State of the Disunion Address by Dennis Leahy

[Dennis Leahy]

The state of the disunion of the USA, Inc., February 9, 2020.

Note: I am not a billionaire or a millionaire, nor a mouthpiece for oligarchs, so some of you with a Pavlovian response to the oligarchic narrative will not be interested in what I have to say. Save yourself from a furrowed brow and close this thread quickly.

For others, well, I am a human, I am a US citizen, I have opinions that are based on my honest attempts at discovering and espousing the truth. I have no agenda to get into your wallet, your pants, or to manipulate you into supporting me in any way. If nothing else, see me as the "fool on the hill." What follows, in bullet-point format, is my honest assessment of the actual current state of the disunion of the USA (as overtly managed by oligarchic representatives of the USA, Inc.)


● The USA, Inc. is a corporate entity. 99.9999% of the citizens contained within the confines of the USA, Inc. have no stock in this corporate entity, and no influence on the workings of this corporate entity.


● The USA, Inc. is not a constitutional republic other than "on paper", and never has been.


● The USA, Inc. is, and has always been, owned and controlled by unelected oligarchs. Synonyms for the "oligarchs" are "the shadow government", "the unelected government", the "permanent government", and "the deep state."


● An orchestrated ruse used by the oligarchs is the pretense of any semblance of democracy, the pretense of free and fair elections, and the pretense that elected officials represent citizens.


● All elected officials solely represent the oligarchs.


● The USA, Inc. election ruse is orchestrated using two corporate entities (DNC and RNC), while providing the appearance of (a binary) electoral choice by citizens.


● The RNC and DNC corporations are the public relations face of the oligarchs, perpetuating the notion that US citizens have governmental representation.


● The RNC and DNC corporations run the USA, Inc.'s "elections", in effect, hiring their own replacements (from the DNC and RNC pool.)


● The RNC and DNC corporations are controlled by oligarchs, and willingly serve oligarchs.


● The RNC and DNC corporations and their politicians - like Mobster Families - really do fight each other for a chance to enrich themselves as faux public servants, knowing full well that they only serve oligarchs. This fight for a very lucrative share of the oligarch's crumbs is cast as a difference of political/governance ideals as part of the control narrative.


● The oligarchs do not really care whether the major politicians that are "elected" are branded as "Democrats" or "Republicans", because all major decisions and the underlying agenda are controlled by the oligarchs and are served equally by both of the faux-political parties.


● The oligarchs own and control all major media.


● All major media is dedicated to oligarchic narrative control, propagandizing citizens relentlessly from birth to death to accept the oligarchic narrative as if it was the truth.


● There may or may not be various, distinct "shadow" groups within the oligarchy, but there is only one global network of corporations that all oligarchs are connected to and interconnected with as a feeding tube. Individual oligarchs own and control the major corporations within the global network, and are interconnected with all of the other corporate entities.


● Every major politician, globally, is fed by the same global network of corporations - even the ones who profess to oppose the oligarchs (like Sanders.)


● The agenda of the oligarchs is to own and control every "resource" on planet Earth. Humans are simply seen as a disposable "resource" by oligarchs.


● No major USA, Inc. politician cares about you or your family in any way, nor do they care about the environment, nor do they care about any other living entities on Earth. Sociopathy is a required trait for major politicians in the USA, Inc.


● Current oligarchic agenda includes the destruction of the democratically elected governments of Venezuela, Syria, and quasi-theocratic Iran, the elimination of Palestine, and continued imperial expansion into African nations. Regardless which Democrat or Republican sits in the Big Chair in the White House, regardless whether the US Senate and House of "Representatives" have a Democrat or Republican majority, the agenda of the oligarchs will be followed (as should be obvious to anyone geopolitically savvy over the past decades when it became so amazingly overt that the agenda was consistent regardless of the dominant political faction.)


● A favored ruse within the narrative control in the USA, Inc. is to pretend to be a follower of Jesus Christ. It should be overtly obvious - even hilarious - to any actual follower of the "Prince of Peace", whose major message can be summed up with the phrase, "Love God and love your neighbor as yourself" that the purportedly Christian politicians represent the exact opposite of Christ's teachings.


● "Q"/qanon is a messenger of the oligarchs.


● The most frightening concepts to the oligarchs are sharing and cooperation, because the oligarchic agenda is ownership and competition. This is why any world government with a degree of actual socialism (which is actually sharing among the people rather than ownership by the oligarchs) is targeted for destruction.


