Thursday, February 26, 2009

What does the American Dream mean to you?

I am presently reading Jeremy Rifkin's book “The European Dream,” which is quite an interesting comparison between the United States of America and the “United States of Europe,” as he calls it. It is as much about the American Dream as the dreamers and their European ancestors. The book is however full of sweeping generalizations. Though I can find some truth in most of what he writes, I find it hard to swallow statements like
“Americans covet exclusive space. Each person strives to be self-contained and autonomous. That's why we put a premium on privacy. Europeans seek inclusive space - being part of extended communities, including family, kin, ethnic and class affiliation. Privacy is less important than engagement.”

Which doesn't make much sense if I consider Microsoft ran into problems with European privacy rights where Americans didn't care. This morning a complete stranger told me her friend Gerald just had a triple bypass some days before his 70th birthday. Not that I asked. Maybe it's just me, but these things happen to me constantly on this side of the Atlantic. I yet have to find a German who'd tell a random seat neighbor on a plane about her daughter's affair with the pharmacist. So much about the Americans' desire for privacy.

Another example:
“We Americans [...] if we can afford it, we'd much prefer to place our home at the very top of a hill, and at a distance from our nearest neighbors, afford us a daily reminder of our autonomy.”

That must be why millions of Americans have gathered in mega-cities like LA, Chicago and New York.

That being said, I am not sure how much to trust Rifkin's elaborations on the American Dream either. Thus, I though I'll pass on the question: what does the American Dream mean to you?

165 comments:

Kaleberg said...

For crying out loud, you're talking about Jeremy Rifkin! Calling him flaky is an insult to breakfast cereal. He's something out of the Middle Ages, like a hanger-on at the Sorbonne. It sells in the provinces.

Americans housing fantasies have more to do with European pre-industrial aristocratic fantasies than any indigenous reality.

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Bee,

In not being an American I really could not tell you what their dreams are yet perhaps a report yesterday says something as to what their nightmares might contain. It was reported that although sales in almost everything are declining there was one thing that has begun to sharply rise and that was in gun sales to individuals. So perhaps many feel that while they sit in their house at the top of the hill they might be somewhat conspicuous to the point someone else might care to have it.

Best,

Phil

Best term said...

Hey there, did you mean American in the title or Amrical, i am confused,kindly elaborate a bit. BTW I liked this post:)

Bee said...

Hi Best,

Let me elaborate: I shouldn't blog after 10pm, and especially not if I've spend most of the day trying to aling coherent sentences into a printable format. Thanks for the note, I've fixed the typo. Best,

B.

Bee said...

Hi Kaleberg,

Well, the book isn't THAT bad. Where he sticks with the facts it's actually quite interesting. Problem is that he is knitting some sort of fairy tale around it. It's a tendency I've come across fairly often with people in the humanistics. There is somehow the desire to make everything fit into a single narrative and if it doesn't fit, it will be made to fit. For whatever reason the sense that an explanation might only be good for some aspects and not for others is completely missing.

His elaborations on privacy eg are totally off, he should have stuck with mobility instead of making a leap of faith towards privacy. Maggie Jackson in her book 'Distracted' got it much better as far as I am concerned. She has been arguing that the American's identification of freedom with mobility and autonomy has created an environment of instant familiarity. Such, every city in the USA looks alike, and people pour their lifestories all over strangers because that's the social network you can create locally. I am pretty sure if you look into the data you'd find that Americans move vastly more often than Europeans. Best,

B.

Bee said...

Hi Phil,

That is interesting. But is it surprising? You're talking about a country with a constantly increasing gap between the rich and the poor with the possibly laxest weapon laws in the world. What would you do if you weren't sure whether your government can turn the impossible to ignore downwards trend around? Best,

B.

M*P*Lockwood said...

As someone who lives in New York City, I can say that this description of the average American resembles no one I know. I suppose you could say that Americans in general would like to not DEPEND on someone else - but that's very different from wanting to live in solitude.

The desire to be part of a community and family is a HUMAN characteristic, isn't it?

Bee said...

Hi Michael,

Well, I guess one could say the whole idea of living in a city is not to depend on other people. If you live in a small town you better be nice to your neighbor because he's the only one who can fix your car if it breaks down again. One could probably say that people come together in cities so they can live alone. Either way, I always understood the American Dream to be more about social mobility than spacial mobility. Best,

B.

Ervin said...

Bee,

In 1985 I established residence in US coming from Bucharest, Romania. I can tell you from my own experience that, as curious as it may sound, Rifkin's statement about privacy is correct. Take for example the life in large cities. The more private and secluded a house is here, the more valuable that property tends to be. Socialization takes on a different meaning, people are typically extremely selective about their inner circles. Openeness about one's real life and challenges is rather uncommon. There is a deeply embedded obsession with sucessful careers and financial wellbeing. Lifestyle in Canada is not quite the same, it is much closer to the west European culture.

Richard Bentley said...

'The EU has an identity card which is impossible for people without specific qualifications to get and without which makes it impossible to get employment or property, except to a minimal extent. Therefore their acceptance of such a device allows them both exclusivity and enforces lack of privacy. It has proven very difficult in the United States to require a national identity card; at the same time, much of society uses exclusivity as a cultural building block. We therefore have two groups with exclusivity as the common denominator. For myself, I wish privacy and freedom of action, but I have no quarrel with inclusivity. Perhaps it simply comes down to how much space is available to live in without having to interact strongly with your neighbors.

Anonymous said...

Bee:

The confusion you speak of results from conflating two distinct aspects of the issue of dependence versus autonomy -- namely, in relations of people to each other as distinct from relations of the people to the government.

Americans are relatively open and trusting in their relations with other people, but they are much more reticent and guarded in their relations with the government. Europeans, in general, tend the other way. To risk oversimplifying for the sake of clarity in forming a first approximation, we can say that Americans are gregarious individualists, while Europeans are reclusive collectivists.

This kind of confusion is typical of the tactics of obfuscation employed by the proponents of big government. Another example is the attempt to reframe the issue of firearms ownership in terms of people protecting themselves from each other. In fact, the true reason why the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the American Constitution is to ensure that people will always be able to protect themselves from the government.

This being the information age, information war has become just as dangerous as shooting war. And governments, with their vast databases and huge expenditures on intelligence, surveillance, disinformation and propaganda, are waging information war on the people. Thus the right to privacy amounts to the right to self defence in the information arena, which is no less important then the right to physical self defence.

Americans quite correctly see the government, and not their neighbors, as the most dangerous offender in this arena. Wishing to retain personal sovereignty in the face of the increasingly harmful encroachments of the ever-more-bloated Nanny State is not the same as being antisocial to your neighbor. By confusing these issues, Rifkin is doing his readers a great disservice and playing directly into the hands of big government.

The American Dream is -- has always been -- about freedom.

To be very clear, this means freedom from interference by government in the affairs of private citizens.

And it was the pursuit of this dream that made America great. It is no accident that the corrosion of this freedom is strongly correlated with the decline of America on all fronts: moral, intellectual, political, and economic.

Anonymous said...

Phil:

You are entirely missing the point of the sharp rise in American gun sales: the people are less afraid of each other than they are wary of the government. They are worried that Obama will confiscate their means of self defence, and render them defenceless in the face of a government gone crazy.

And that is exactly what Obama has threatened to do. Notice the important distinction here: he is not planning (yet) to ban handguns of the type that are useful for defence against criminals. His stated intent is to criminalize the very weapons that people need to protect themselves from the government.

In America, people have watched a Republican government steal trillions of dollars using various right-wing rationalizations. And now they are watching a Democratic government steal trillions more using various left-wing rationalizations. For many Americans, this is the straw that breaks the camel’s back. They are realizing that almost everything the government does hurts the people, and this remains true no matter which party is in power.

And they are responding in the most sensible way possible: they are arming themselves.

The fact that this is happening suddenly reflects the suddenness with which recent events have driven home the realization that

It’s not Left versus Right.
It’s the State versus You.

Kaleberg said...

Perhaps Rifkin is mellowing a bit in his old age.

Americans generally have a good attitude about freedom, especially when compared with a lot of people in other societies. After all, most Americans are the descendants of Europeans who left Europe in search of freedom, including the freedom to make money. You could argue that America is the European dream, though it seems that a lot of Asians, Africans, and everybody else except native Antarcticans, have similar REM cycles.

If you look at what all humans crave, it includes such things as private space, romantic love, physical comfort, the ability to earn a living, religious freedom, freedom to speak, money, the right to defend oneself and so on. If you study history, you'll find lots of people denied these rights, through time and everywhere, including, at times, in the United States.

The anti-government fantasy, which has a big enough following, is generally strongest in areas most dependent on the government. If you ever do experimental work, you will find most of your swearing directed at the very laboratory equipment essential to your thesis or grant work.

It is generally amplified by the usual powers in contention with the government. These parties have done quite well, but their program for the country is untenable. We have recently passed the peak of one of their campaigns, which has had the usual result. The payoff was great, so the wave was orchestrated at great expense, and quite systematically since the 1950s. I remember the propaganda through the 60s and 70s, and its success in the 80s. I also remember my father's advice, and all through the wave I have found it salient.

If you remember that the arguments about freedom in the US, as well as in Europe, are not always individual arguments, but part of ongoing class warfare, things get easier to understand.

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Anonymous,

“They are worried that Obama will confiscate their means of self defence, and render them defenceless in the face of a government gone crazy.”

I would suggest that perhaps like fear in general it has no focus or actual substance unless provided one. The ones I am more concerned about are those that inevitably get caught in the cross fire. What does it tell us when people believe that the key to their democracy along with their freedom rests in maintaining the right to kill one another.

Best,

Phil

Anonymous said...

Phil:

You ask, “what does it tell us when people believe that the key to their democracy along with their freedom rests in maintaining the right to kill one another?”

It tells us that they have learned the lessons of history. To wit:

The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Turkey established gun control in 1911. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, 1 million ‘educated’ people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Number of people rendered defenceless by gun control and then rounded up and exterminated: 56 million.

In the 20th century alone.

Average time from establishment of gun control to commencement of slaughter: 5.4 ± 2.9 years.

So, Phil, what does it tell us when governments call for gun control?

And what does it tell us when people go along with it?

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Anonymous,

“So, Phil, what does it tell us when governments call for gun control? And what does it tell us when people go along with it?”

Sadly for all of us it tells me that even the guarantee of anonymity cannot lessen the paranoia of those that believe the explanation you offered as be reasonable.

Best,

Phil

Anonymous said...

Phil, do you always resort to name-calling when you don't have a rational, pertinent reply?

Phil Warnell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Phil Warnell said...

Hi Anonymous,


I called no one names. I simply responded with an answer which is logically consistent with my initial conjecture. True it is merely a conjecture, although one which I find as being strengthened somewhat by your own. If you take this as a personal affront I can assure you that I’m only addressing the issue and that your anonymity further renders this as being completely impossible, as I’m the only one here left so exposed and thus vulnerable.


Best,


Phil

Anonymous said...

Phil:

Your phrase, "the paranoia of those that believe," is name-calling. Argumentum ad hominem.

And your quickness to resort to such tactics is a good example of why I choose to remain anonymous -- but this is an irrelevant side issue, which you seem determined to milk for its distraction value. So let's return to the point.

Your initial conjecture was that Americans are suddenly buying more guns because of a suddenly increased fear of each other. You offer no evidence whatsoever to support this.

My position is that Americans are responding rationally and prudently to their government’s goal of rendering them defenceless.

As supporting evidence, I cite the fact that the weapons being bought in suddenly increased numbers are precisely the ones which Obama seeks to criminalize -- namely, those which are primarily useful to people for protecting themselves against oppression by a government which is, in fact, increasingly oppressing and stealing from its citizens.

I further cite copious historical evidence to show that people are quite correct to be suspicious of any government that seeks to disarm them.

You don’t want to admit that my point is valid, but you have no rational counter-argument. So you accuse those who agree with me of paranoia.

This is a perfectly typical ad hominem attack, and all it achieves is to show that you have no cogent reason for believing what you believe -- meaning that your conjecture has no basis whatsoever, beyond being consistent with your world view.

If your world view leads you to such untenable conjectures, perhaps you should re-examine it.

Bee said...

Forbes has today an article on the American Dream (which is supposed to be part 1 of a 3 part series).

Phil Warnell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Phil Warnell said...

Hi Anonymous,

If you actually believe that the only way that individual freedoms can be assured is to have a hand gun under your pillow or an assault rifle in the closet, then you are certainly correct that our world views differ. Mohandas Gandhi for instance was one that stood up to demonstrate to not only his own people, yet to the entire world that freedom and change can be accomplished without the need to take to arms. Yes there were sacrifices made, which weighed heavily upon his followers and yet I would maintain that this is what delineates what it is to be civilized as to being simply governed. So I will leave here as to this is where you and I differ; in that I’m convinced that real change begins with the individual by extending their understanding and sense of being beyond themselves, while you feel the only one worthy of understanding and with it preservation is strictly yourself.

Best,

Phil

Anonymous said...

Phil:

Here are Gandhi's own words on the subject:

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, p 446, translated from Gujarati by Mahadev Desai, Navajivan Publishing House, 1927.

I repeat: if your world view leads you to such untenable conjectures, perhaps you should re-examine it. If you do that honestly, you cannot avoid realizing the obvious:

There is no such thing as a morally valid and rationally sound argument to justify depriving a man of the right, or the means, to defend himself and his loved ones.

Anonymous said...

Bee:

Thanks for the link to the Forbes article! The comments about the American Dream collected there are very telling. The farther these people lean to the left, the less likely they are to use words like freedom or liberty. Here are some examples.

Lets start with Arianna Huffington, the co-founder and editor-in-chief of the Huffington Post, an extreme left-wing news and blog site. She is also a nationally syndicated columnist, author of 11 books and co-host of the political roundtable program Left, Right & Center on public radio. She says:

"The American Dream used to be a house with a picket fence, a good job, the thought that the next generation will always be better off than the last, and the idea that anyone can grow up to be president of the U.S. (unless they were born in Greece. Or Austria). But that's all changed.

The American Dream 2007 is a fevered hope that the health insurance premium doesn't double again, the factory doesn't relocate to China, Congress doesn't slash Pell grants again (making it even harder for your kid to go to college), the shiver-up-your-spine thought that the next generation will have a rude awakening when the national debt and Social Security bills come due, and the idea that anyone can grow up to be president of the U.S. -- so long as their last name is Bush or Clinton."

Have you ever heard a more petty, venal, morally and intellectually bankrupt travesty of an opinion? It’s all about materialism, political in-fighting, and whining to the government for a hand out.

Compare that to Elizabeth Dole, R-NC, who serves on the U.S. Senate’s armed services, banking, small business and aging committees, and previously served as secretary of transportation under Ronald Reagan, secretary of labor under President George W. Bush, and president of the American Red Cross. She says:

"We are incredibly fortunate to live in a country where everyone, regardless of background, has the freedom to work hard, seize opportunities and be successful. The American Dream truly is defined by individuals. It is their positive ambitions -- such as getting an education, owning a home, serving our country, holding elected office or having a productive career -- and their commitment and courage to see these goals through. In my own lifetime, I have seen Americans split the atom, abolish Jim Crow, eliminate the scourge of polio, win the Cold War, plant our flag on the surface of the moon and map the human genome. These remarkable feats were achieved by Americans who had great dreams ... and the resolve to make them come true."

I’ll let you be the judge as to which of these two points of view is the more uplifting, inspiring and conducive to a country you might actually want to live in.

I think the difference is best captured by Brian Binnie, who made history in 2004, when he won the $10 million Ansari X Prize by piloting SpaceShipOne to an altitude of just over 69 miles, and is now hard at work building the larger SpaceShipTwo. He says:

"I grew up in Scotland, 'land of the free, home of the brave,' as the Scots like to say. Mel Gibson’s portrayal of rebel William Wallace in the movie Braveheart put my countrymen in the spotlight. When faced with death at the hands of the English, his self-proclaimed epitaph was 'FREEDOM!' It wasn’t 'government' or 'bureaucracy' or 'safety net.'

It is a natural condition of the human spirit to seek freedom."

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Anonymous,

“I repeat: if your world view leads you to such untenable conjectures, perhaps you should re-examine it. If you do that honestly, you cannot avoid realizing the obvious”

I would not wish to or do I think it right to deprive any one of anything. Further I'm convinced that only individuals can become nonviolent by means of self realization and not by any other method. So the best I can offer you at present is my pity, while extending empathy for those who pay the ultimate price for your convictions.

