojan Horse was a deliberate trick played by the Akahians on the Trojans. The Akahians knew to a man what they were up to.

The analogy doesn't hold as liberalism is a distinct and stand alone political position. You can argue that groups or individuals try to co opt it but saying that it is a Trojan Horse is stating that it is entirely a murderous deception.

That is a distinction worth mentioning.

 

[muir]

The Trojan Horse was a deliberate trick played by the Akahians on the Trojans. The Akahians knew to a man what they were up to.

The analogy doesn't hold as liberalism is a distinct and stand alone political position. You can argue that groups or individuals try to co opt it but saying that it is a Trojan Horse is stating that it is entirely a murderous deception.

That is a distinction worth mentioning.

They make foundations through which they dispense funding for causes they want to see succeed

One of the agents of this process is the globalist speculator George Soros. He has created a group called the Open Society Institute. This group trains activists who then go and foment revolution in countries that do not fit into the central bankers economic system ie they are not opening themselves up to international economic exploitation

Soros is behind the 'colour revolutions' in Europe and of course he is a member of the council on foreign relations!

He funds a bunch of liberal movements but he's not interested in creating a more free society he wants to break down the fabric of the current society so that he and his co-conspirators can build a new society...the one david rockefeller envisions

here's what david said in his autobiography published in 2002 called 'memoirs':

"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

[video=youtube;ncdisau7rBs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncdisau7rBs[/video]