● Oligarchs do fight among themselves for expansion of their control and ownership of the whole. They are not one big happy family that shares the Earth's "resources" among themselves. This is not to be confused as weakness or vulnerability - their inter-fights are merely chess matches.


● The US-based/American Empire-centric corporatists have dismantled most of the manufacturing capabilities that had existed in the US, off-shoring manufacturing to wherever the labor is cheap, humans are expendable, and the environment isn't even a consideration. What does remain (and has grown exponentially over the decades) are military industrial corporations. The USA, Inc. economy is now based primarily (2/3rd of the federal budget, plus unknown billions in black budget, plus billions in ancillary goods and services supporting the military) on the production of war. This is sanctioned and embraced by both pseudo-parties (which are inexorably tied to the GCN and its subset, the MIC), who have absolutely no clue of how to change this reality, which is why all candidates for high office support the ever-expansion of the MIC and military - under the pretense of "freedom", "security", and "global peacekeeping."


● No one, human or alien, is going to rescue humanity from the oligarchs. The only slight possibility that I can see would be for the citizens of the most egregious countries (the US being the alpha) to break the oligarch's control over their country's government by uniting and taking over the election system, citizens rewriting all election laws to end political parties and make a requirement for running for elected office that the candidate must not be connected to the global network of corporations. Otherwise, oligarch representatives (every politician you can name) will retain oligarchic control.

[waves]

[SIZE=3]
..... No one, human or alien, is going to rescue humanity from the oligarchs. The only slight possibility that I can see would be for the citizens of the most egregtious countries (the US being the alpha) to break the oligarch's control over their country's government by uniting and taking over the election system, citizens rewriting all election laws to end political parties and make a requirement for running for elected office that the candidate must not be connected to the global network of corporations. Otherwise, oligarch representatives (every politician you can name) will retain oligarchic control.

My only disagreement is this last statement both for it's oversimplification and for the inherent lack of control any 'new' elected anybody would have. Just getting elected doesn't break the massive firewalls in place everywhere to stop momentum, and if any were gained the oligarchs have zero conscience about any final solutions if necessary.

I think the most important factor to any hope of tide turning is breaking the stranglehold on the news media - no large enough unification can get organized like the past because of the current stranglehold on the means of mass organization and communication necessary.

Right now one inhumane parasitic and psychopathic nationality representing the oligarchs, big pharma, big ag, banks/wall street, energy, military, black ops owns control/censorship control of all internet, print, TV/cable, entertainment, AI data keeping, name it... - therefore all means of communication and the ability to kill any momentum spreading they don't like.

The little pockets of truthers communicating like here at Avalon are not hope, we serve their need to keep track of who's onto what, anything bigger is killed.

Taking back the mass media is the only hope of breaking the spell.

[Mike]

Denno!:)...I share your rage about many of the bullet points listed here.

My ideas are always in flux, it seems. There is so much I don't know that I have a hard time concluding anything too firmly these days, except the most obvious

An example of opinions in flux, for me, would be Socialism. Have you ever heard of the Pareto distribution phenomena? I'm just learning about it myself. It doesn't just apply to money, it applies to everything that is produced creatively, from music records made to goals scored in a soccer game to books sold by a particular author to the population of cities to the mass of stars. And it explains, even mathematically, why there is such an uneven distribution of things in our world..and it apparently has nothing to do with capitalism or socialism or whatever (or maybe even oligarchs)

The issue with redistribution, as I understand it, is that the money that is shoveled downstream to the poorest of us will almost always find its way back to the wealthy.

We could say that's because the system is rigged, and it certainly is in many ways. But it can also be explained by competence hierarchies and the Pareto principle. The most competent among us will always be the most wealthy, and the least competent the most poor..for obvious reasons. Then the "Matthew Principle" kicks in (those that have more get more, and those that have less get less...because as you are succeeding people give you more and more opportunities, and as you are failing you get less and less). And that usually results in a Pareto type phenomena. Here are two very short 5 minute videos explaining the Pareto distribution thing:

TcEWRykSgwE

U4GMUamUjT8

I'm not saying we shouldn't do something about extreme inequality, but what I am saying is that we don't really know what to do about it. We don't really know how much inequality must exist for things to function efficiently. History, particularly Soviet history, tells us that attempts at Socialism as a means of tinkering with this imbalance is an example of the "cure" being much worse than the malady.