"There are many causes that I am prepared to die for but no causes that I am prepared to kill for."

- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi


Best,

Phil

Anonymous said...

Phil:

It is one thing to be reluctant to resort to violence in order to further your political cause -- this is called, being civilized.

It is quite another to be unwilling to resist, with all necessary force, violence directed against your loved ones -- this is called, being a coward.

Confusing one for the other is precisely the sort of flawed thinking that causes the road to hell to be paved with good intentions.

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Anonymous,

I find no joy in ending this dialogue, for it is only when things become clear that solutions may be found. On the other hand, I must respect the authors of this blog’s intent, which I don’t believe was to accommodate a discussion of this nature. Yet mainly it is due to realizing that I did make an error in the course of this exchange and that was failing to remember that in order to be effective non-violence needs to be combined with non-cooperation, for which I’ve sorely fail until now.

Best,

Phil

Anonymous said...

Phil:

Again, here are Gandhi’s own words on the subject:

I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 133, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government of India.

Actually, the remainder of the paragraph is most enlightening in contrast to the piously fraudulent picture of Gandhi painted by the left-wing media. Gandhi goes on to say

Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence. Hence it was that I took part in the Boer War, the so-called Zulu rebellion and the late War. Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour.

Gandhi, loc. cit.

Gandhi understood quite clearly that he who makes himself into a sheep will be eaten by the wolves. You, on the other hand, seem completely enthralled by the politically correct ideology of self-emasculation.

And in your self-righteous posturing you purport to offer me your pity?

How pathetic.

Arun said...

Some misinformed person wrote:

The American Dream is -- has always been -- about freedom.

To be very clear, this means freedom from interference by government in the affairs of private citizens.

And it was the pursuit of this dream that made America great. It is no accident that the corrosion of this freedom is strongly correlated with the decline of America on all fronts: moral, intellectual, political, and economic.


-- Which is why the glory days of the US in terms of leading the world were in the 1950s, with the GI bill, marginal tax rates of 95%, the Marshall Plan, and so on....

Anonymous said...

Arun:

Yes, exactly. The things you mention are symptoms of the decline.

Bee said...

Hi Anonymous:

Have you ever heard a more petty, venal, morally and intellectually bankrupt travesty of an opinion? It’s all about materialism, political in-fighting, and whining to the government for a hand out.

I’ll let you be the judge as to which of these two points of view is the more uplifting, inspiring and conducive to a country you might actually want to live in.


Interestingly, you are doing exactly what Rifkin writes in his book, equating freedom with the absence of a social contract (as far as possible). The first quotation is certainly not uplifting, but then as far as I am concerned the status of the USA isn't uplifting either. As far as I can tell, there is nothing morally and intellectually bankrupt about it - but you claiming it is declares such bankruptcy in your failure to differentiate between differing opinions and intellectual merit.

Best,

B.

Anonymous said...

Bee:

Indeed, the social contract is the instrument by which individuals give up some of the freedom and independence inherent in solitude, in return for the safety and efficiency of numbers.

The benefits, in terms of gained security and prosperity, must at least balance the costs, in terms of relinquished liberty and self-sufficiency, and any individual who judges this not to be the case must be free to decline participation. If individuals are compelled to participate, irrespective of their own free choice, then it is not a contract; it is oppression.

Viewed in these terms, the American Dream is to live in community without oppression.

There is only one problem with this. In the world today, there is no longer any habitable place that is not claimed by one country or another. And therefore individuals, who would choose not to participate, no longer have anywhere to go. This means there is no country in the world that truly operates under a social contract. There are only greater and lesser degrees of oppression.

In consequence, the best that can be achieved in reality is for a country to offer its citizens an arrangement they would voluntarily enter into, even if it were possible for them not to participate. Systems of government have moral worth to the degree that they exceed this criterion, and they are corrupt to the degree that they fall short of it.

The triumph of America was that it enabled the world view expressed by Dole to create a system of government that greatly exceeded this criterion, so that its people felt the arrangement as a great blessing and not a burden.

The tragedy of America is that it could not prevent people with the world view expressed by Huffington from tearing that system down and transforming its blessing into an increasingly onerous burden.

Anonymous said...

Bee:

There is not much opinion in what I have written, it mostly follows by simple logic from observed fact and the definitions of the concepts involved.

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Bee,

It might be interesting to note that what is misunderstood about the American Dream is that it is not that it is so much threatened as being lost, yet rather evolving and with it their leaders. In the past American leaders would claim inspiration be given to them from those originating solely from inside. Thus those like Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln were revered and looked to for guidance and inspiration. Now with the election of Barrack Obama this seeking of guidance and inspiration has been extended to the greater world. For example Obama, like Martin Luther before looks not exclusively to their own yet also to those such as Mohandas Gandhi in such fashion as evident in statements he made in this regard more then a year ago

"In my life, I have always looked to Mahatma Gandhi as an inspiration, because he embodies the kind of transformational change that can be made when ordinary people come together to do extraordinary things,"

"That is why his portrait hangs in my Senate office; to remind me that real results will not just come from Washington, they will come from the people,"

So while many in his country still believe that their strength rests with having the ability to bring down their government or change their destiny by force of arms, their new leader is versed in the ability and also serves as an example of how this can be accomplished through non-violent means . The question then forms, are there enough of his fellow citizens who truly understand that such methods are an improvement in both the attaining and maintenance of their deeper core principles and shared goals rather then a departure from them.

Best,

Phil

Bee said...

Hi Anonymous,

You wouldn't believe how often I have had this exchange and thus, how tired I am of repeating the same thing. If you are a citizen of a democratic country you have agreed to accept the decisions that are reached through its political process. That does not mean you have to like every single one of them. You have just agreed to accept the full package, which might be a compromise and contain parts you don't like (as is often the case with contracts) because all other options would be worse.

It is true what you say that there is presently no way for people to indeed get out of any such arrangement, but to a limited amount you can change your citizenship. As far as I am concerned people should be free to leave any social contract, move on an island and live out their fantasies of anarcho-capitalism. I would take any bet it wouldn't be for long they'd figure out the problem with public choice and set up a government, which would sooner or later approach an arrangement similar to those most advanced civilizations on this planet have.

Is your opinion by any chance based on the idea that a free market would maximize social welfare? Best,

B.

Anonymous said...

Bee:

You write, "if you are a citizen of a democratic country you have agreed to accept the decisions that are reached through its political process."

Really?

Actually, you admit that this is false when you acknowledge that "there is presently no way for people to indeed get out of any such arrangement."

Unless it is deliberately entered into by an uncoerced act of free will, the arrangement is not a contract.

The social contract is a fiction.

Your solution to that problem is for people to "move on an island and live out their fantasies of anarcho-capitalism."

Yup. And that, of course, is exactly how and why America was created. It was great while it lasted.

But before long, you claim, "they'd figure out the problem with public choice set up a government."

Yup. That’s exactly what happened in America. And we can see how that turned out.

In spite of all efforts to prevent it, government has grown like a cancer, with the inevitable end result that America has been transformed into everything that Americans came to get away from.

This is the true meaning of the decline of America -- it is the ultimate betrayal of the American Dream.

Anonymous said...

Bee:

Freedom in general -- and the free market in particular -- has two implacable enemies: big government and big business. It is easy to see that people are generally best off in those times and places where they are most free from the influence of big business and big government.

In America, in the past, this was accomplished by creating a system which had many mechanisms to limit the size, power and unity of business and government.

While those mechanisms remained effective -- keeping business and the various branches of government at each other’s throats -- the American people flourished.

It took 250 years to undermine and subvert those mechanisms.

But now that big business and big government are pulling together on the same agenda -- whether current administration happens to call itself Democrat or Republican -- you will see the ruin of the American people brought to completion.

Bee said...

Hi Anonymous,

Well, indeed, I think that upon having reached an appropriate age people should be asked whether they want to support the constitution of the country they live in. And if they don't they can give up their citizenship and do whatever they please as long as they don't bother those who are part of the social contract. Unfortunately you might have noticed that nations typically come with territory and there is no place left they can go. Tough luck.

However to repeat something I also have said too many times, I was talking about democracies. Democracy does not generally simply mean to impose the majority opinion on everybody. Instead, it is a lengthy process that seeks to find a solution that is as good as can be for everybody and in particular not to constrain anybody's freedom unless absolutely necessary, eg to protect other people's rights. If you believe you know a way to solve this issue better than what we presently do, I'd be interested to hear.

I would agree with you btw what big business and big government is the problem. I am not a fan of government, I just don't think we can do completely without it. The issue is actually that democracy is today in most cases merely a farce. It's some kind of game people play to feel better. That's why I keep saying we urgently need to update our political systems.

Besides this, don't you think that America's success had less to do with the absence of government and more to do with the availability of a vast country with almost entirely unexploited resources?

Best,

B.

Anonymous said...

Bee:

It seems we agree on quite a few things! Most importantly, we agree on what the problem is. You write

"I would agree with you btw what big business and big government is the problem."

The only thing I can add is to suggest that we call this insidious alignment of big business and big government by its true name: globalism.

Globalism is totalitarian oligarchy, relentlessly ensnaring the whole world, under various disguises in different places.

You go on to say

"I am not a fan of government, I just don't think we can do completely without it."

This is perfectly consistent with my statement that the best that can be achieved in practice is for a country to offer its citizens an arrangement they would voluntarily participate in, even if it were possible for them to decline. And let me repeat, for emphasis, that systems of government are laudable to the degree that they exceed this criterion, and are contemptible to the degree that they fall short of it.

You also observe that

"The issue is actually that democracy is today in most cases merely a farce. It's some kind of game people play to feel better."

Again, I agree completely, but lets be specific. It is a circus which is carefully stage-managed to fool the people into thinking they have some influence over the government, and people cling to this illusion because it makes them feel less hopeless.

"That's why I keep saying we urgently need to update our political systems."

I would put it more this way: the American system of politics and economics, as it was originally implemented, was very near the best that can be accomplished in practice; we urgently need to repair the damage done to it, defend it from corruption by private concentrations of wealth, and allow it to spread by its own merits across the face of the earth.

Too bad the globalists will never allow that to happen.

Anonymous said...

Bee:

You ask, "don't you think that America's success had less to do with the absence of government and more to do with the availability of a vast country with almost entirely unexploited resources?"

Just look at Russia and China if you want to see how much benefit the people derive from a vast country rich in resources when the government is too big and too incestuously intertwined with big business.

Bee said...

Hi Anonymous,

We seem to agree on more points than I thought. However, as far as globalization is concerned, though I agree that it has significantly worsened the problem, it does not necessarily have to be that way. Globalization per se is not the problem, it's the how of it that is the problem.

the American system of politics and economics, as it was originally implemented, was very near the best that can be accomplished in practice; we urgently need to repair the damage done to it, defend it from corruption by private concentrations of wealth, and allow it to spread by its own merits across the face of the earth.

I agree on the intention, but you can't turn back time. Repairing and restoring won't help exactly because we live in the age of Globalization. The whole origin of the problem is that while companies have expanded worldwide and dramatically increased their ability to react fast on global scales, our political systems have not and have just gotten lamer. This leaves a dangerous imbalance.


“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance to keep pace with the times.”
~Thomas Jefferson

Just look at Russia and China if you want to see how much benefit the people derive from a vast country rich in resources when the government is too big and too incestuously intertwined with big business.

They seemed to be doing reasonably well post communism, until get were blessed by deregulation and privatization.

Best,

B.

Anonymous said...

Bee:

Well put: "we seem to agree on more points than I thought." However, I don’t agree that "the whole origin of the problem is that while companies have expanded worldwide and dramatically increased their ability to react fast on global scales, our political systems have not."

The problem, as we have established, is that business and government are both too big, and too interlocked. Clearly we can’t solve it by making either of them bigger. That would be putting out fire with gasoline.

What we must do is make them both very much smaller.

And at all costs, we must avoid world government. The prospect of huge multinational corporations nefariously entangled with a grotesquely bloated world government is chilling, to say the least. It would create an oligarchic cabal that holds all power -- economic, military, political and social -- and cannot be opposed by any force on earth, no matter how corrupt it becomes.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Finally, where do you see deregulation and privatization in Russia or China? All that happened is the KGB changed its name to the Russian Mafia and the Chinese communist party formed a partnership with the Triads, called CITIC.

Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Bee,

So much talk about how unnatural government is in it representing to be nothing more then a necessary evil. This coupled with the odd notion that our species is essentially a collection of loners that only assemble reluctantly out of necessity. The truth is Homo sapiens are naturally social creatures, who have risen to dominate all other species primarily due to this innate social collectivity, combined and aided by possessing a greater cognitive capacity. Point to one great advance ever made which can be attributed solely to an individual, who never utilized or drew upon the resource and strength of a larger group as a whole? In the same vain ask what would have been the accomplishments of a scattering of individual states, when compared to those of a united one?

Why not extend this contention to insist that even smaller groups, such as tribes, would be more beneficial and have us progress further then what has been attained. For me what some refer to as liberty, is actually what others recognize rather as an unreasonable sense of entitlement. I’m confident that Washington, Jefferson or Lincoln would have all failed to see that which is claimed to be threatened by many as being what they endeavored to promote and protect.

As for big government or big business, what are these things comprised of if not individuals and what distinguishes them from those whom claim are its victims? As far as I’m concerned what’s been said by some here only serves to validate George Bernard Shaw’s pessimist contention which was:

“Democracy is a device that ensures we will be governed no better then we deserve.”

Best,

Phil

Anonymous said...

Phil:

Once again, you draw invalid inferences from conflated concepts, which is precisely what politically correct rhetoric intends you to do. Fortunately, the flaws in this insidious dogma are easily exposed. To be specific:

"Homo sapiens are naturally social creatures..."

There is a world of difference between a social creature and a herd animal (!) which is reflected in the huge difference between free individuals forming a community of peers, versus helpless peons being assimilated by a Borg-like collective.

"Point to one great advance ever made which can be attributed solely to an individual, who never utilized or drew upon the resource and strength of a larger group as a whole?"

Again, there is an enormous difference between building on foundations laid down by others, in the sense of Newton "standing on the shoulders of giants," versus toiling ignominiously like a faceless, replaceable drone in an ant colony.

"... what would have been the accomplishments of a scattering of individual states, when compared to those of a united one?"

It was a scattering of individual states that built America. The only reason for them to be collected together under the heel of a central government was to enslave the people on the pretext of the need to make war.

"Why not extend this contention to insist that even smaller groups, such as tribes, would be more beneficial..."

Because exaggerating a valid argument to an absurd extent results in fallacy. There is an optimum size for human communities, at which the costs and benefits of community are optimally balanced. Tribes are usually too small, and world government is definitely too big.

"As for big government or big business, what are these things comprised of if not individuals and what distinguishes them from those whom claim are its victims?"

This question is too disingenuous for words! Why don’t you tell me, Phil:

What distinguishes Hu Jintao from a Falun Gong member, tortured to death in a Chinese prison?

What distinguishes Mukesh Ambani from a low-caste child, worked to death in an Indian sweat shop?

What distinguishes Henry Paulson from an American factory worker, taxed into serfdom to increase the profits of the very same oligarchs who swindled him into accepting impossible debts while off-shoring his job to places like India and China?

Need I go on?

"I'm confident that Washington, Jefferson or Lincoln would have all failed to see that which is claimed to be threatened by many as being what they endeavored to promote and protect."

What you are so confident of (as with Gandhi) bears no resemblance to what these men actually believed. Why don't we let them speak for themselves:

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.

-- George Washington, Jan 7, 1790

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that the people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms!

-- Thomas Jefferson, Nov 13, 1787

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until the wealth of the nation is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed.

-- Abraham Lincoln, Nov 21, 1864

If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom -- go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.

-- Samuel Adams, Aug 1, 1776

How dismayed these men would be to see the modern-day spread of this secular slave-religion, called political correctness.

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Bee,

As to the acceptance of globalization in it being advantageous or not, I would agree as you stated that no matter what many think, it will come to be as the only logical outcome. That is with the proviso that we don’t totally annihilate one another in the resistant to its necessity. I’ve always found strange the attitude that there is no distinction to be made , that can accommodate as to what are global aspirations, needs and responsibilities as apposed to local and then also individual ones.

I’ve also found it strange that many of the same people that hold individual liberty as paramount, seldom if ever have been able to offer guidelines as to when it ceases to be such by infringing upon or denying that of others. In fact they have no such guidelines; rather they hold firm that one aspect of liberty is to maintain as the only method to arbitrate the matter has as a consequence many to have their very existence cut short, along with their liberty.

Despite this I remain hopeful that many of those that occupy the land of the free and the home of the brave will eventually see what the pioneers of their own age have aspired to and realized. I would say the one who most personifies to represent this is their own Neil Armstrong, who when being the first of our kind to step foot on a foreign world and look back on his own having his first intended remark being”

One small step for a man. One giant leap for mankind

I’ve always since found this as admirable and uplifting that the first words spoken by the American who is revered by all in his country and many around the world, where not ones of allegiance and praise of his nation, yet rather ones of allegiance, praise and confidence in all of his kind and origin. That is he saw the world as it truly is, with no boarders, other then what was marked by the void that surrounded it and realizing he was the first of his kind, that had only with the power provided by the unity of purpose and intelligence had been able to transcend to cross.

Best,

Phil

Bee said...

Hi Phil,

Thanks for your interesting comment. Unfortunately however, I do not think that globalization is 'the only logical outcome,' that being for exactly the reason that I do not generally believe free trade to be of advantage for everybody involved. I can very well imagine a world divided into several protectionist trade zones - and unless there is a stronger political aspect of gobalization that might just be it. It's not that I like that or want that, it just seems like something that could happen. The problem with globalization left to itself is that it apparently, evidently, does not automatically lead to a more even distribution of wealth. Unless that is taken care of by other means, I wouldn't be surprised if some countries (or more likely unions of countries) eventually draw the consequences. Best,

B.

Bee said...

Hi Phil,

Homo sapiens are naturally social creatures, who have risen to dominate all other species primarily due to this innate social collectivity, combined and aided by possessing a greater cognitive capacity.

Well, as Aristotle said, man is a 'zoon politikon'. However, I am not sure the success of the human species is 'primarily' due to this social collectivity. I am not sure how one could ever test a statement like this. I would agree however that it is a central ingredient from which there emerges a lot of the complexity (and also weirdness) of our lives. Just think about human culture or traditions and how much of it seems so entirely nonsensical. These are social phenomena. Best,

B.

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Bee,

True there is no test to prove social collectivity coincides with success, yet I think it can be safely said that people must reach some minimal critical mass before what’s recognized as a civilization can emerge. I just wanted to reiterate that as long has been reminded “no man is an island”. In the politically correct version that would read ‘no one is an island’:-)

“No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as any manner of thy friends or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”z

-John Donne Devotions upon Emergent Occasions, no. 17 (Meditation) 1624 (published)

On the other hand, there may be a corollary in the physical world and that is to be found in the interaction of quarks. As its been discovered when close together they act as they be free as individuals, yet when they move further apart from one another their mutual bonds reappear to be recognized. The question left to ask is what stands to be the gluons in this analogy? The other way is to ask if one can be truly considered human without humanity.

Best,

Phil

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Bee,

“Unfortunately however, I do not think that globalization is 'the only logical outcome,' that being for exactly the reason that I do not generally believe free trade to be of advantage for everybody involved.”

Yes I would agree this is the greatest stumbling block of all and I think the problem being the concept in itself being “free trade” when the only thing that will work in the long run is “fair trade”. That is while free trade usually involves someone(s) attaining the upper hand (advantage) usually by means of leverage; fair trade on the other hand attains by the transaction balance (equilibrium), which in the end it be to remain stable and sustainable. So I would contend a world united by “fair trade” rather then “free trade” can actually work. That is haven’t we learned with this current crisis that nothing in nature is free or ever can be.

Best,

Phil

Anonymous said...

Phil:

Are you seriously suggesting that there is such a thing as fair trade that is not freely agreed to by the parties?

Anonymous said...

Bee:

Like you, I also "do not generally believe free trade to be of advantage for everybody involved." And you are very, very right when you say that globalization "does not automatically lead to a more even distribution of wealth." In fact, free trade, as practiced by the globalists, is good for the global oligarchs and very, very bad for everyone else.

I also agree with you that globalization is not the only logical outcome, but unlike you, this is about the only aspect of the current situation that gives me hope. Let me be clear about what I mean by this.

The only way to achieve a fair market is to structure it in such a way that the largest possible concentrations of wealth are insufficient to distort the balance of supply and demand on which economic freedom is based.

The only way to achieve a free society is to structure it in such a way that the largest possible concentrations of power are insufficient to distort the balance of unobstructed individual thought and action on which political freedom is based.

What concerns me greatly about the cabal of political globalists and global oligarchs is that everything they do tends in the exact opposite direction.

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Anonymous (which ever one of the many you are),

“Are you seriously suggesting that there is such a thing as fair trade that is not freely agreed to by the parties?”

In reply I would simply ask if you have a problem with reading or rather comprehension for no where in what I said I suggest that “fair trade” didn’t require consent; as how could it be fair otherwise. Actually, that where the difference lay, for with “free trade” it can be done reluctantly, where in “fair trade” this assumes an equitable component. Perhaps you should take note of that other anonymous person in the current thread who understands what question like “have you stopped beating your wife” amount to as being.

Best,

Phil

Anonymous said...

Phil:

Well, I’ve re-read your last two posts several times, and I still cannot decipher on what basis you are trying to draw a distinction between "free" and "fair". A market is either both or neither.

Provided only that large enough numbers of informed and unconstrained buyers and sellers are active in the market, a transaction is fair if and only if a buyer and a seller agree, of their own free will, to enter into the transaction.

When there is sufficient competition among buyers and among sellers, the dynamics of a free (unregulated) market make it impossible for either the typical buyer or the typical seller to obtain an unfair advantage, because both have alternatives.

When the competition is insufficient, no amount of regulation (restricted freedom) can restore fairness; they can only reduce further the options which are already limited by the lack of alternatives.

The problem with the markets of today is that they are not free because competition is insufficient. Commerce and finance are dominated by a small number of global corporations. Regulations, in such a context, serve only as barriers which keep potential new competitors from entering the market and provide excuses for the oligarchs to raise prices.

The only solution is to increase the number of oligarchs until there are so many of them that they are no longer oligarchs.

Oh, by the way, there is only one anonymous poster in this thread and I am the same one who agreed with your "do you still beat your wife" comment.

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Anonymous,

It seems that your complaints and your solutions all come down to the contention which focuses around scale that there is an optimal one for both business and government or sum such thing. While I see it more related to efficiency and transparency which leads to greater confidence out of predictability and trust.

True many would think that free trade and fair trade are essentially one in the same, which if the fairness were assured it actually would be. The truth is as you allude fairness does not come into play as free means basically believing that following Darwinian principles to be the only considered rule to follow. That also might be true, yet the difference being is that nature outside the living world doesn’t lie or deceive or seek advantage as part of the plan. It may at times be obscure or even censor, yet never out of malice or to take advantage. Business on the other hand without enforced transparency can and often does resort to these as part of the plan.

Therefore I do recognize to require as one of the primary functions of government is to prevent such deviation from happening, as well as to have everyone participate in assuring their mutual and individual success. The details are many, yet the principle is simple, just as the foundations of science are simple yet the results they manifest more often complex. So if Government can assure the soundness and purity of the foundations then yes fair trade and free trade would be one in the same.

Best,

Phil

Bee said...

Hi Anonymous,

I still cannot decipher on what basis you are trying to draw a distinction between "free" and "fair". A market is either both or neither.

Though this comment wasn't directed at me, let me point out that you are falsely assuming there exists a universally valid definition of 'fair'. What a free market is you can find defined in textbooks. As you correctly point out however, real world markets are not free. I strongly doubt they will or can every be 'free' in the idealistic sense laisse-fairy tales suggest. There is no fundamental reason why the outcome of this particular organization of the economy should be considered 'fair' by everybody. In fact, the reason why most markets are not free is that they are *not* considered fair by a lot of people. That's why eg German has a 'social market economy' that combines the advantages of a free market with a decent system of public services and social security. I don't tell you that because I think that's what everybody should do, but to show that what somebody considers 'fair' is a matter of opinion, not definition.

The only way to achieve a fair market is to structure it in such a way that the largest possible concentrations of wealth are insufficient to distort the balance of supply and demand on which economic freedom is based.

The only way to achieve a free society is to structure it in such a way that the largest possible concentrations of power are insufficient to distort the balance of unobstructed individual thought and action on which political freedom is based.


I totally agree with you. A free market economy can never achieve that. It doesn't put any restrictions on how much wealth can go into the hand of a few and that situation has a positive feedback in that in such a system, who has more wealth has more influence, which can be used to create situations in which more wealth can be made etc. The only way to act against that is to have a balance in which influence of a person is not weighted by wealth. Our political systems are supposed to provide that balance, but if you look at reality, it's become silently accepted that also there more money means more influence, which is - mildly speaking - a disaster.

What concerns me greatly about the cabal of political globalists and global oligarchs is that everything they do tends in the exact opposite direction.

And unsurprisingly so. As long as they can use the system for their own advantage they will do so. And they are let to proceed because too many people believe the story that whatever happens on the free market will eventually be for their advantage. Best,

B.

Anonymous said...

Bee and Phil:

Since you both raise similar points, I will answer you both at once.

Phil, you are right: scale is exactly the crux of the problem. The emergence of a single global power, beholden to no one and answerable to no one, without any possibility of checks and balances, is what creates the absolute power which corrupts absolutely. That is the danger which is new.

Bee, you are right when you say, "as long as they can use the system for their own advantage they will do so." This is why the system must be structured such that no single agent can ever win a globally decisive advantage. And this can only be prevented by assuring that everyone always has enough options that all possible machinations and gyrations by anyone can lead only to a small temporary advantage at best, and never a self-reinforcing advantage that is amplified over time to the point of singularity.

Unfortunately, that is precisely what we face now: global political / economic singularity. Once it forms, nothing can prevent all wealth in the world from being sucked into its maw. Therefore we must prevent it from forming.

Both of you seem to be willing to trust the government to save us. This puzzles me greatly. Why would you trust any government, when it is patently obvious that all governments are so easily corrupted by the monied powers?

I have already quoted George Washington's remark that government is "like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master." This is how it appears from the people’s point of view. The financier, however, has a much different perspective:

Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.

-- attributed to Mayer Amschel Rothschild

The quote may be apocryphal, but it fits the man and his circumstances. Actually, it seems to have been adapted from the following quote, which is perfectly real:

They, who control the credit of a nation, direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people.

-- Reginald McKenna, January 1924.

When McKenna said that, he was Chairman of the Board of Midland Bank and he was addressing the Annual General Meeting of its shareholders. Before that, he had been Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Consider how much more dangerous the situation gets, when you substitute "the entire world" for "a nation" in the above statement. That is what the globalists want. And if we let that happen, we will find it impossible to make it un-happen. To use your metaphor, Bee, "the keys will be locked in the trunk."

(The rest of this post is almost identical to the one I just posted in the "Political Ideologies" thread. I repeat it here because there seems to be no way to link to a particular post over there.)

Of course, there has always been a hierarchy -- a food chain, if you will. However, throughout most of history, its overall geometry has been that of a mountain range, with many local peaks of approximately equal height.

The problem we face now is that the global geometry is being deformed to resemble a pyramid, having a single peak with exponentially decreasing width as a function of height. And this is a fundamental structural change, which will result in untold misery for the exponentially large majority of mankind who find themselves at the base of the pyramid.

In the mountain-range geometry, players at every level are mostly concerned with competing with a large number of other players of roughly equal size, and this strictly limits the resources available for systematically exploiting those below them. As the number of players at the top level gets smaller, proportionately less effort is required for competition and proportionately more resources can be devoted to exploitation. And when the number of players at the top level is reduced to one, that one can devote all the resources of the entire planet to the task of perpetuating the exploitation.

Let me rephrase that in terms of the food chain analogy. When bigger fish are fighting with each other and eating smaller fish all up and down the line, things may be difficult at every level, but not hopeless at any level. When all that is left is one huge whale feeding on plankton, life is very easy for the whale, but the plankton have no hope at all.

The express intent of the globalists is to bring this about. They are doing everything they can to change the mountain range into a pyramid -- complete with the proverbial all-seeing eye, provided by ubiquitous computing, cashless commerce and biometrics.

As to who is behind this global push to replace free-market democracy, once and for all, with plutocratic oligopoly, I suggest you look into the doings of those who have the most to gain from it: the giant tax-exempt trusts, the global merchant banking families, and the entrenched noble houses. Start with names like Rothschild, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, du Pont, Morgan, Windsor, Habsburg…

In this endeavor you will be hampered by a great profusion of nonsense: secret societies, reptilian aliens, demon worship, and who knows what else. It makes the trail hard to follow, which is perhaps convenient, from a certain point of view.

However, if you take the effort to filter out the cacophony of incendiary screechings (which runs the gamut from slanderous innuendo to delusional psychobabble) and stick to the verifiable facts, you will uncover a cooperative / competitive dynamic which extends backwards in time until its traces are lost in antiquity.

We must start somewhere, so lets start with the fall of Rome, which was divided secularly into the Byzantine and Holy Roman Empires, and ecclesiastically into the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. For brevity’s sake, let's just trace one of these branches forward. For interest's sake, let's choose the lesser known one, from Byzantium through the banking families of Venice (who precipitated the first -- and worst -- global financial collapse in the 1340's, with their speculations in European silver and Chinese gold, mediated by their partnership with the Mongols) and thence to Holland and Britain, and finally to America. Along the way, you might ask questions like, who financed Napoleon? And who financed Hitler? And who financed Lenin? And so on.

The way the answers to such questions fit together should be enough to dispel all doubt that you are following the trail of something real.

I’ve already quoted Eisenhower and Lincoln on this subject, but let me add two more presidents’ views on the matter:

Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.

-- Woodrow Wilson, 1913, The New Freedom, p. 13-14.

Notice the fear and self-exculpation in Wilson’s tone. He was, of course, the president who participated in the creation of the Federal Reserve. But if we go back to the previous attempt to saddle America with a central bank, in the period between the War of 1812 and the Civil War, we find a very different tone:

Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the grace of the Eternal God, I will rout you out.

-- Andrew Jackson, 1832

These words were spoken to a delegation from the second Bank of the United States, as he was throwing them out of the Oval Office. Jackson paid the national debt down to zero by 1835, vetoed the Bank Renewal Bill in 1836, and annulled the bank’s charter.

America -- and the world -- could use some of his cojones today.

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Anonymous,

“Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”

As these where men of the highest power and influence themselves, I would suggest that what they couldn’t identify and yet were so greatly concerned about that they couldn't as much as bring themselves to speak to describe or even give an actual physical embodiment at all and yet I also would admit can as we have seen lately does manifest to be real. You might ask what this is and I will tell you it is fear and fear alone. In the case of these men it is more precisely described as the fear of failure, which is the same power which at this time is having it way once again..

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

- Franklin Delano Roosevelt (inauguration speech)

So yes I would agree there are lessons of history that can be learned from and I would say this is one that we unfortunately still need to learn. That is the last time many men and nations went in different directions in and on their own to solve similar problems and within just a few years after fought among one another in a manner and furiousness that if repeated today will have it be the last time we will all be able or ever after need to fear.

Best,

Phil

Bee said...

Hi Anonymous:

that is precisely what we face now: global political / economic singularity. Once it forms, nothing can prevent all wealth in the world from being sucked into its maw. Therefore we must prevent it from forming.

We'd have a breakdown before it forms, probably extensive civil and international wars. Is 'singularity' the new word of the decade? After we've had a decade full of "The End of ..." are we now having ... singularities?

Both of you seem to be willing to trust the government to save us. This puzzles me greatly. Why would you trust any government, when it is patently obvious that all governments are so easily corrupted by the monied powers?

I think you misunderstood what I said. I don't trust the present government to do anything useful. I just have to open a newspaper to see they are still proceeding by trial and error. That's not going to work. What I am saying is that in principle better governance can solve the problem. For more details, see here. Best,

B.

Anonymous said...

Phil:

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Globalism seeks absolute power.

Therefore its success will necessarily lead to absolute corruption.

Therefore we must prevent its success.

The is very simple logic.

What part of it do you not understand?

Anonymous said...

Bee:

"Governance" is the word globalists use to avoid saying "plutocracy."

It refers to the process by which the men who own the world command the men who run the world.

You seem very well aware of the flaws of existing governments.

Surely you must realize that, as governments get larger and fewer, these flaws can only get worse.