Anyway, it would have been boring had I just explained why I agree with mostly everything you wrote. So there ya go:shielddeflect:

[onawah]

I think the underlying problem is that most people simply don't understand the nature of evil.
The reason that most find it so difficult is that they don't understand the difference between a human being and a being that is in a human body, but does not have a human soul.
The possibility that there are negatively oriented ET souls and other kinds of non-human beings inhabiting human bodies, impersonating human beings but with no affinity for humanity or human values is very hard to accept.
In general, the average human heart, which I believe is by nature essentially "good", sees evil, but "comprehends it not".
Religions will describe such negative beings as "demons", "archons", "fallen angels", etc. and those labels may help some to wrap their heads around the problem at hand to some extent, but also tends to obfuscate the real, on-the- ground problem, instead relegating it to an abstract dimension for which there are only abstract solutions.
The rulership of negatively oriented beings will end when more of humanity graduates from that level of naive immaturity.

And Mike, I think there is a huge difference between competence and the desire to control and rule over others, another thing that most have great difficulty in differentiating.
Apparently even Jordan Peterson has not been able to make that leap.
There seems to be a great, inherent reluctance to face the problem of evil head- on and deal with it, but a great willingness to go into avoidance and make excuses for it.

[Mike]

Hi Nat, Peterson would acknowledge that there is indeed tyranny in many of our hierarchies, but he would then say that nevertheless most are based on competence, and not power.

And then he might talk about Pareto distributions...(check out the videos for a much more coherent explanation than mine above)

I'm simply not informed or intelligent enough to know how right or wrong or accurate his diagnosis is. just thought I'd introduce it here for a little discussion

[AutumnW]

Hi Nat, Peterson would acknowledge that there is indeed tyranny in many of our hierarchies, but he would then say that nevertheless most are based on competence, and not power.

And then he might talk about Pareto distributions...(check out the videos for a much more coherent explanation than mine above)

I'm simply not informed or intelligent enough to know how right or wrong or accurate his diagnosis is. just thought I'd introduce it here for a little discussion

Hi Mike,

Peterson is a brilliant guy who makes remarkable observations. Capitalist meritocracies
are the most vital and efficient form of economy, true. They have their place and more than that...they have their time..because they are subject to boom and then bust.

They don't have built in homeostasis. A meritocracy is subject to a distortion of its own values, as well --as capitalism encourages gaining a competetive edge through any and all means.

Highly 'competent' corporations create barriers through unequal access to and control of regulatory bodies that erect high barriers to entry. For example, it was the large refiners in California who pushed the strictest environmental regulations on gasoline to edge out small refiners.

There is competency in any field of endeavor and then there is 'competency' in the realm of the shrewd , clever and unethical. Without making these kinds of distinctions, Peterson doesn't make a full bodied case for the 'cream rising to the top.' He is ignoring or dismissing the ruthless and the oligarchic components that Dennis has laid out.

There Man, I said it...:sun::dog:

[Mike]

hey Autumn:flower: well said there, as always!

of course there will be some degree of tyranny in any and all things. Indisputable. Peterson freely acknowledges that.

As far as the competition that exists in capitalism and it's sometimes unethical results, he would likely say that the game is worth the candle. Removing the competition, despite it's obvious demerits, would be far worse than no competition at all. Tyranny and questionable practices would exist in Socialism as well, along with the shrewd and clever and unethical. Pyramidal structures are inevitable, no matter what "ism" in place, in my mostly uninformed opinion. Socialism may seem more ethical on paper, but it would inevitably be run by the same type of lunatics/sociopaths that exist in the current capitalist system. I'm just not convinced Socialism would eradicate oligarchs. I just think things would morph into a kind of oligarchical socialism.

Christ, I dunno. I feel like tomorrow morning I might wake up and return to this post in horror at how dumb it is. But that's my current understanding anyway. Best I can do. But it might be useful for you and everyone else reading this to know that I have no f#cking clue what I'm talking about. That's my little disclaimer

[AutumnW]

Oh Mike. You're funny. The people I take the most seriously are the ones who are as mentally flexible as you are. I think, economically, I am a 'situationist'. Sometimes the situation calls for one type of system and at other times the situation requires a completely different system. For Russians starving under the czar, communism had some positives. For Scandinavians, socialism works because they seem to be almost genetically and culturally predisposed to it.

Currently I am politically an independent who would like to see economic (not political) Communism, or something kind of like that. You could opt in or out at will though. I highly value freedom and attach the concept of freedom to having a basic income and roof over head. At the same time any kind of Communism that turns you into an ant or a bee in a hive, is a turn off. I might read this tomorrow and go "Accchhhh!" You're not the only one.

[Iloveyou]

Dennis Leahy,

the number of thanks you get should be in the high three digit range. Who would not agree!? Ah, yes, I know . . .