What we must do is adopt a system which is inherently inimical to the formation of concentrations of wealth and power of any appreciable size, when compared to the total wealth and power in the world.

All the principles required to accomplish this are already known.

They have been known for thousands of years.

It is high time to apply them.

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Anonymous,

You said: “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

“Only the Sith think in absolutes”
-Obi-Wan-Star Wars III

Forgive me I just couldn’t help myself with all this talk on the other thread reminiscent of “Coast to Coast”, with it’s world controlling secret societies, U.F.O.’s, big foot and of course the Loch Ness monster.

You said: “Therefore we must prevent its success. This is very simple logic. What part of it do you not understand?

I would say suspicion is the harbinger of fear, which can only be mitigated by the trust born in understanding. I know from your perspective this is nothing more then naïve folly, yet with our total numbers now at more then six billion and climbing (more living now then the sum total of all that lived before), there is actually little choice other then to see it this way. I would agree we are at a crossroads in our destiny and if this is not seen as the right course and soon, we all won’t have to worry as to how you feel about it and so for me that’s both the plain truth born of not simple yet rather sound logic.

Oh yes would you really like to know what brought us to our current situation, it’s begins with people that think they can apply science meant for other purposes and ends with them being implemented by a willing mixture of greedy, thoughtless and silly people that don’t carefully test such models before widely adopting them.

“Beware geeks bearing formulas”
-Warren Buffet

“Be even more wary of those that so quickly and eagerly adopt them”
-me


Best,

Phil

Anonymous said...

Phil:

There you go, getting up on your high horse again, instead of engaging in rational discourse. You write "suspicion is the harbinger of fear, which can only be mitigated by the trust born in understanding."

I guess you mean the kind of understanding that allowed you to completely misconstrue Gandhi? Or the kind of understanding that gave you such confidence that the Founding Fathers of the United States held views diametrically opposed to what they actually believed? Or the kind of understanding that makes you believe that governments can heal crippled markets by strangling them with regulations?

You have simply ignored all the facts that I have presented, just as you have ignored my careful explanations of the simple logic that leads from those facts to specific conclusions about the nature of government, business, society, the individual, and the relations in which these stand to one another.

Or do you think that you can reply to all that with a few glib words of warning to "beware of geeks bearing formulas?" Okay, I admit, the line is funny. But the implication -- that global financial and political affairs can be understood as a comedy of errors -- is clearly absurd.

Those geeks, and their formulas, serve the same purpose as the stories about devil worship and reptilian aliens: they muddy the waters extraordinarily well. The geeks provided the rationalizations used by bankers to sell fraudulent credit default notes to other bankers who bought them, knowing they were fraudulent, because this allowed them to create money out of thin air in accordance with fractional reserve banking regulations. Then, when it all came crashing down, as they knew it would, they could blink innocently, and point to the geeks, and claim they had merely committed errors, not fraud.

But let's not get distracted by the implementation details -- step back and look at the strategic picture. To whom are all those trillions in bailout money flowing, worldwide? Who is profiting by this melt-down? Meaning, who ends up owning a larger share of the world's assets? Follow the money and you will find all the usual suspects. I named some of them in the "Political Ideologies" thread.

Finally, you write, "I would agree we are at a crossroads in our destiny and if this is not seen as the right course and soon, we all won’t have to worry..." But I have no idea what the word, "this", refers to in that sentence. As far as I can tell, you have made no suggestions at all regarding ways to structure business and government on a global scale.

So why don't you show me how your platitudes lead to specific, practical prescriptions for organizing the world's political and financial affairs? And please don't neglect to explain how this arrangement will lead to long term stability and maximize individual freedom.

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Anonymous,

“So why don't you show me how your platitudes lead to specific, practical prescriptions for organizing the world's political and financial affairs?”

What could I say to someone who thinks such as yourself, whose idea of a plan amounts to nothing greater than to remind everyone to stay out of your way, with the consequence if it should happen (although ill defined and arbitrary) that you’ll demonstrate your displeasure by exercising your second amendment prerogative. You equate the failure of government with its size, without suggesting what should be its parameters or why. For commerce you offer the same for it and only offer adjectives rather then defining numbers of magnitude.

On the other hand my scale for governance and along with it citizenship has been clear from the beginning as it has no preset limit or exclusions of numbers or origins, since there would be no borders at all to defend. That doesn’t mean however it would be homogenous by mandate, yet I suspect eventually it would be more so as timed progressed. What would be in common being human rights and in striving to assure opportunity by extending it to all those who wish it and themselves work towards. I make no claim on timetable or offer a blue print yet rather what constitutes a clear direction that looks to a future that build on rather then holds to the past.

So you stick to your fortress of solitude, built and reliant on the privilege of birthright, maintained by belligerence and I’ll stick to imagining a day coming when people no longer claim pride or allegiance to such things, as they will no longer have meaning. I will admit to having one true fear however and that being if your vision persists much longer, their will be no one left to ever share in mine

Best,

Phil

Anonymous said...

Phil:

Ah, yes... "Imagine." A hauntingly seductive vision put to music by John Lennon.

That vision seduced the Russians.
The result was 60 million dead.

That vision seduced the Chinese, too.
The result was another 70 million dead.

Not just dead. Brutally slaughtered.

And THAT is your brilliant plan?

I rest my case.

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Anonymous,

“That vision seduced the Russians.
The result was 60 million dead.
That vision seduced the Chinese, too.
The result was another 70 million dead.”

Like I said at the outset to Bee in this thread, that in as I’m not an American I’m not certain of their dreams, yet rather more familiar with what appears to constitutes to be their nightmares . I must say that you didn’t disappoint, but rather furthered to strengthen that hypothesis and therein I will also rest my case.

Best,

Phil

Anonymous said...

Phil:

The video you linked to supports my position more eloquently than anything I could have said.

The evils it depicts are possible only because too much wealth and power are concentrated in too few hands.

But you don't see that.

You think the solution is to concentrate even more wealth and power in even fewer hands.

Bizarre.

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Anonymous,

“The evils it depicts are possible only because too much wealth and power are concentrated in too few hands.”
“You think the solution is to concentrate even more wealth and power in even fewer hands.”

These thoughts results from your own limitations in terms of imagination, understanding and compassion. The solution rests with the whole concept of ownership to begin with and failing to realize you cannot take anything in conquest to occupy without soldiers who in of themselves are individuals. Freedom begins and ends in the mind and can never be had or lost at the point of a gun.

That’s why the campaigns in Iraq and even Afghanistan are failures, since you can never conquer to own a mind . The choice you have is either extinguish it or reason with it. I’ve been long convinced that only those who aspire to the latter of the these choices are truly capable to represent what we would like to imagine as being humanity. The others are simply predators and prey.

Best,

Phil

Plato said...

Phil, Anaonymous,

I am glad I am able to link now after having a show that I did between you Phil and your self Anonymous.

YOu see, my confusion is a recognition of the polarites that result in the "ultimate peak realization" after "your exchange."

Leads to nowhere but a basier example of the deterioration and no future.

While it appeared flighty, that thread, you both missed the mark totally.

Maybe you both can present experiments of your thinking that resolve your positions, no questions asked?:)

Best,

Plato said...

Phil, Anonymous

Just thought I would add an image here in terms of the entanglement process.

I am set C.:) I want you both to totally "reject your as singular" and become part of the process.

Best,

John G said...

John Lennon said he still believed all you need is love but that just saying it isn't going to get it done. The big problem is not the particular ideology of a particular group. The big problem is that in any group no matter how objectively good or bad its ideas are, the cream that rises to the top of the group tends to be psychopaths or puppets of psychopaths. That's the whole idea behind those "ponerology" links given in the comments for the Political Ideologies post. Given that normal human beings outnumber the psychopaths by something like 15 to 1, it should be possible to get them out of power, unfortuneately us normal people have strings that are oh so easy for pschopaths to pull. They love to get us to spend our brainpower just saying it, as Lennon would say.

Anonymous said...

John G:

Yes, exactly: "the cream that rises to the top of the group tends to be psychopaths or puppets of psychopaths." I might say "scum" instead of "cream," and add the word, "sociopaths," but the principle is the same: more often than not, cheaters win over those who play fair.

This can only be mitigated if the fair players know who the cheaters are, and guard against them.

That is why each and every individual has the right defend his freedom by whatever means necessary.

And a moral duty to exercise that right.

Anonymous said...

Phil:

Finally, I’m beginning to see why we disagree.

You think it is possible to get the men who own the world to abandon the concept of ownership.

Considering my reply to John G, this begs two questions:

Why would they ever do that?

What if they don't?

Phil Warnell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Phil Warnell said...

Hi Plato,

Well if you think that by rejecting the world view of our Anonymous friend has in effect have me being as misguided as he; then I guess that’s what it will have to be believed. To hide behind such a noble ideal as liberty, to justify privilege and have exclusion appear as acceptable, leaves one with not much to begin with. Yet to have this worsened by his admission that the only thing that is respected by these same people, as being the only way to resolve dispute is to threaten or take lives in the process.

Then further to say someone like Gandhi , would agree with his means and philosophical/spiritual center, is not simply a point of view, yet a falsehood; which if he truly believes is at best problematic, yet if other s are taken in by this truly a tragedy. These so called libertarians equate human behavior along with its capacity to being no better then to that of rats in a cage. So what I can not or will never back down from is to find to accommodate this most wrongful perception, as in knowing what defines us to be truly human has us transcend to being and so often tested and proven to be far better then this.

Best,

Phil

Plato said...

Phil:Well if you think that by rejecting the world view of our Anonymous friend has in effect have me being as misguided as he;

IT was the "entrenched position and polarization of one's view" diametrically in opposition. This is "matter forming." The future "will not change" as a result of what will be aligned with that? Why you must reject that position and become open. Not to accept what is diametrically in opposition.

I have confused you as well. :(

What you may of thought as geeky and out in left field was the example of what the "corporate entity can become," overriding the human being. Governments. You see how crazy it can appear that such a relation is now drawn.

The experiments have already been done in "both positions?" There not working now.

What "entity is this" that we call it by such and such a name, and not realize that it is as if we had created the "dynamics of the robot to rule" in a society without the quality that must exist, as the essence of the human being? Heart.

I have not forgotten Pirsig's journey here. I learnt something else very important as well. Do you understand brother? You have to remain "very fluid.":)

Best,

Anonymous said...

Phil:

There is also the deeper question of what is ownership? Is it right or wrong to abolish it? Is it even possible?

Suppose that you have in your hand some food that you grew or caught. I think you would agree that it would be wrong for me to take it from you by physical force and use it for myself.

Now suppose that you put it down on the table and leave the room temporarily, for whatever reason. I think you would agree that it is still wrong for me to take the food, even though there is no longer any physical violence involved.

The relationship between you and that food, which persists and makes it wrong for me to take it, even when it is not in your physical possession, is called ownership.

To abolish the concept of ownership is to claim that I do no wrong if I pounce on your food and take it for myself as soon as you let it out you your grasp.

"End well, this will not."

Putting it in Yoda's words injects a little humor to emphasise my point, which is fundamentally important and logically inescapable:

The idea of ownership is an absolutely necessary precondition to the peaceful coexistence of human beings.

This conclusion is in complete agreement with actual events observed in the real world.

Each and every time this is tried on any appreciable scale, the result is always the same: wholesale famine, poverty, oppression, slavery, torture, and slaughter.

"End well, this did not."

Bee said...

Anonymous, Phil:

I had not been following your exchange in the apparently mistaken believe you'd both behave like reasonable adults. I just deleted Anonymous' last comment. I want to remind you that we don't allow anonymously made insults on this blog. Blogger's software doesn't allow me to edit comments, I can only completely delete them. This means, if you don't manage to stay polite everything you had to say that might have been interesting will also make it's way into digital nirvana. Thus, please play nicely. Best,

B.

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Bee,

I apologize if what I’ve written as of late has gone beyond what you consider as being civil or appropriate. I will of course comply and think upon as to where I exceeded the limit. One thing I can tell you it’s been the first time in the blogosphere I’ve ever been censored, yet now will consider perhaps some of my comments too personally focused rather then being of a more general nature.

Just as a point of interest, when I first attempted to respond Google wouldn’t accept my identity so perhaps higher powers likewise felt I’ve crossed a line somewhere:-) Also if this particular Anonymous poster has taken offense with my responses to his own opinions, then they should be assured I meant not to diminish their person only to indicate where our differences rest and as to what I consider to be evidence in support of this. If they then consider I’ve exceeded this then I extend my apology to him/her also.

Best,

Phi;

Bee said...

Hi Phil,

I didn't delete anything you wrote. And just so you know what you are at, I admittedly didn't even read it. As you know, I've been traveling and I honestly don't have the time to co-read all discussions people have on this blog, I just hope they are having fun and behave nicely. You in particular have left me with the impression I don't have to watch out what you write and if an email starts with "Phil Warnell left a new comment on your post..." I don't feel the need to check if you might have called somebody names. In addition to this, you are signing with your own name, I happen to know it's not a made up one and I have your home address. I am particularly pissed off by people who hide behind anonymity to insult others, thus I am more inclined to delete their comments. Bottomline is, no need to apologize, I hope the discussion you've been having was interesting. Best,

B.

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Bee,

I thank you for your clarification and confidence, yet this all has had me consider things more clearly. In actuality the only rule that I consider as unchallengeable and as such paramount being the “golden one” .It also as far as humanity goes I consider as the central one that should be used to measure both our progress and purpose.

So when I look back to reflect upon what I said it could be considered somewhat too broad and or assuming and in being such somewhat condemning. This of course is the challenge held out to those that attempt to follow the rule, for empathy must extend to all, not just with those we agree with.

So for those that fear, I can tell them I do also and for those who extend this concern for others I can admit to a bond even greater. Then in this way my empathy extends to everyone and I can only hope that they now or at some point will share in the my hope that one day this will be able to be finally understood as to be conquered, so as to leave us then with only joy. I also realize for many this all sounds corny and greatly naive perhaps, yet for me to not hold this conviction leaves one with little reason to be found in life or its living.

Best,

Phil

John G said...

Phil, Lubos Motl you aren't though the leeway Lubos often gets does reinforce the idea that being more known gets you more leeway.

I do think you don't want to be too "wishful thinking" or too "love and light" about our rulers (government, corporate, military, financial). On the other hand the idea of doing "whatever you can" has a big downside, namely it implies too much doing and not enough careful thought. You don't want to end up like Waco.

Perhaps what you want is something mostly non-violent Ghandi-like but with numbers large enough to have the effect of Georges Laraque (hockey enforcer) pummeling a helpless goalie. Like the huge numbers of masked unarmed people at the end of "V for Vendetta".

Phil Warnell said...

Hi John,

I’m not sure what to make of you connecting me with Lubos , other then perhaps to hoist another strawman in a field already overcrowded. I sense from your response that you also hold firm to your second amendment right as it’s been interpreted here. To tell you the truth I have no fear of firearms in of themselves, yet simply of the ones who proclaim they be the key to their success in bettering and to assure a just society.

That is I’ve been long aware I should be more concerned with the one that has their finger on the trigger, then the potential the tool presents. If one has them for personal protection from criminals I would say that serves to indicate they are either not protected by their system adequately or have fear that is disproportionate to reality.

So as I see it if it be the first case it suggests the system must be improved some how to protect them from such danger and in the second also improved, yet rather in this case to be able to offer the help they require to deal with their unwarranted fears. Now if it be the government itself they fear what use in this day and age would be these tools be , that is other then to insure the greatest numbers of casualties will be incurred in the their just struggle for change? So John it’s not all to be taken as “love and light” yet rather mostly reason?

As for the image of a multitude of Georges Laraque's with the advent of recent sad occurance even this image may be shortly erased from what our nations passion still brings to the mind of many who are less familiar. Although I must admit to it being a most terrifying image. In fact I would have it placed in any field when someone has problems with the crows. We should find this all encouraging for even hockey does eventually evolve through change:-)

Best,

Phil

Anonymous said...

Bee:

In the post you deleted, I show that Phil

(1) distorts the facts
(2) misrepresents my position
(3) attacks me with vague innuendo

Granted, my response should not have been quite so heated, but neither should Phil have immunity to insult me repeatedly just because he does it in an obsequious tone.

I can understand your tendency to trust those who are better known to you, but you really shouldn't intervene unless you first look carefully at both sides of the exchange.

I respect, and share, your desire to keep the tone civil. So I will soften the tone of the post you deleted, and then I will repost it.

Anonymous said...

Phil:

Your Gandhi quote was actually from the 1982 movie (!) directed by Richard Attenborough. I can find no evidence that Gandhi himself really said it.

In contrast, I quoted Gandhi's actual words, complete with references to his published works, including page numbers.

You responded by accusing me of falsehood, when you should have posted a credible reference for your quote, if one exists.

Further, you misrepresent my position with the phrase, "to hide behind such a noble ideal as liberty, to justify privilege and have exclusion appear as acceptable..."

That phrase does not bear even slightest resemblance to anything I said, but it does imply all kinds of vaguely horrible things about me.

I am warning against the evils that result from the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the worst butchers in history and the ruthless misers who profit by lending them money, which is repaid with interest extracted from the soul-crushing toil of untold millions of down-trodden victims.

The links you post, to John Calhoun's rat overpopulation experiments, have nothing whatsoever to do with the issue -- unlike all the other links you posted, which actually undermine your own position and support mine.

I am warning most particularly against the errors of philosophy and ideology underlying the flawed political and economic policies that enable the globalist plutocrats to continue profiting from generation after generation of blood money.

But you claim that "if others are taken in by this [it is] truly a tragedy," where the word, "this," refers not to the errors that perpetuate oppression, but to my warnings about those errors!

Phil, I think you need to stop distorting the facts, stop misrepresenting my position, stop attacking me with vague innuendo, and confine yourself to rational discourse.

And you owe me an apology.

John G said...

Phil, I've never actually owned or used a firearm but like you I don't have anything against good properly educated people owning one. But when it comes to problems with a leadership that has police/military backing, they are at best useless and at worst dangerous.

I just mentioned to Lubos to agree with the general sentiment that your style of attack is no where near as bad as it gets here.

Yes the Hockey goon more represents the intensity of purpose image for your protest not the actual means of your protest.

Socialism, capitalism, globalism, separatists, etc. is a debate that needs to be separated from the idea that you don't want any system when there are bad rulers.

Anonymous comes across as every person for himself, every country for itself. If one did get the leadership problem fixed, one could look at ways to cooperate on the individual and global levels.

Unfortuneately leadership problems are no where near fixed globally and it would be good if people had better community/extended family cooperation like what existed during the U.S. great depression and during the fall of communism in Russia. Bee had an article on those garden plots they have in Europe, those kinds of things are great for what may come globally.

Anonymous said...

John G:

It is overly simplistic to say that I advocate every man for himself and every country for itself; the callous selfishness implied by these phrases is completely absent from what I have said.

You quite correctly pointed out that it is generally the ruthless and the greedy who accumulate wealth and power. I say we must accept this reality and find a way of organizing the world that works tolerably well in spite of it.

My point is firstly that a well armed, resolute public is so difficult and costly to oppress, that it is more profitable for the plutocrat to respect their freedom than to enslave them. Conversely, if the people are unarmed, it does them no good to stand together against militarized tyranny.

My point is secondly that plutocrats who have their hands full competing with other plutocrats are too busy to put much effort into oppressing the people. Conversely, the greed and cruelty of tyrants increases without bound when they are not limited by external factors.

In sum, my point is that an arrangement, which takes full advantage of the these two principles, is the only possible way of organizing the world that can endure for any appreciable length of time and is also compatible freedom and prosperity for the common man.

History shows that all other systems, no matter how much they may appeal to the heart, are doomed to failure in practice. And their failures are invariably seen to be shockingly unjust and inhumanly gruesome.

I say such failures are worth avoiding, even if it means we have to admit some things about human nature which we would rather deny.

Phil Warnell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Phil Warnell said...

Hi Anonymous,

First, let me say that as I admitted in my response to Bee that perhaps I was somewhat stereotypical in some of my responses to you and for that I apologize. As for the Gandhi quote I’m not certain which one you're referring to so I’ll respond when you indicate which. As for Gandhi in general although on e could say he was an anarchist he firmly believed in nonviolence coupled with non cooperation and mass protest as the best and morally correct way to deal with either invaders or oppressors. Your countries own civil rights movement and anti war rallies was inspired by Ganhi’s thought and approach. These are the facts of it, which few would dispute and I see any attempt not simply a distortion yet a falsehood. My rats in a cage was to suggest that I sense that many libertarians feel that they need to both be spatially and socially minimally connected to their fellow men, which was what was first thought as being validated by John B. Calhoun early experiment and now are being less agreed with as it becomes better understood.

Now let’s deal more with specifics, first you have a tendency to command how others should think, rather then reason with them, that in effect only has your own thoughts on matters relevant or correct ,so how then does that stack up for someone who is supposed to believe and respect that individual liberty is paramount? Next you tend to demand that you be respected and along with it your opinions rather then earning it so how does this serve to respect anyone’s individual liberty outside of perhaps only those that agree with your own,? For me these form to be contradictions. Of course and unfortunately these are traits that not only you have, but many people have and I would agree not restricted to any one particular ideology.

My own (personal and individual) take on Libertarians are as I expressed to John G. in the other thread, being that I find their central arguments for maintaining the right to bare arms both illogical and counterproductive and further haven’t seen any arguments presented thus far that I find to satisfy logically why I should alter that opinion.

So there you have it, so I respect your right to holding opinion and yet retain the right to my own. I’m convinced that the people do have the power for change and yet it doesn’t logically require them to threaten or to kill one another in the process. You think that size is the main problem with government and business. while I think it to be not the size yet rather the quality and soundness of foundations they possess that’s relevant.

To conclude I’ve come to realize we could stand on our soap boxes for quite some time and I suspect there would be little movement in our individual positions. That’s not to say I wish to end the dialogue, yet I think it best out of respect for the overall intent and focus of Bee’s and Stefan’s blog not to be too preoccupied with this and so I for one will refrain from any further exchange with you here in regards to these matters.

Best,

Phil

Plato said...

If I choose a political ideology to represent the entanglement process and show my position as Set C, what does set c represent?

To Bee or Stefan, it might represent some part of their Germanic genealogy history? The Wolf's Lair?

Best:)

Phil Warnell said...

Hi John,

First let me say that I’m sorry for mistakenly taking you as one of those that think having a hand gun or assault rifle at the ready was what assured your liberty and freedom. That is it should have been evident to me earlier as being the best your wife thought you could manage was to pile oxygen bottles to block the doorways. I do however would like to make clear that I’m not some sort of fanatic as you alluded to in your Waco reference. It’s simply that when presented with the viewpoint of what’s called Libertarianism I will in the course of my exchange state clearly my own position, as to what I see as the logical direction humanity should embark on and as to what methodology should be considered. I’m also not naive enough to think that this could ever happen overnight, since as with almost anything that evolves to improve, it requires time to emerge and manifest itself. I guess in this respect I am somewhat selfish myself, in bemoaning the strong likelihood that I will never live long enough to see and live in such a world.

I also find myself somewhat surprised that some here consider I have achieved some level of notoriety and can assure you it does I garner me some influence , this will cause me to attempt even more to be careful in future in considering what I say. I’m not certain as to how I feel if this if it be true, since like it must be for a politician who actually strives to make things better , it must then take some of the joy out of them so doing so. Yet again, I guess as it with any who have ideals and passions comes responsibilities. That’s why ultimately for many who hold to individual freedom and liberty as all that’s required are deceiving themselves to some extent.

Just as an aside did you make the hockey reference as being yourself a fan or rather simply the image it provokes for many that are not familiar with our sport which is one of the few things in which many share an identity with.

Best,

Phil

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Plato,

“If I choose a political ideology to represent the entanglement process and show my position as Set C, what does set c represent?”

In as you know I carry with me some of the Platonic perspective, which Plato called perfect form or as Pirsig both had become less solid yet more clear as referring to it as quality. These we have of course discussed at some length you and I. The seeming paradox of course is that science has given evidence that things evolve to find perfection or quality rather then beginning this way. So we are faced with which is the truth and which attitude should be dismissed? The way I have looked upon it that perfection /quality and evolution can coexist as not to be in paradox in acknowledging as in math or science as the first considered as a limit and the latter as the process. So my response it short is I look to the limit to find a direction rather then establish and hold to position,

Best,

Phil

Anonymous said...

Phil:

You depict libertarian thought as a mental pathology that may not be quite as bad as caged rats traumatized by overpopulation, but so close that even enlightened sages such as yourself are only beginning to see the difference.

Unbelievable.

You got up on your high horse and attacked me with vague innuendo.

Again.

Anonymous said...

Phil:

You've accused me of falsehood and conveniently forgotten your false Gandhi reference.

Again.

So I will refresh your memory.

In your post of 6:42 AM, March 06, you invoke Gandhi as part of your argument against the need for an armed citizenry.

In my post of 8:46 PM, March 06, I reply by quoting Gandhi’s actual words on the subject:

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

-- Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, p. 446, translated from Gujarati by Mahadev Desai, Navajivan Publishing House, 1927.

In your post of 6:41 AM, March 07, you offer me your pity (the first of many insults), and exhibit the following quote:

"There are many causes that I am prepared to die for but no causes that I am prepared to kill for."

But Gandhi never said that. Nor did he believe it. It's just part of the Cultural Marxist propaganda payload delivered by Attenborough's movie.

In my post of 3:58 PM, March 07, I show what Gandhi really believed:

"I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence."

-- Mohandas K. Gandhi, Collected Works, Vol. 21, p. 133, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government of India.

"Thus when my eldest son asked me what he should have done, had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used his physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him that it was his duty to defend me even by using violence."

-- Gandhi, loc. cit.

"I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour."

-- Gandhi, loc. cit.

You never acknowledged any of this evidence. Instead, you piously quoted Obama's opinion of Gandhi in your post of 5:17 PM, March 08, which was directed at Bee.

This illustrates a recurring pattern with you:

You ignore evidence that you are wrong, and hurl insults to divert attention from rational discussion, while hiding behind a façade of holier-than-thou piety.

Anonymous said...

Phil:

The apparatchiks of political correctness use the same tactics you have been shown to use.

The goal is not to promote understanding.

The goal is to enforce dogma.

And people are sick of it.

John G said...

Phil, oh yea I'm a huge fan, of the Penguins in particular since I was born in and went to college in Pittsburgh. Laraque was a Penguin last year.

Anonymous, even so there's no law against the stereotype of Gandhi being a better strategy than the reality of Gandhi. You don't want a bunch of Wacos.

Grandma bingo player does a fine job of having a comfortable life off the radar of the government. If your goal is to not rock the boat and live as good as possible even with bad rulers, then collecting guns could be a bad idea like with Waco.

I personally think you want to fight back as much as possible simply by making more people more aware. No strategy is going to work without numbers, Waco didn't have numbers.

With enough numbers hopefully you could just show up together and the shear numbers would prevent violence from the police/armed forces. We currently are just at the information stage and things will probably have to get worse to wake up greater numbers.

Phil Warnell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Phil Warnell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Phil Warnell said...

Hi Anonymous,

"I do believe that where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence I would advise violence."

Despite my commitment to turn from this topic I did say I would respond to your claim that my quote of Gandhi as being fictional. Just before I do that I would like to simply say that what the other above quote you mention, noting that Gandhi although committed to nonviolence when being the only choice between cowardice and violence he would be forced to choose violence.

This in effect is like the “have you stopped beating your wife” type question we spoke of regarding the complaint I had with the survey Bee pointed out. What this actually reflects is Gandhi’s weighing of dignity (you might call it spiritual liberty) in relation to morality, where as cowardice is a greater failing then violence, yet the moral high ground which is what he believed as being the only true choice of a truly moral person, where beter to risk and accept death if need be, rather then commit violence. In plain terms, better to killing in the maintenance of your dignity, then being a passive coward while loosing it, yet best to risk death even in the face of being murdered by your enemy, then you yourself being brought to doing so. That is he was saying that true moral conviction can only come when coupled with true courage.

"There are many causes that I am prepared to die for but no causes that I am prepared to kill for."

As for your problem with my quote as shown above it is to be found in his autobiography published between 1927 and 1929 called “The Story of my Experiments with Truth” . To be truthful I can’t tell you the chapter and page number, yet if you are truly interested you might find it yourself. If in the off chance you can’t, rather then drag me up on the carpet again I suggest you lodge your complaint with the United Nations . That is if you don’t already consider them as part of the conspiracy to rewrite history, in which case I don’t know what to advise?

In signing off on this, while I wouldn’t say our discussion has been exactly an enjoyable one, I will insist its educational value for me at least can’t be denied.

Best,

Phil

Anonymous said...

Phil:

Your quote is not found anywhere in my PDF copy of "The Story of my Experiments with Truth," downloaded from the Gandhi Book Centre (www.mkgandhi-sarvodaya.org), nor can I find any reasonable variation of the phrasing.

As for the credibility of UN sources, consider the words written by the first Director General of UNESCO, Julian Huxley (brother of Aldous Huxley), in the mission statement of UNESCO:

"The task before UNESCO... is to help the emergence of a single world culture, with its own philosophy and background of ideas, and with its own broad purposes.
...
Taking the techniques of persuasion and information and true propaganda that we have learnt to apply nationally in war, and deliberately bending them to the international tasks of peace, if necessary utilising them, as Lenin envisaged, to 'overcome the resistance of millions' to desirable change."

-- Julian Huxley, UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy, Public Affairs Press, 1947.

Just for context, let me remind you of something Julian's brother Aldous said:

"There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution."

-- Aldous Huxley, from a speech at the University of California medical school, 1959.

Connect the dots, Phil.

Are you starting to see the picture?

Anonymous said...

Phil:

Yes, you are exactly right: "Gandhi although committed to nonviolence when being the only choice between cowardice and violence he would be forced to choose violence."

But this is only possible if this choice is left open to him. This is why he sees "depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest" of Britain's misdeeds.

You see? In so doing, they deprive him of that choice, leaving him no option but to "in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to [India's] dishonour."

In essence, Gandhi's message is the same as the Roman message:

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

If you seek peace, prepare for war.

This does not endorse violence!

It simply accepts that, in general, there is no other way to avoid it except cowardice and dishonour.

And this is why the American Constitution states unequivocally:

The right to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed.

Anonymous said...

John G:

You're right, "there's no law against the stereotype of Gandhi being a better strategy than the reality of Gandhi."

But the evidence of history shows that it isn't.

And you suggest, "hopefully you could just show up together and the shear numbers would prevent violence from the police/armed forces."

But the evidence of history shows that it won't.

Plato said...

I thought here for a minute about salt? Does this bring to mind anything of value in relation to Gandhi's peaceful overthrow of the British? You fellows are speaking quality while no play?:)

Who said this, "a pen is mightier then a sword."

Best,

Plato said...

The Almighty Dollar

"The almighty dollar, that great object of universal devotion throughout our land, seems to have no genuine devotees in these peculiar villages; and unless some of its missionaries penetrate there, and erect banking houses and other pious shrines, there is no knowing how long the inhabitants may remain in their present state of contented poverty."

John G said...

From here:

"Insurgency is defined by Kitson as the same as Subversion with the addition of armed force. This is the mindset of the ruling elite throughout the world; a mindset so narrow, so parochial, that any challenge to it, even peaceful and law abiding is seen as Subversion. Add armed struggle to the attempts of people to get those governing them to take different actions or change their mode of governing, and you have Insurgency. Subversion is greatly feared by ruling elites because of its peaceful nature and because it is often widely supported. Insurgency, on the other hand, is not feared nearly so much because they have more firepower. Once the ruling elite can unleash extreme violence in real or imaginary reaction to any form of armed struggle then they have the upper hand, they have control and control is what "ruling" is all about. Insurgency is therefore preferred over Subversion by ruling elites."

Phil Warnell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Phil Warnell said...

Hi John,

The Penguins is it, yes I pay attention to the team as well, not for Georges Laraque yet rather this fellow, as he was born and raised about 10 miles from where I originally hail from. I also like the last quote you posted as it rings so much of Gandhi. Although my favourite reference to him is found in the following:

“My part in producing the atomic bomb consists in a single act: I signed a letter to President Roosevelt, pressing the need for experiment on a large scale in order to explore the possibilities for the production of an atomic bomb.

I was fully aware of the terrible danger to mankind in case this attempt succeeded. But the likelihood that the Germans were working on the same problem with a chance of succeeding forced me to this step. I could do nothing else although I have always been a convinced pacifist. To my mind to kill in a war is not a whit better than to commit ordinary murder.