I only would want to add: Also the NATO-block is part of this corporate entity, as an appandage, an outpost, an army of minions, a ‚reserve arsenal‘, used as chess piece for clever moves. Just in this game it‘s only the operators who know the rules.

(Sorry, poor choice of words).

[Mike]

Oh Mike. You're funny. The people I take the most seriously are the ones who are as mentally flexible as you are. I think, economically, I am a 'situationist'. Sometimes the situation calls for one type of system and at other times the situation requires a completely different system. For Russians starving under the czar, communism had some positives. For Scandinavians, socialism works because they seem to be almost genetically and culturally predisposed to it.

Currently I am politically an independent who would like to see economic (not political) Communism, or something kind of like that. You could opt in or out at will though. I highly value freedom and attach the concept of freedom to having a basic income and roof over head. At the same time any kind of Communism that turns you into an ant or a bee in a hive, is a turn off. I might read this tomorrow and go "Accchhhh!" You're not the only one.



I think you clearly have a better understanding of all this than me, despite how horrified you think you may be in the morning lol. You can weave in and out of these larger concepts with grace and nuance whereas I am mostly just repeating what I've heard and am deciding whether or not I agree with it even as I'm writing.

But I guess that's what these types of discussions are for. To learn. Id rather be a flexible and ever learning fool than a wanna be know it all I guess....tho my ego is fighting me on that even as I'm typing this.

My main fear with socialism, in general, is that it flattens out hierarchies. It might eradicate the more corrupt and sinister hierarchies, but it would also do the same for the largely competent ones. Wouldn't it? And without our best and brightest and most competent running things, stuff could fall apart pretty quickly. Right? I don't know for sure...just thinking out loud here. Open to correction, of course.

6am here. The real question is, what the hell am I still doing up? Gonna be a long day at work tomorrow, that's for sure. Damn you Dennis Leahy

[Sunny-side-up]

● The USA, Inc. is a corporate entity. 99.9999% of the citizens contained within the confines of the USA, Inc. have no stock in this corporate entity, and no influence on the workings of this corporate entity.


99.9999% of the citizens contained within the confines of the USA are just stock in a business called the "USA".
Call your self a USA citizen and you pledge your life as a commodity.

I see the USA is a front for war mongering profit and testing/development on all levels.

Now in "America" you will find the real people and true citizens
Call your self an American and you are a person living.

[araucaria]

Anyone interested in where we might go with the Pareto principle may find food for thought in some of my posts from a while back. Also on the related topic of “ubiquity”.

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?74722-Money-the-taproot-of-all-evil-or-fossil-virus&p=874226&viewfull=1#post874226
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?74722-Money-the-taproot-of-all-evil-or-fossil-virus&p=879403&viewfull=1#post879403
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?81063-SHT--Solar-Hydrogen-Trends--Hydrogen-overunity-production-900x-overunity-how-it-works&p=1048600&viewfull=1#post1048600

On Mark Buchanan’s Ubiquity, The Science of History… or Why the World is Simpler Than We Think :

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?85202-Bill-Ryan-s-interview-with-REBEKAH-ROTH-11-September-2015&p=1001620&viewfull=1#post1001620
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?91117-Elon-Musk-Nails-it-We-are-living-in-a-computer-simulation&p=1072702&viewfull=1#post1072702

[WhiteFeather]

I think you're on to something Dennis. Hopefully we can educate the sheep.

This bullet point was splendid.
No major USA, Inc. politician cares about you or your family in any way, nor do they care about the environment, nor do they care about any other living entities on Earth. Sociopathy is a required trait for major politicians in the USA, Inc.

[Baby Steps]

Kudos to you Dennis

On the upside we are seeing certain talking points becoming more mainstream and possibly policy changes could eventually follow

Universal basic income
Single payer health care
Getting money out of politics

Inequality is ok, people are still motivated to work if the ubi is on the low side. Some people like Bernie use these points, and are vilified . Will people see it- hopefully eventually

[Dennis Leahy]

..... No one, human or alien, is going to rescue humanity from the oligarchs. The only slight possibility that I can see would be for the citizens of the most egregious countries (the US being the alpha) to break the oligarch's control over their country's government by uniting and taking over the election system, citizens rewriting all election laws to end political parties and make a requirement for running for elected office that the candidate must not be connected to the global network of corporations. Otherwise, oligarch representatives (every politician you can name) will retain oligarchic control.