As long however as nations are not resolved to abolish war through common actions and to solve their conflicts and protect their interests by peaceful decisions on a legal bases, tney feel compelled to prepare for war. The feel obliged to prepare for all possible means, even the most detestable ones, as to not be left behind in the general armament race. This road necessarily leads to war, a war under the present conditions means universal destruction.

Under these circumstances the fight against means has no chance of success. Only the radical abolition of wars and the threat of war can help. This is what one has to work for. One has to be resolved not to let himself be forced to actions that run counter to this goal. This is a severe demand on an individual who is conscious of his dependence on society. But it is not an impossible demand.

Gandhi, the greatest political genius of our time, has pointed the way. He has shown of what sacrifices people are capable once they have found the right way, His work for the liberation of India is a living testimony to the fact that a will governed by firm conviction is stronger than a seemingly invincible material power.”

Albert Einstein, September 2o, 1952. Published in Japanese Magazine, Kaizo (Tokyo), Autumn. 1952.

So John here find perhaps the man many consider greatest genius of recent times, baring his soul in admitting to a terrible mistake he played a part, and wishing if he had only known before that another genius had found a way for him to have avoided it; that is if he had only realized to have known before.

Oh yes there is another connection I have in hailing from where I did, which started in a small and unlikely village, just a little further up the road from the place of my own beginnings.

Best,

Phil

Anonymous said...

Phil, John:

Phil, you correctly point out that, as long as there are multiple sovereign powers in the world, they will be compelled to prepare for war. And thus the danger of war is ever-present.

John, you correctly point out that psychopaths tend to rise to the top in hierarchies of power. If there is only one sovereign power in the world, then nothing can prevent the resulting tyranny from increasing without bound.

Thus the options are:

1) the perpetual possibility of war

2) the certainty of limitless tyranny

and there are no other options.

Which will you choose?

Anonymous said...

John, Phil:

Hint: the necessary and sufficient conditions for a stable global system which preserves individual freedom are:

1) States must small enough, and numerous enough, that concentrations of power sufficient destabilize the world cannot form.

2) The people must be well enough informed, and well enough armed, that they cannot be oppressed by any state.

If you disagree, you must show that one of the above is unnecessary, or that both together are insufficient.

John G said...

Phil, yep us Pens fans have been spoiled for years now with Lemieux and Crosby and even on the European side with Jagr and Malkin... and Plato, the Pen mightier than the sword was the previously mentioned Laraque.

Anonymous, unfortuneately states are already big and armed too well and lots of informing still needs to be done no matter what strategy you are using.

Anonymous said...

John:

I agree, "states are already big and armed too well and lots of informing still needs to be done." But I why do you not mention the need for citizens to be better armed?

Are you saying it's already too late?

Serfdom is inevitable?

Resistance is futile?

John G said...

"Resitance is Futile"

Those Spockian odds are always missing some unknown variable outside the system in some Godelian way so one can always fight the good fight.

I'm an anarchist, you're a Libertarian, which is interesting cause Wikipedia mentions both in relation to V for Vendetta:

"David Graeber, an anarchist scholar and former professor at Yale University, was not upset by the film. "I thought the message of anarchy got out in spite of Hollywood." However, Graeber went on to state: "Anarchy is about creating communities and democratic decision making. That’s what is absent from Hollywood’s interpretation."... Several market anarchists and other libertarians, including members from the Mises Institute and LewRockwell.com, see the film as a positive depiction in favour of a free society with no government and free enterprise. They cite the state's terrorism as being of greater evil and rationalized by its political machinery, while V's acts are seen as "terroristic" because they are done by a single individual.[12][52] Justin Raimondo, the libertarian editor of Antiwar.com, praised the film for its sociopolitical self-awareness and saw the film's success as "helping to fight the cultural rot that the War Party feeds on"."

The hero V can certainly use weapons but notice in the end it's the idea not the weapons that win, the sheer numbers of people with the same idea is just not something that can be killed whether the people are armed or not:

V's final battle

The finale

Malcolm X, JFK, RFK, MLK and V the idea may have been taken from us as we are seemingly leaderless, but for me it's LKJ. Not really Chuck Norris but she does have supporters:

"So I'm not sure how happy your birthday is this year, Laura, but I truly hope you are able to somehow focus on how far the group has come and have faith that we will not let you down, that this too shall pass. You have overcome so much already, and I know you will continue to overcome so much more because you eat challenges for breakfast. Chuck Norris has nothing on you. Allow me to re-write his jokes into actual statements of fact, because they are all true when they're applied to you.

When the boogeyman goes to sleep at night, he checks his closet for Laura.
Laura doesn't read books. She stares them down until she gets the information she wants.
Laura does not sleep. She waits.
There is no ponytail in the back of Laura's head. There is only another fist.
Laura can lead a horse to water AND make it drink.
Laura does not wear a watch. SHE decides what time it is!
When Laura has surgery, the anasthesia is applied to the doctors.
Scientists in Washington have recently conceded that, if there were a nuclear war, all that would remain are cockroaches and Laura Knight Jadczyk.


And last but not least,
Laura sleeps with the light on. Not because she's afraid of the dark, but because the dark is afraid of her!

With the way the winds are blowing (literally and figuratively), a storm is definitely coming, and I think the worst is unfortunately still to come. And like the C's say, it can give you that feeling in the pit of your stomach. But that also means the best is still to come as well. The air is never fresher or calmer or more clear than after a huge storm. And if there is any group on this planet that can weather any storm, this is it. Happy Birthday Laura, and please remember that in this group it's all for one and one for all."

Anonymous said...

John:

So you're counting on "some unknown variable outside the system in some Godelian way" to save you from a conclusion you don't like. I guess that's your only option, because the conclusion is derived from basic, known facts by simple, valid logic.

You don't question my premises.

Nor do you refute my reasoning.

But you dislike the conclusion.

So you invoke a miracle.

Good luck with that...

Phil Warnell said...

Hi John,

A nice story, yet do you truly think that it will come to anarchy before there can be meaningful change. If that’s the case this little economic hurdle we are currently experiencing will look like a speed bump compared to that. Actually I feel that with all the finger pointing we have been having lately, that’s all it will amount to, unless some foolish politician stands up and proclaims “let them eat cake”.

The last time I witnessed any large numbers of people take to the streets in the U.S. to enact change was in the Martin Luther King years and with the anti Vietnam war protests. In each case however it was never the majority, yet rather minorities comprised of the oppressed or young people. There isn’t even a central idea to rally around, other then this vague referral to change. Do you really think the majority are looking for change or even know what it is they would like to change?

What I mean is every one seems to have some handle on maintaining their lives and personal liberty and yet do they really know what it is they are pursuing to have them be happy? I would say it might be what they fail to realize is the commonness of their social fabric, which has people feel they belong and have reason for hope. I think they have forgotten this and thereby lost this bond which I would say is the only thing that will give them good reason to recognize common purpose and with it direction for change.

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

--Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.

"Being myself a warm zealot for the attainment and enjoyment by all mankind of as much liberty as each may exercise without injury to the equal liberty of his fellow citizens, I have lamented that... the endeavors to obtain this should have been attended with the effusion of so much blood."

--Thomas Jefferson to Jean Nicholas Demeunier, 1795. FE 7:13

Best,

Phil

John G said...

Anonymous, look at Phil's two examples of Martin Luther King and the Vietnam Peace Movement. The FBI was quite worried about both and looking for anything it could attack. From here:

"After tailing her movements for four years, the government closed its file on Coretta Scott King with a statement that "no information has come to the attention of Atlanta which indicates a propensity for violence or affiliation of subversive elements."

King and the Vietnam peace movement attracted a lot of attention and seemed to do some good yet it worried the government. I suspect the government would have tried to shut things down if any violent intentions like building a stockpile of arms had been found. It would be shut down like the the Branch Davidian offshoot in Waco, Texas was when they were suspected of stockpiling weapons.

It didn't take a miracle for King's and the Vietnam peace movement to get as big as it did. The unknown variables from our point of view would be the things the government is hiding and the things any peaceful subversive (from the governments's view) group finds out. Something like Watergate (which wasn't a miracle) only bigger (like more facts implicating the government in 9-11 or whatever). No miracles just some good work.

Phil, John Fudjack who Plato knows about is in the online Anarchist Encyclopedia and is also the founder of buddhistpeacegroup.org so anarchy isn't necessarily what people think. Fudjack was a Vietnam war protestor, protested the Iraq war before it started, and has held seminars criticizing the PNAC government document (including alleging that PNAC was a blueprint for staging 9-11).

Anonymous said...

Phil:

Anarchy is fraught with danger, yet it would be very much preferable to what is coming.

What is coming is worldwide serfdom at best, slavery at worst.

Because people no longer have either the insight to value their freedom or the courage to defend it.

This is the intended result of the UNESCO-mandated "single world culture" of collectivism, moral relativism, narcissism, inter-subjectivity, compulsive consumption, and learned helplessness -- which is propagated by the schools and reinforced by the media everywhere in the world.

Anonymous said...

John:

Your examples happened before Waco, before Ruby Ridge, before FEMA, before Homeland Security, before the Patriot Act, before political correctness, and so on. In fact, the later abuses I cite are government measures to prevent events like your examples from happening anymore.

In the United States today -- and it is much the same throughout Europe and the British Commonwealth -- the climate today is alarmingly similar to Nazi Germany of the 1930's, only worse, because the techniques of oppression are much more sophisticated.

Today, whatever dissent is not stifled by the poison hand of political correctness will be crushed by the iron fist of the Patriot Act.

If the government knew that a Waco or a Ruby Ridge anywhere would immediately result in armed uprisings everywhere, such things would never happen.

But here is the reality: the government invaded the Branch Davidian compound with tanks, and burned 75 trapped victims, including innocent women and children, to death.

And the people did nothing about it.

No indignant mobs -- armed or otherwise -- appeared in the nation's capital to demand justice.

No one in government was charged with any crime. On the contrary, the surviving victims were convicted of things that shouldn't be crimes in the first place. Their attempts to lay charges and file suit against the government were dismissed for lack of evidence, which was lacking because the ruins of the compound had been levelled by government almost immediately after the events.

The atrocities committed by the government remain unpunished.

The victims are dead or in prison.

When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny.

-- Thomas Jefferson (?)

Actually, that quote is probably apocryphal, but it is profoundly true nonetheless, and completely in keeping with the principles America was created to embody:

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them.

-- George Washington, First Annual Message to Congress, January 8, 1790

Phil Warnell said...

Hi John,

Thanks for the web site reference, which I will look into in more depth later. At first glance it does appear they have the message right, with being the first order of business in seeking to eliminate war. The thing is if this was all that was concentrated on the rest would for the best part fall into place. That being to truly eliminate war one needs remove the reasons for it, even more so then the means, for that will follow as well as they would no longer have purpose . Of course to do this we must first eliminate hunger and ignorance, for until they are rid of bigotry and hatred will always remain.

I do have one apprehension though for this program, which is to ask what of those seemingly non wanton and educated persons who still feels they require not only maintaining personally the means, yet finding only themselves as the ones who should decide where, when, why and if they be used. I guess this is one place where it does come down to a matter of scale, since it may never be that we can eliminate all wars, only perhaps best that they diminish in both frequency and scale to be smaller and fewer until that when they do occur it will no longer be recognized as war, yet rather ordinary murder.

So when you strip it all down, what is the thing we should be all looking for as change? I would say that many would agree it be actually better understanding or as it’s also recognized as knowledge of truth through its beauty, or all by its quality if you prefer. As I admitted to in the beginning I’m not an American and don’t know what they dream of or long for, yet would say if we look to their founders and the ideals enshrined in those places in Washington I would imagine many did dream of this at least for a time.

Best,

Phil.

John G said...

Anonymous, all true what you say. I even understand the guns part since as Kennedy said:

"Those who make peaceful evolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."

I like your presidents quotes, the Wilson one I've seen before and I think of Jackson as the last OK US government. Here's another from Jefferson:

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." Thomas Jefferson 3rd president of the US (1743-1826), Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin (1802)"

The "V for Vendetta" movie has a quote much like your apocryphal Jefferson one:

"People shouldn't be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people"

Things are certainly worse than in the 60s. The leadership for the group I like was forced to flee the suburbs of Florida for an abandoned castle in the middle of France. They got hassled in France too and I suspect they would not still be in the castle if stockpiling weapons were part of their plans. Besides the problem of getting caught with weapons, groups with weapons are probably a good saetting for psychopaths rising to leadership positions. The idea that revolutionaries can be just as bad as the governments they overthrow (course backing form the US can give bad groups more power than they would otherwise have). Like I said before, I totally understand why good people are reaching for weapons.

I think Kennedy in the 60s was the last chance the US had for returning back to an OK Jackson-like rule. It seems somewhere in the Bay of Pigs mess Kennedy realized just what Wilson had realized.

From Laura Knight Jadczyk's blog:

"An interesting question is: What did John Kennedy learn in that period of time between authorizing the Bay of Pigs invasion, and then pulling the plug on it? And do we have some indications in the speech he gave to the press ten days later as to what it was he learned?:

For we are opposed, around the world, by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence; in infiltration instead of invasion; on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice; on guerillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations. Its preparations are concealed not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined, its dissenters are silenced, not praised; no expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the cold war, in short, with a wartime discipline no democracy would ever hope to wish to match.

I believe that John Kennedy was selecting his words with great care in order to convey his message, his declaration of war on this "monolithic and ruthless conspiracy."...

In 1962, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Lyman Lemnitzer, endorsed Operation Northwoods, a plot to gather public support for military intervention in Cuba. The plot called for acts of terrorism against the United States, including the development of a "terror campaign". We begin to realize that Kennedy wasn't just talking about Communists "over there" when he said we face a "monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence; in infiltration instead of invasion; on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice; on guerillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations."

Many people have died to keep the secrets of the Kennedy assassination including military men, Mobsters and CIA agents at the highest levels, so it is clear that the apex of this pyramid of power is not to be found either within the military, the Mob or the CIA. All of them are just tools for the "monolithic and ruthless conspiracy." Certainly it is likely that the CIA and the Mob both had teams of shooters in Dallas that day. It is also obvious that the FBI turned a blind eye to the matter indicating Hoover's tacit approval of the assassination even if the FBI was not directly involved. But there is more to this than meets the eye.

As John Kennedy noted in his speech quoted above, he believed that an error was not a mistake until you refused to correct it and he was finding a lot of errors in American Foreign policy and set about correcting them. This, in itself, became "acts of war" against the conspirators Kennedy had identified. Among those errors was the war in Viet Nam. Soon after taking office he had been confronted with a crisis in Laos where the Communists were fighting against a CIA supported opposition force. As in the Bay of Pigs situation, the Joint Chiefs of Staff advised him to "Send more troops."

He declined. It was becoming clearer and clearer that John Kennedy did not take the loss of American lives as lightly as did those who ran the wars and the corporations that profited and the conspirators that pulled the strings behind the scenes.

Just prior to his death, John Kennedy signed National Security Memorandum 263 which effectively called for the return of ALL U.S. troops from Viet Nam by the end of 1965. His order to bring back the troops was countermanded only days after his assassination by National Security Memorandum 273, authorized by Lyndon B. Johnson. What is most peculiar is that the initial draft of this order signed by Johnson was dated November 21st, 1963 - the day before John Kennedy met his fate in Dallas. If nothing else, that is almost smoking gun evidence that LBJ was privy to the conspiracy.

So, not only were things getting tight for the CIA and the Mafia under John Kennedy, things were getting uncomfortable for the Military-Industrial Complex whose main business was war and death.

The question is: who was Kennedy really talking about when he said: "a "monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence."

[Anarchist John Fudjack notes at his buddhistpeacegroup.org site that some suggest that 9-11 was another Operation Northwoods.]

Phil, we could use another Kennedy for those goals you want. Obama isn't it. One thing I note is that LKJ can be made from JFK and MLK and the Ks stand for Knight and King and Kennedy (the modern day Camelot). Little coincidences like that often mean something to me in a Jungian kind of way.

Anonymous said...

John:

Yes, your reading of the circumstances surrounding the Kennedy assassination is not far different from mine. There is however one critical aspect that you haven't mentioned, namely, that Kennedy broke the Federal Reserve's monopoly on money by issuing Silver Certificates. This was actual money, and not a debt instrument like U. S. Notes.

As I keep saying: follow the money. Take a close look at the shareholders of the Federal Reserve, and you will be within sight the apex of the pyramid.

And Phil, as long as those guys and their associates keep pulling the strings, all your efforts to eliminate the causes of war will be come to nothing.

Anonymous said...

John:

Your point, that a resistance movement controlled by psychopaths can be just as dangerous as an entrenched power structure controlled by psychopaths, is very well taken. And that is exactly the kind of reasoning behind the necessary and sufficient conditions I posted earlier. For ease of reference, I'll repost them here:

The necessary and sufficient conditions for a stable global system which preserves individual freedom are:

1) States must small enough, and numerous enough, that concentrations of power sufficient to destabilize the world cannot form.

2) The people must be well enough informed, and well enough armed, that they cannot be oppressed by any state.

Phil Warnell said...

Hi John,

I must admit when it comes to JFK I have a soft spot. Yet I shy away from him being considered as a saint, yet rather a man although born into privilege gave so much to his country and in doing so put himself in great risk more then once. So I would certainly agree that he had vision and was noble in many aspects of spirit.

What I liked about him most was his recognition that people in general need clear goals to shoot for, rather the vague platitudes. As for Obama in this measure, let’s give him some time to discover if he can find what it be to inspire the same. The thing is he faces a different world then Kennedy’s where the road upward isn’t so clear as are the foes.

I do most whole heartedly agree he saw the world being much larger then just America, which became first obvious when he stood on a balcony of Rathaus Schöneberg and said " Ich bin ein Berliner "

What I find most striking about Kennedy’s speech is the twist of prophetic irony it contains, when he boasts that America has never needed to construct a wall to keep its people in. Then to ask what would one call the level of fear that has been raised in Americans over the last several years, other then a most insidious barrier, far stronger and more difficult to topple then the wall he referred to.

So I continue to dream of the day when not one, but all the leaders stand together to proclaim they are simply citizens of the world and then all can celebrate that all the walls will have finally fallen. A dream perhaps, yet its far better attempting to realize your dream then looking for reasons to deny them and be resigned to fate.

Best,

Phi

Anonymous said...

Phil:

Your fear of war has blinded you to the inevitable result of a world-wide state. Namely, world-wide oppression and enslavement of the people with no power left in the world able to oppose it.

Do you really think this is preferable to the danger of war?

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Anonymous,

“Do you really think this is preferable to the danger of war?”

First, I find it rather strange that I’m asked to justify my fears to one who can’t bring himself to be known for their own. Yet I find it a interesting question never the less. I can tell you I don’t fear death, for immortality is currently impossible. I think to fear ordinary war has reason since it produces nothing yet rather wastes more then lives. As to the war I am wary of, it’s neither death or destruction that concerns me the most, but rather self inflicted extinction; which under no circumstances should be considered as reasonable to risk for it cannot be recovered from.

Best,

Phil

Anonymous said...

Phil:

The probability of extinction, self-inflicted or otherwise, cannot be reduced to zero by any means whatsoever. The certainty of world-wide mass slavery is virtually guaranteed by concentrating global power in a single ruling body.

So you see, I'm not asking you to justify your fear of war. War is a hideous thing, and to dread it is only sensible. What I'm saying is that globalization will inevitably result, for the vast majority of mankind, in a fate even more hideous.

The globalist prescription avoids war by creating a system which cannot avoid making almost every living soul into the DNA-identified, psycho-pharmacologically-controlled, micro-chip-audited chattel of a small number of global ultra-elite "owners of the world."

The globalist cure is worse than the disease.

Death is not the worst evil, but rather when we wish to die and cannot.

-- Sophocles, Electra, I. 1007.

As I’ve shown repeatedly, there are only two options:

1) the perpetual possibility of war

2) the certainty of endless tyranny

There is no other option.

And you prefer the second one.

Why?

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Anonymous,

“The globalist prescription avoids war by creating a system which cannot avoid making almost every living soul into the DNA-identified, psycho-pharmacologically-controlled, micro-chip-audited chattel of a small number of global ultra-elite "owners of the world."

I guess it comes down to as to which pill you took that’s had you to understand the world as you do. The red pill for me has shown that in the last several years its become not more polarized as many think, yet rather polarized to where we have two types of terrorists; that being foreign and domestic, with each actually believing essentially the same thing, only leading under different banners with most of the people caught in the middle. Their beliefs are similar, their tactics the same as well as their end results. I was just wondering what we would all be able to accomplish if we actually ever had peace in the world. In witnessing the nature of those that oppose it, that is in as they fear it so much, I’ve come to the conclusion it must be something wonderful and far better then what they feel we all deserve.

Perhaps then this is what you choose to understand what the reality is, yet I for one still understand the world to be one that evolves. I guess the question is if we are the branch which forms to be the one that will do so, or just one that forms to be a dead end. I would admit however the way the world is presenting itself at present it doesn’t look very good, yet I guess that’s the difference between people with vision in contrast to those that see their choices as limited.

There is a single word for this however and that’s referred to as hope. The problem is there is no pill that can give you this, for it can be only gained through understanding which can only begin with trust to be able to manifest more of both of tem. As they say, misery likes company and therefore liberty for me represents my refusal to join those who enjoy it.

Best,

Phil

John G said...

Phil, if proof were found that the U.S. government did 9-11 to itself, how would that change what you say?

I personally totally agree with how anonymous states the problem, I just think the third option, peaceful evolution, still should be there.

My peaceful group is still alive and well in the middle of France while the Branch Dividian offshoot in Texas is dead (by the way don't underestimate the power of conformal degrees of freedom to keep your Karma together as you quantum transact on and on like the energizer bunny).

In recent news...

"we were quite shocked to learn this month that a Missouri police report on militias and terrorists identifies bumper-stickers for third-party candidates, talk of conspiracies and 'subversive literature, as warning signs of "terrorist" associations. It mentions discussions about the North American union, the America: Freedom to Fascism video and the Zeitgeist movie among other signs of potential "paramilitary" activity. The document (which can be downloaded here) includes alarming fragments such as this one:
[...] These groups communicate through forums, yahoo groups, blogs, and social networking sites. Websites and online talk shows have been established to push rhetoric, usually a skewed version of current events. [...] Militias are recruiting members and supporters through the following means: gun shows, online forums, websites, social networking sites, and informal social networks. Additionally, militia recruitment may be done at events or meetings held by organizations that share ideologies with the militia.
The indictment of "websites [that promote] a skewed version of current events" seems to be forbidding the promotion of any view of reality that diverges from the official government line. In essence, a terrorist is anyone that attempts to discern and publicly disseminate ideas about what is really happening on our planet.

The report is also remarkable for placing very dissimilar groups in one basket and thus adding to the general confusion. In effect, it makes virtually anyone a potential target. As far as the authors of the report are concerned, anti-abortionists, defenders of constitutional rights and people who discuss the 'New World Order', FEMA 'concentration camps' or Zionism, all fall into the same category as white supremacist paramilitaries, Neo-Nazis and anti-Semites. It is also quite ironic that the document warns that the militias are motivated by conspiracy theories about a fascist government when the document itself shows an overtly fascist face and promotes a wild conspiracy theory.

The report was created by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC), one of 58 "fusion centers" nationwide created by the Department of Homeland Security to collect local intelligence."

Anonymous said...

Phil:

You hope I'm wrong, yet you offer no rational argument to refute, or even weaken, my case. You present yourself as someone with "vision in contrast to those that see their choices as limited." Yet you don't even try to show that my list of options is incomplete.

Before your position can be taken seriously, you must demonstrate that there exists at least one more practicable option, besides those I listed -- and do so by deriving it from known facts by valid reasoning.

Unless you can do that, you are merely clinging to false hope.

Anonymous said...

John:

Peaceful evolution takes time, so freedom must be defended long enough to give peaceful evolution a chance. If the people fail to do that, the plutocrats will create their new world order in the image of ancient Egypt -- where Pharaoh owned everything and everyone, and was worshipped as a god -- only this time it will endure for the rest of mankind's existence, perpetuated by advanced weapons, infotechnology, biotechnology and nanotechnology, which will seem like magic to an increasingly uneducated and down-trodden public.

Once that ratchet clicks, there is
no going back.

Which is why the document you referenced is vile beyond words. It reveals the plutocrats' true intent, and its message is perfectly clear: anyone who talks "excessively" about freedom is a terrorist. And quite deliberately, no definition of "excessive" is given. So you had better not talk about it at all -- just to be on the safe side.

Accept your slavery quietly. Or else.

Freedom is terrorism. We must eradicate terrorism for the sake of safety.

Orwell called it right on the money.

Phil Warnell said...

Hi John,

“if proof were found that the U.S. government did 9-11 to itself, how would that change what you say?”

For me it doesn’t matter for if they did as it only indicates what they would be capable of and if its tyranny we suspect how does that change things? To assign levels to tyranny is like someone saying their a little or a lot pregnant. The point is it doesn’t matter much what they are capable of, rather what would form to be the better strategy and tactics to bring it all down and changed.

What’s forgotten here is that we are not talking about simple passivity born of submission, yet non violent resistance and wide spread civil disobedience. I’ve pointed to the successes like Gandhi leading his people to rid themselves of colonial rule, the civil rights movement and the antiwar protests of the late 60’s and early 70’s.

Then you have more recent examples where people faced even greater real danger, such as when the soldiers in Russia lowered their weapons and sided with the peopleto prevent Yeltsin’s ouster; or how that tank turned away from the man blocking its progress in Tiananmen Square. I would also be the first to admit none of these were complete victories, yet I would say they all represent a process that mitigated actual change to begin and continue and that in effect what’s known as evolution.

As for all the conspiracy theories I would indeed agree there are forces working against peace in the world and keeping us divided, yet there's greater evidence they work more against one another or despite one anothe,r that it could hardly be called a clandestine conspiracy.

What I’m more as convinced as to what's happening is simply an unwarranted level of fear that analogically relates the same as many allergies. The mechanism for this infliction is resultant of having a highly developed immune system and related response. In the past when there were numerous real threats this served us well, yet in this more highly sanitized world that we live in the system now reacts to what are false threats as in being able to find fewer real ones.

I think the same can be said for the rise in paranoia, anxiety and fear as well. I see this as further heightened and demonstrated through the nanny state we are currently fostering and continues to grow. So I’ve been accused of to not giving good reason why I should not admit there only two options and in fact I have given many reasons there are and they have demstrated be better ones.

Best,

Phil

Plato said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Plato said...

The Tao of heaven is to take from those who have too much and give to those who do not have enough. Man’s way is different. He takes from those who do not have enough to give to those who already have too much. (verse 77. Tr. Gia Fu Feng)

Hi Phil,

There is no doubt that urbanization and media can bring a heighten reaction to things that would otherwise have become events partial to the normal operation of the day in a less pulsation heartbeat society. The blood always moves more quickly as the heart beat rises? IN some cases "inspiration" can do likewise, but does not cause a strain on the system.

IN the case of Canada's Regulatory system within the banking, it's equations of dealing with the public allows the public to take these equatorial measures as benchmarks of the dealings within that same society.

Is this financial system healthier and stronger in Canada?

Debt ratios were once a specific calculation in terms of what one could afford. If one lets loose these guidelines( as banks did) then what happens? You have allowed the reality of collapse and bankruptcy to move forward.

Secondly, in regard of the Nannies. The same process is the idea of a combined income which when taken together allows a "higher debt ratio[ 40% 0f 50000*2," so one can afford a larger and more expensive home.

This means a commitment to both parties to working in the household. It means that if one looses their job, what are you to do next? Calculation of the "cost of working" is also an important figure toward the responsibility of the household. Can you live just as comfortable on one wage, then by doing two, and give up what you value in your own expectation of healthy and cordial children in society?

Again, I have always told my own children to calculate on "one income only" and to qualify based on a percentage of that debt ration. Not to exceed(banks here wouldn't do it anyways) or move ever closer to the defining mark of a un-comfortableness and commitment to encourage a disharmony of financial matters in the household. I mean we all had to learn right?:)

So in this sense, family, and a lot of broken homes means, that the idea of a "safe family environment" is hardly possible in face of emotive upheavals given these constraints financially.

But this "debt" is what has to change. There is nothing wrong with steering any consumer toward seeking this responsibility, in face of spending carefree, for the regulation of their own income.

Incentive(?) toward the market place under the idea of spending to get the economy working again?

This a nostalgia remembrance of a times gone, by which we only spent what we had. We planted what we ate. Such responsibility has a far reaching effect toward the responsibility of relations on a global scale.

If you are to commit "generations to debt" with which these bailouts work(?), you have provided a debt that requires a servitude and indenture society for our children's future to come.

Solutions?:)

Best,

Anonymous said...

Phil:

The examples you give are extraordinary precisely because they are, well, extraordinary. They turned out the way they did because some or all of the combatants behaved exceptionally well. As such, they are highly unusual by definition.

That is why your examples support my argument, and not yours. And that is why your proposed third option is not an option at all.

It is a false hope.

Given that we want to devise a way of organizing the world that will be stable in the long term and also safeguard the freedom of ordinary people -- we do agree that this is the goal, don't we? -- given that goal, it would be utter madness to devise a system whose structural integrity depends on men being consistently at their best.

The system we devise must be able to maintain its stability in spite of the worst conduct men are capable of, and still preserve the freedom of the common man.

Is this not obvious to you?

Anonymous said...

Plato:

The solution is actually very simple:

1. Repeal the stimulus.

2. Undo the bail-out.

3. Outlaw fractional-reserve banking.

4. Repeal all income tax.

5. Scale down government to fit.

6. Watch how fast the economy recovers.

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Plato,

Much of what you say is for a large part true, yet you give physicality and therefore limit to money that doesn’t exist. That as Warren Buffet reminds is that what we call money are simply markers or a promise to pay. Then what we are talking about are our promises and our decisions as to honouring them and nothing more. So therefore our prosperity can seldom be greater then the realizations of our expectations, while poverty is often resultant of having few or none at all.

As for consigning future generations to debt and servitude, I would say that this stems from limiting ourselves to imagining that we have reached our limits and further defining what we now recognize what we have achieved and understand as being the whole system and consider this is where it’s closed.

So what then has our species to be unique, is it being intelligent enough to know that we have reached our limits or rather imaginative and resourceful enough to reason how to extend them further? For me the answer is the latter, as for others that is for them to decide, as this also happens to be what has us all as being unique; and this of course is liberty.

Best,

Phil

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Plato,

As a follow up In regards to our exchanges regarding money and its accounting, there is a general perspective held on value by one that I often look to as being wise, which I’m not certain as being of his own invention, yet surely something he considered as true and is as follows:

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."

-A sign hanging in Einstein’s office in Princeton

Best,

Phil

John G said...

No option is going to work unless more people see what the problem is. So right now the only good option is education about the problem. Not enough people see governments as being as bad as they are. As for the high debt, eventually there will have to be some more defaulting on debt.

Plato said...

Hi Phil,

I am still thinking about your comments. What is real and what is imaginative?:) Limits, as to what shall transpire after we make a decision on our spending, in, and as much, and up too, that 40% including the mortgage payment.

Seisachtheia is an interesting term under the idea of property.

Hi John G,

So what is the problem?

Best,

John G said...

Plato, well essentially the problem is defined in those Ponerology links you started in that other thread.

Phil Warnell said...

Hi John,

“Not enough people see governments as being as bad as they are”

I would be the first to admit education in general is in order, in as the average person doesn’t even know how their system works or is structured. However, I wouldn’t extend speculation or propaganda as to be called education, especially if the sources be anonymous. We have the same problem with protests these days with the ones that would have them turn violent come wearing masks. The non violent should stand up and exclude these people from their ranks as they give the authorities justification to do harm to the ones who are not afraid or ashamed to be counted to be recognized. It is even possible such types are planted to discredit the rest. I see anonymity actually as a grave threat to freedom and liberty, as associating itself with terrorism, tyranny, criminality and evil.

Best,

Phil

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Plato,

“Seisachtheia is an interesting term under the idea of property.”

I guess what you’re proposing is universal bailout, interesting yet I’m not sure it’s practical. I remember Bee having a toned down version of this, where somehow we reset all the values back to a previous point, then again how would one decide where that should be? I remembered you poking fun at me reminding about the pioneer days, when barn raising was the tradition where in effect your whole community were your bankers and the currency represented nothing more then a smile and a handshake. All my vision is to have this concept be considered globally and work towards how it could be accomplished. Like in science actions simple, results complex. The point is how does one attribute interest to a smile and a handshake? This part I'm not certain of yet the dividends are more evident :-)

Best,

Phil

Phil Warnell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Phil Warnell said...

Hi Anonymous,

“The examples you give are extraordinary precisely because they are, well, extraordinary.”