My only disagreement is this last statement both for it's oversimplification and for the inherent lack of control any 'new' elected anybody would have. Just getting elected doesn't break the massive firewalls in place everywhere to stop momentum, and if any were gained the oligarchs have zero conscience about any final solutions if necessary.

I think the most important factor to any hope of tide turning is breaking the stranglehold on the news media - no large enough unification can get organized like the past because of the current stranglehold on the means of mass organization and communication necessary.

Right now one inhumane parasitic and psychopathic nationality representing the oligarchs, big pharma, big ag, banks/wall street, energy, military, black ops owns control/censorship control of all internet, print, TV/cable, entertainment, AI data keeping, name it... - therefore all means of communication and the ability to kill any momentum spreading they don't like.

The little pockets of truthers communicating like here at Avalon are not hope, we serve their need to keep track of who's onto what, anything bigger is killed.

Taking back the mass media is the only hope of breaking the spell.
Caitlin Johnstone also articulates that the mass media propaganda is the major tool of the oligarghs to control the populace: narrative control - and she's correct.

It's sort of the "chicken and the egg": can citizens gain the understanding necessary to revolt and take over the election system while the mass media continues to pump the oligarch's narrative, or, does the mass media need to be dismantled first, ending the narrative control? I would say the former has a sliver of a chance, while the latter does not. 80% of "news" read by the talking heads with the shiny teeth is prepared by the US federal government and corporate entities, and is simply read verbatim from the teleprompter. There are no investigative reporters left in mainstream media (by oligarchic design), only "news" (propaganda) readers. Michael Hastings pops to mind (like the JFK hit, the hit could have been accomplished off camera and quietly, but was deliberately a spectacle: warning sent.)

I just can't see any vector to "take back" mass media from the 5 corporate entities that own all of it. Occupy Wall Street happened without the people controlling mass media - an indication that word of mouth (primarily via Internet), the viral spread of ideas, can sneak around mass media. There have also been several studies done that show that 5% (one study) or 10% (another study) of the population accepting an idea will result in the general acceptance of the idea by the population. In my thoughts on citizens re-writing all election laws, I'd include mandating no election influence by mass media (with outrageously high fines for offenders - even the possibility of losing their FCC license) and banning political advertising by anyone - corporate entity and candidates alike. A new system of exposing (in writing) candidates views on citizen-authored topics would replace the corporate media circus and force all candidates to take a stand on each of the issues presented by citizens. That stand, in writing, would then become the metric by which the newly elected candidates are judged - and removed from office if the constituency assesses that the elected official has drastically deviated from their written words.

[This is brief, touching on only a couple of major points, but again, citizens would need to rewrite all election laws and take complete control of elections from candidacy to vote counting, and the pool of candidates could not include individuals with corporate ties (corporate stock, a corporate management position, or a corporate board seat) either currently or in the previous 5 years. Elected officials would also be prevented from having any of the same ties while in office, and for 5 years after their (single) term in office ended. Single terms for all elected and appointed positions would remove one of the most powerful pathways that the oligarchs currently use to corrupt and reward corruption. The fact that the candidates/elected officials could not be tied to the Global Corporate Network to even have candidacy would mean individuals in office would not be beholden to that global corporate entity - the exact opposite of the current, oligarch-controlled election system. Perfect? Unassailable? No, but immeasurably better than allowing oligarchs to retain the current system of putting only corporate controlled/corporate tied individuals in all positions of high office.]

[edina]

Kudos to you Dennis

On the upside we are seeing certain talking points becoming more mainstream and possibly policy changes could eventually follow

Universal basic income
Single payer health care
Getting money out of politics

Inequality is ok, people are still motivated to work if the ubi is on the low side. Some people like Bernie use these points, and are vilified . Will people see it- hopefully eventually

I agree getting money out of politics is important.

As is discerning how corruption has been jilting humanity; the various ways it's been done, ie through USAID, Trade programs, MIC, Big Pharma / Medical Industrial Complex, back doors into our banks, ect....

I also think almost everyone would like UBI and SPHC.

However, I get concerned that in our zeal, we may grab for those rings at the cost of our freedom.

There is still a lot of work that needs to be done to clean house, and to ensure we're not entrapped by these promises.

[Dennis Leahy]

Denno!:)...I share your rage about many of the bullet points listed here.

My ideas are always in flux, it seems. There is so much I don't know that I have a hard time concluding anything too firmly these days, except the most obvious

An example of opinions in flux, for me, would be Socialism. Have you ever heard of the Pareto distribution phenomena?...

I knew that the word "socialism" would create tension, but don't have a better single word to use as a synonym. The oligarchs agenda is ownership of everything, and renting the world back to the other 8 billion. What's the opposite of that called?

The oligarchs are not the most creative, greatest producers - they are leeches. Even if they were the most brilliant among us all, why would the rest of us allow them to reward themselves with literally everything?

Pareto production vs. pareto distribution: I realize that Peterson is speaking of distribution of net production, not distribution of goods, but using the word "distribution" is misleading. Calling pareto distribution a natural law is absurd because species would go extinct if, for example, only the alpha female lion in a pride ate the kill that she produced. Peterson's historical example of early 1900's Russian farmers varying greatly in output can and should be read as a lack of cooperation and information sharing among the farmers, and variances in soil composition and weather factors. 80% of Russian farmers were not lazy or lacking in the will to produce bountifully, and that is the message that Peterson is insinuating. It is also the cornerstone of the logic that the highest producers in a society deserve not just a little more, but all.

The "breadwinner"/primary producer in a family does not horde the spoils of his/her labor - they are shared among the family. Expand the boundary of "family" to be all inclusive, and that is the basic "socialism" that I espouse.

Bill Gates and Steve Jobs attended a showing of a Xerox machine that used icons rather than text, and with that stolen/borrowed/shared information, became billionaires. They were "clever" enough to steal the idea, but not clever enough to have come up with the idea themselves - yet were rewarded for it. The oligarchs that own and control the world are not the most productive or the greatest asset to humanity, (they are parasites, with fortunes born of exploitation and inherited exploited spoils), so pareto distribution is not the reason for nor justification of global ownership and control.

On Gilligan's Island, there was just one (supposedly) brilliant, clever mind: the professor. If there are 7 ripe coconuts on the island and 7 castaways, the most clever or productive (say, in harvesting technique) individual shouldn't get to own all the coconuts, hoard them, and use them to pay for sex with Maryann while the other castaways (including high-maintenance Ginger) starve.

Equitable ownership/control/distribution of fundamental resources is the "socialism" I support, not a Marxist takeover of corporate entities by the public, nor any of the examples of countries (like the USSR) that touted socialism for all yet practiced some quasi-socialism only on the peasantry.

[araucaria]

I knew that the word "socialism" would create tension, but don't have a better single word to use as a synonym.
Another word you might use would be 'altruism': see this post (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?91509-The-UK-Brexit-vote-to-leave-the-EU&p=1321416&viewfull=1#post1321416)

[Dennis Leahy]

I agree getting money out of politics is important.

As is discerning how corruption has been jilting humanity; the various ways it's been done, ie through USAID, Trade programs, MIC, Big Pharma / Medical Industrial Complex, back doors into our banks, ect....

I also think almost everyone would like UBI and SPHC.

However, I get concerned that in our zeal, we may grab for those rings at the cost of our freedom.

There is still a lot of work that needs to be done to clean house, and to ensure we're not entrapped by these promises.


..."at the cost of our freedom" is a programmed, nebulous, fear-based meme. You have fallen for propaganda. We don't gain our freedom by perpetuating the oligarch's system. Allowing oligarchs to continue to own and control the world and all of the rest of us is not "freedom" in any sense - it is a cage, invisible to some. You may have been speaking directly to UBI and SPHC with your comment, but neither of those (and I have arguments in favor and against both) would impact our freedom.

A group of cockroaches currently overrunning the house fighting another group of cockroaches in the house is not "cleaning house." Throwing a handful of Democrat operatives (laughingly touted as the "deep state") in jail, or impeaching Trump for that matter, is a ridiculous pretense of ousting the oligarch's representatives from public office. It's like removing one toothpick from a tornado touchdown zone and calling that a clean-up.

[Kotch]

[QUOTE=edina;1335283]

..."at the cost of our freedom" is a programmed, nebulous, fear-based meme. You have fallen for propaganda. We don't gain our freedom by perpetuating the oligarch's system. Allowing oligarchs to continue to own and control the world and all of the rest of us is not "freedom" in any sense - it is a cage, invisible to some. You may have been speaking directly to UBI and SPHC with your comment, but neither of those (and I have arguments in favor and against both) would impact our freedom.

A group of cockroaches currently overrunning the house fighting another group of cockroaches in the house is not "cleaning house." Throwing a handful of Democrat operatives (laughingly touted as the "deep state") in jail, or impeaching Trump for that matter, is a ridiculous pretense of ousting the oligarch's representatives from public office. It's like removing one toothpick from a tornado touchdown zone and calling that a clean-up.