Yes they are extraordinary and that is the difference between you and I, for you think we are at best ordinary while I have demonstrated time and again (especially more recently) that we are and can be extraordinary. I would go as far as extending this as proposing that at times we demonstrates we can exceed nature to be supernatural . Simply put, I see us only being limited by our potential and we see these quite differently indeed.

Best,

Phil

John G said...

Phil, I'd be happy if the only information everyone got was the Ponerology book and discussions about the book hopefully relating it to world events. If some informant needs to be anonymous like Deep Throat was, that's OK as long as there's some public link like Woodward and Bernstein were. Certainly COINTELPRO type plants, etc. are possible and have to be part of the information gathering, analysis, and reporting.

Plato said...

Hi John G,

Yes thanks for reminding me. You can look at the comment here.

Part of the difficulty is for the individual person to recognize when "their will" has been usurped by some manipulative force beyond their choosing, as to a course of direction for our future societies.

What are the names of the leaders who currently holding office that are psychopaths according to the definition of evil?

When I talked about a scientist as a foot soldier for an ideal, "not their own," then in this way they are party to something knowingly or unknowingly(no alternative as in Einsteins case to develop the bomb to thwarted a political agenda,) they may have or may have not committed themself, without knowing the ulterior agenda?

So in this same way one might ask how such empowerment and information may help to empower people again, to look at what can been thought of as, "efforts within the psychological to discerned this very nature."

When you empower one person qualitatively to administer a principal in a economic decisioned, then to the many, the advice plays it's part on a larger scale toward stabilization?

Best,

Plato said...

Phil:I remembered you poking fun at me reminding about the pioneer days, when barn raising was the tradition where in effect your whole community were your bankers and the currency represented nothing more then a smile and a handshake.

Ah! If you felt I was jesting you then it is with the idea that I longed for those same ideals. I got help to raise my outcomes by Mother Earth magazines and innovative thinking. Always, working to perfect.

I must also say I have an affinity with these people that goes as deep as, some of the ideas I have about Pureland, and the basis of that "one inch equation" that lies at the very basis of this universe.

Your comment on Warren Buffet stood out in regards to Geeks.:)

The Rise of the Machines, by Richard Dooling

The Wall Street geeks, the quantitative analysts (“quants”) and masters of “algo trading” probably felt the same irresistible lure of “illimitable power” when they discovered “evolutionary algorithms” that allowed them to create vast empires of wealth by deriving the dependence structures of portfolio credit derivatives.

Now you know my concern.:) Now I am talking about a universe that man created. Who is the creator?

While we tend to think because a lot of information at a computerize level can seem inundated with a lot of uncertainty, unless, it qualitatively makes sense. Makes sense, because it works forward and backward? These kinds of Geeks like to map the universe in the most abstract ways, like to think this is indeed the universe?:)

Neil, I hope your reading.

Look at the E8 of Garrett. You'd think he was operating in multiple dimensions. Just maybe he's riding a "rainbow of light" as Einstein did? Or maybe, just adding more confusion to a complicated life dealt with in economic terms, as a symbol?

We say that E8 has rank 8 (the maximum number of mutually commutative degrees of freedom), and dimension 248 (as a manifold). This means that a maximal torus of the compact Lie group E8 has dimension 8. The vectors of the root system are in eight dimensions, and are specified later in this article. The Weyl group of E8, which acts as a symmetry group of the maximal torus by means of the conjugation operation from the whole group, is of order 696729600. ...or....

The other reason is just that the complete mapping of E8 is the largest mathematical structure ever mapped out in full detail by human beings. It takes 60 gigabytes to store the map of E8. If you were to write it out on paper in 6-point print (that's really small print), you'd need a piece of paper bigger than the island of Manhattan. This thing is huge.

Manhattan Project(economics)?:)

60 Gigs? My STicks are 8 and 16 with a back up of 500.

My caution to the May conference has to do with this. While I qualitatively gave an example, how is it this forms part of the evolutionary algorithms, if one does see it is as stability forming in the long term. Can it be written, and just as well then, subverted?

It's not fear, but awareness, which brings balance, as we go about to knowing oneself and others.

Best,

John G said...

Plato, the idea of Ponerology is that the system and its people become ponerized to the point where it doesn't matter a lot who the actual psychopaths are. Not everyone doing the tortures in Iraq were psychopaths but they were ponerized. Things have become so global that really the whole planet is ponerized.

Anonymous said...

Phil:

Human beings can be astoundingly wonderful at best, but we can be abysmally horrible at worst. This is obvious. It is also a permanent aspect of the human condition. There will be great saints and extreme sinners as long as there are people.

Therefore the system must accommodate both without collapsing, otherwise the horrible ones will tear it apart.

Why do you keep denying this?

Anonymous said...

Plato:

The leaders currently holding office are not the problem. They rarely are. It's the plutocrats who own them. The ones who move presidents and kings and armies around the globe like chess pieces. The ones who periodically collapse the economy of the world, like shaking a tree to make the ripe fruit fall into their hands. The ones to whom human life has no value unless it serves them.

I have already named them. Look at the shareholders of the world's central banks. Look at the families who endow the world's really big tax-exempt trusts. Look at the royal families whose bloodlines can be traced back for a thousand years or more. You will find an alarming degree of overlap among these three groups.

Between them, they own -- or hold the mortgage on -- very nearly everything in the world.

And they are the problem.

Anonymous said...

John:

You are definitely on the right track. And your example of why the option to remain anonymous is essential to freedom is excellent. Just as there is a very good reason why secret ballots are secret. But you, at least, understand that.

And spreading as much knowledge as possible, as widely as possible, is vital. But knowledge is not enough. Knowledge can make men ready and willing to defend themselves and their families against those who would enslave them. But it won't make them able to do so. For that they need weapons. That's why the founding fathers of the United States wanted the average civilian to be as well armed as a soldier. Only if the common man has enough weapons is there any chance that he won't need them.

It's ever so much better to have weapons and not need them, than to need weapons and not have them.

Phil Warnell said...

Hi John,

I just think it would be more productive if people were as being the most concerned with what they might contribute by way of positive action, rather then being so preoccupied with those that possibly take negative action that it consumes so much of their time and focus that little positive is contributed. I find the more people are exposed to this the more they tend to be resigned to being powerless to change anything. I'm sorry but for me I have to say its like one growing up still being concerted about what lurks under your bed.

Best,

Phil

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Anonymous,

“It's ever so much better to have weapons and not need them, than to need weapons and not have them. “

I’m sorry yet even though admittedly I'm not a scientist, I most definitely understand that observation should play a large role in what I should consider as which theory I should find as being the most reasonable
.


Best,


Phil

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Plato,



“Your comment on Warren Buffet stood out in regards to Geeks.:) The Rise of the Machines, by Richard Dooling”

So we have gone from blaming a few individuals to blaming their tools, while still each of us refusing to look in the mirror to confront the true perpetrator(s). I’ve often wondered if it ever comes to being just one person left standing if they will finally feel they have no one to blame and therefore nothing ever more to fear? Better yet I’m curious if at this point that they might feel unencumbered enough then to be able to seek solution.

Best,

Phil

Plato said...

Phil:So we have gone from blaming a few individuals to blaming their tools, while still each of us refusing to look in the mirror to confront the true perpetrator(s).

On the contrary Phil, I have continually shown that the internal struggle, has it's outward appearance. A "topological expression" you might say as a toposense that one assumes, as they integrate "the senses with momentum and action."

So, it would behoof each of us to recognize that while this is a "subjective struggle to identification," and, "philosophically distasteful to hard core scientists," it is very real in moving this perspective into society.

The article I showed, showed a "psychopath" as being very real.

In this spirit then, you will see there has been no difference of opinion between us, just that you did not recognize what I was saying.

Now you do. Now I do.

We must rise above the "definitions of political ideology." This is what Pirsig also taught me.I knew it, yet, it had to be said in "his way" to understand better, what I already knew.

If I return to "a polarization of position" then I will not have risen above that duality, and continue to rotate around in it.

Change, will not come about this way.

Best,

Plato said...

John G:Plato, the idea of Ponerology is that the system and its people become ponerized to the point where it doesn't matter a lot who the actual psychopaths are. Not everyone doing the tortures in Iraq were psychopaths but they were ponerized. Things have become so global that really the whole planet is ponerized.

Yes John G., I recognize what you are saying.

By example, a long time a go I read a book of Viktor Frankl and his time in the camps.

This would be a good example would it not, not only of the jailer become desensitized, but of the prisoner as well?

IN a way, the populations in society are sleeping. This is what it means to wake up. I'll be posting an example soon on what it means to actually wake up.

Best,

Anonymous said...

Phil:

You sensationalize a statistically insignificant outlier and call it an "observation." In doing so, you become party to the egregious lies used by the elite to rationalize disarming the people. Here is the truth:

1) The death rate due to medical errors is 21 times higher than that due to firearms (accidents and murders combined).

2) The death rate due to motor vehicle accidents is 4 times higher than that due to firearms (accidents and murders combined).

3) 88% of murder victims are gang members or associate with gang members.

Now the average person is not a gang member and doesn't associate with any.

Therefore the average person is
175 times more likely to be killed by a doctor than by a gunman.

Similarly, the average person is
33 times more likely to be killed by a car than by a gun.

Finally, guns are used to defend against crime 60 times more often than in committing crime.

So there should be 60 stories about things like women defending themselves against rapists, than about crimes committed with guns.

But these stories seldom, if ever, get reported.

The media's agenda is obvious.
And scurrilous.

And you have fallen for it.

Worse, you parrot the demands for banning guns instead of asking why we are being lied to about guns, and why guns are being banned, when cars and especially doctors are so much more likely to kill. You let yourself be stampeded by the anti-gun hype, and ignore the real reason for it:

With guns, we are citizens.

Without them, we are serfs.
Or worse.





References:

-- Kates, D B, Schaffer, H E, Lattimer, J K, Murray, G B, & Cassem, E H, 1994: "Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda?" Tennessee Law Review, 61:513-596.

-- Kleck, G, & Gertz, M, 1995: "Armed Resistance to Crime: the Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defence with a Gun." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86(1):150.

-- Krug, E G, Powell, K E, & Dahlberg, L L, 1998: "Firearm-related deaths in the United States and 35 other high- and upper-middle-income countries." International Journal of Epidemiology, 27:214-221.

-- Mokdad, A H, Marks, J S, Stroup, D F, & Gerberding, J L, 2004: "Actual Causes of Death in the United States, 2000." Journal of the American Medical Association, 291(10):1238-1245.

-- Steel, K, Gertman, P M, Crescenzi, C, & Anderson, J, 1981: "Iatrogenic illness on a general medical service at a university hospital." New England Journal of Medicine, 304(11):638-642.

-- Weingart, S N, Ship, A N, & Aronson, M D, 2000: "Confidential clinician-reported surveillance of adverse events among medical inpatients." Journal of General and Internal Medicine, 15(7):470-477.

Anonymous said...

Phil:

To recover from all the diversions, fabrications, and emotional appeals, I will restate the issue. Once again:

Our goal is to devise a way of organizing the world that will be stable in the long term and also safeguard the freedom of the individual.

If you disagree with this goal, please say so explicitly.

Otherwise, the proposition we are debating is that the necessary and sufficient conditions for achieving the stated goal in practice are the following:

1) Collectives must small enough, and numerous enough, that concentrations of power sufficient to destabilize the world cannot form.

2) The people must be well enough informed, and well enough armed, that individuals cannot be oppressed by any collective.

You can legitimately reject this proposition only if you show -- by using objectively valid reasoning to argue from first principles and known facts -- that at least one of the above conditions is unnecessary, or that both together are insufficient.

I've modified the wording slightly, but only to improve its precision by placing the emphasis where it belongs: the balance of power in the conflict between the collective and the individual.

Phil Warnell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Phil Warnell said...

Hi Anonymous,

First, I don’t accept your statistics on two levels; one is in their accuracy and the other their relevancy. First, the one called deaths due to medical errors appears to be totally of a subject nature and may have more to due with being our success rate in attempting to save lives being already in jeopardy. On the other hand the one relating to traffic accidents is a measure of risk one faces in the course of an activity where one accepts the risk by owning a vehicle or turning on the ignition; which is totally different from considering the assigned risk one faces resultant not of ones own decision, yet the risk forced upon them by those who choose to own a firearm. So I would agree statistics like any evidence only good if it they be applicable or relevant to what one is trying to prove. So I’m not going to engage you in any irrelevant, frivolous or merry go round discussions.

I would rather deal with your contentions; that is to ask where you would set all these parameters you think be the key to our freedom, liberty, happiness and safety. So for weapons, should we be allowed to have any type we would like and transport them in any manner we see fit? Should we be able to carry side arms or carry around rifles on our person or at all times in our vehicles with no restriction? If the answer is yes, its been many times demonstrated what the over all cost to society this guarantees and if it is no where do we draw the lines? As for your size of collectives, what size would those be to fit the parameters you describe? As I see it the parameters represent being simply a dodge rather then solution, if you or no other perhaps better studied libertarian hasn’t been able to arrive at one, since this could constitute to be the whole world if the objectives can be satisfied. I would ask you also, what defines as being well informed enough and who should decide what that is and what to be deemed to be considered as reliable sources? Further, what is to be the point when we the level at which we are armed enough, quantitatively and qualitatively and how can this be decided upon objectively and empirically, rather then subjectively or arbitrarily? I’ll tell you what, you put things down in terms that can be quantified and qualified so that they might be analyzed properly and I’ll guarantee I will be among the first of those that will seriously consider what you propose.

Best,

Phil

Anonymous said...

Phil:

You're right, there is no point in trying to agree on what the figures mean, if we can't even agree on what the figures are. However, your contention that the data are irrelevant is false. By your logic, those who choose to walk face "the risk forced upon them by those who choose to own a [car]," where I have replaced the word, firearm, with the word, car, to highlight the fact that your own logic proves that my figures are relevant. Therefore, independent of the relative magnitudes of the risks involved, what you are saying is this:

You are willing to take a risk for the sake of convenient transportation, and you are willing to take a risk for the means to protect your health, but you are unwilling to take a risk for the means to protect your freedom, or that of your family.

Interesting.

You don't value freedom very much, do you?

Anonymous said...

Phil:

You keep asking, "should we be allowed to..." Are we children?
Are we idiots? Are we slaves?
Do we need a parent? A guardian?
A master?

It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.

-- U. S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, 1950

In a similar vein, you ask what size limit should be placed on collectives, as though this should be some officially determined number, subject to bureaucratic regulation. I begin with an operational definition of basic goals to be attained, and overall strategy for attaining them, for one simple reason: unless we can first agree qualitatively on these goals, strategies and definitions, there is little point in haggling over them quantitatively.

Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do, and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.

-- General George S. Patton, 1947

And you remain true to your world view when you ask how to determine when a person is well enough informed, and so on. I repeat: these parameters are not externally imposed. The whole intent is to remove externally imposed limitations and compulsions. Thus, you are well enough informed when you say you are. You are sufficiently well armed when you say you are. You carry your arms where and when you deem it prudent. And so on.

But this way of thinking seems completely foreign to you, as though you cannot imagine what it is like
to be free.

Phil Warnell said...

Hi anonymous,

The difference is always revealed by the purpose for which things be created. For medicine its to preserve life, for cars to provide faster transport and for firearms a more efficient and sure way to kill others then in the use of our bare hands or things that’s preceded before their invention. You may see this as a required and most wonderful improvement and if so I cannot contest your logic (reason), only simply be allowed to consider the function it serves, for this is most certainly the purpose of liberty.

Best,

Phil

Anonymous said...

Phil:

Required, yes.
Wonderful, not so much.
However...

Never forget that the ability to kill
is the ability to prevent killing.

Freedom is never given to the public.
It must be taken. And once taken,
it must be continually defended, otherwise it will be taken away.

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined.

-- Patrick Henry

Phil Warnell said...

Hi Anonymous,

“…..the ability to kill is the ability to prevent killing”

So therefore it should follow:

-the ability to fly is the ability to prevent flying

-the ability to learn is the ability to prevent learning

-the ability to think is the ability to prevent thinking.

So let me ponder this awhile so I might understand the wisdom of this. Be patient though for it might take some time.

Best,

Phil

Anonymous said...

Phil:

Replicating syntax without regard to semantics is not a truth-preserving operation. As you have shown -- although why you would bother is open to question.

But I do believe you when you say it will take you a long time to understand the semantics of what I've said.