Dennis,

Many thanks for this post. You have laid out my feelings with far more clarity and thought than I could probably have done.

One thing I would like to echo - when Americans use the word 'Freedom' I rarely know what exactly they mean. I think it's one of those words like 'love' that is so overused as to have become almost meaningless.

I'm waiting for the next new age guru to spend a bit of time defining what it means and how it is that most people understand it .

My current favourite thinker is Yuval Noah Harari. I was stunned by his sit down chat with Satan (sorry - Zuckerberg). I think he would agree (probably in slightly more diplomatic words) with pretty much everything you said.

Cheers & thanks again!!

Kotch

[edina]

I agree getting money out of politics is important.

As is discerning how corruption has been jilting humanity; the various ways it's been done, ie through USAID, Trade programs, MIC, Big Pharma / Medical Industrial Complex, back doors into our banks, ect....

I also think almost everyone would like UBI and SPHC.

However, I get concerned that in our zeal, we may grab for those rings at the cost of our freedom.

There is still a lot of work that needs to be done to clean house, and to ensure we're not entrapped by these promises.


..."at the cost of our freedom" is a programmed, nebulous, fear-based meme. You have fallen for propaganda. We don't gain our freedom by perpetuating the oligarch's system. Allowing oligarchs to continue to own and control the world and all of the rest of us is not "freedom" in any sense - it is a cage, invisible to some. You may have been speaking directly to UBI and SPHC with your comment, but neither of those (and I have arguments in favor and against both) would impact our freedom.

A group of cockroaches currently overrunning the house fighting another group of cockroaches in the house is not "cleaning house." Throwing a handful of Democrat operatives (laughingly touted as the "deep state") in jail, or impeaching Trump for that matter, is a ridiculous pretense of ousting the oligarch's representatives from public office. It's like removing one toothpick from a tornado touchdown zone and calling that a clean-up.

My comments were made in context of Baby Steps previous comment (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?109916-State-of-the-Disunion-Address-by-Dennis-Leahy&p=1335265&viewfull=1#post1335265).

I don't feel fearful. I feel quite optimistic.

In the end it's about people becoming increasingly aware of and discerning of the larger landscape of how things were working. Have been working for millennia, and hopefully are shifting now.

On many levels, from consciousness to culture.

Discernment of this is a counterbalance to deception.

Edgar Cayce often said we are here to learn patience, but I think we are also here to refine our capacity for discernment.

Those who would like to keep us entrapped in their system, are masters at deception.
(Humanity has been tricked before.)

And to pull off some of what I think you are trying to describe here, that awareness is helpful.

As is people standing up in their own power. Becoming leaders, becoming self-response-able.
Which is what I have often thought of as personal sovereignty.

It is a process. And everyone is at their own unique place within this larger process.

Dennis, I consider you to be a natural leader.

I read what you write with an interest in how your ideas can be implemented.

[edina]

One thing I would like to echo - when Americans use the word 'Freedom' I rarely know what exactly they mean. I think it's one of those words like 'love' that is so overused as to have become almost meaningless.

You raise an interesting point.
I've met many people from other countries who also value freedom.
Every person probably has their own interpretations of what it means.

I'll think on this some and see if I can add some clarity from my own point of view, if you're interested.


My current favourite thinker is Yuval Noah Harari (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuval_Noah_Harari).

Kotch

He's written about a lot of topics. Which ones are you referring to? And what appeals to you most about his thinking?

[Caliban]

A huge step forward would be when a large part of the population totally disavows the major media streams, on TV and elsewhere. With the advent of the internet I thought we might see that happen.

It has happened. But only to a very small percentage of people. The others go on taking in what MSNBC/CNN and the others tell them. With all the in your face evidence about 911, 98% (okay, I'll be generous, 90%) of the population will NOT face it. What more do they need?

They need Rachel Maddow or some blonde on Fox to tell them that their eyes are not lying to them. We don't need control, initially of those networks of information. We need people ready to make the break. And as it is, there aren't that many of us. Rather than being, ultimately, about "them," it's really about Us.

[Dennis Leahy]

hey Autumn:flower: well said there, as always!

of course there will be some degree of tyranny in any and all things. Indisputable. Peterson freely acknowledges that.

As far as the competition that exists in capitalism and it's sometimes unethical results, he would likely say that the game is worth the candle. Removing the competition, despite it's obvious demerits, would be far worse than no competition at all. Tyranny and questionable practices would exist in Socialism as well, along with the shrewd and clever and unethical. Pyramidal structures are inevitable, no matter what "ism" in place, in my mostly uninformed opinion. Socialism may seem more ethical on paper, but it would inevitably be run by the same type of lunatics/sociopaths that exist in the current capitalist system. I'm just not convinced Socialism would eradicate oligarchs. I just think things would morph into a kind of oligarchical socialism.

Christ, I dunno. I feel like tomorrow morning I might wake up and return to this post in horror at how dumb it is. But that's my current understanding anyway. Best I can do. But it might be useful for you and everyone else reading this to know that I have no f#cking clue what I'm talking about. That's my little disclaimer

Mikey!

Capitalism and socialism are not opposites and can and do coexist. The degree of socialism in the US has steadily declined in our lifetimes (and the spoils into the hands of oligarchs.) For example, when you were a kid (hahahaha, OK, wait, bad lead-in), when you were a child, you used to be part-owner (socialism) of US ports infrastructure and interstate highways/toll roads, which have now been privatized and sold (capitalism) to foreign corporations and foreign governments.

Innovation occurs without competition, in fact, competition has absolutely nothing to do with innovation. Creative minds are creative even under tyranny and imprisonment. Competition causing innovation/creativity is a false meme, given legs by repetition, that doesn't stand up under scrutiny. I have numerous creative friends (musicians, artists, luthiers, etc.) and the only way to end their creativity would be to kill them.

However, force creative people to perform non-creative tasks 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, in order to survive, and you will drastically limit their innovative/creative output compared to their potential.

"of course there will be some degree of tyranny in any and all things." Again, a meme, projected upon us to frighten us into sticking with the oligarchic status quo. It's like the people who insist that every human is corruptible, and that regardless of who attains high office, they will fall victim to systemic corruption. My answer to that is, well, if you want to guarantee that elected officials are all corrupt and corruptible, then make sure to have a couple of thoroughly corrupt corporate mobster gangs (political parties) create the pool of acceptable candidates and run the elections.

[Wind]

Thanks for speaking the truth and sharing some common sense again, Dennis.

Is the system in the US working? Well, yes it is for the rich!

When we Europeans look at the services in your country we are just horrified by how inhumane it seems.

I think many Americans have been brainwashed to fear the word "socialism" and they don't really understand it's full implications.

Social democracy is the best system on the planet and that too is far from perfect, but at least there is some humanity in it.

I'll just leave this here as a reminder.

_7U5JVk_y7U

[Ernie Nemeth]

This world is now almost entirely recipe-based. Almost every activity has a set of steps already demarcated and accounted for. The freedoms we have these days is merely window-dressing. It is a ruse of the highest order. From infancy to old age almost every moment is relegated to a series of automatic responses writ into the social fabric of our lives.

What we are to think, what we are to do next, what profession we have aptitude for, what sexual orientation we can assume, what entertainment will suit us, what hobby we might take on, even how high we might rise on the ladder of success, all are part and parcel of what bureaucrats have decided to add to the list of sanctioned activities and the right way to go about achieving them.

The army of bureaucrats that we train in school have to have jobs. And so we get them to write more laws and civil codes and ensure that everyone has to jump through hoops in order to move forward. The piece of paper with a seal on it, giving authoritative credence to one's skill, is more important than the skill itself. Without that piece of paper, skilled individuals with experience cannot rise up the ladder regardless of merit.

But the worst is the New World Order threat of the corporate take-over of planet Earth. The public trust is being privatized at a rapid rate. Our social victories are being eradicated by the selling of our infrastructure and public institutions to private interests. And with the current PC culture, it is impossible to get a serious debate going regarding these very serious issues without someone taking umbrage. Every debate becomes a side-show circus and devolves into mud-slinging and virtue signalling.

And now with our lives being over-run by new immigrants, and having to foot the bill for their assimilation into our society, including increased costs for essentials like homes, food, insurance, gas, and education our cost of living is increasing precipitously.

No one wants to take a back seat but there are only so many front seats. Because of this, it is imperative to seat the best and most effective people in those few front seats. These are rarely the most well-liked or the richest or have powerful friends. These are usually just competent people with low-key lives. In our current world those sort of people have virtually no chance at all.

Finally, there is no historical context or precedent to follow because even our history has been altered to suit the ruling elite. So we cannot even draw parallels and learn from previous mistakes - but at least we'd know it had been done before. But these megalomaniacs have taken even that from our store of public lore.

So we have no precedent for another way of life to draw on - even though the evidence is there that there was a time long ago when we acted more like civilized humans than we do today.

We are on our own, I'm sorry to say. And the minds of our young have been perverted by technology designed for just that purpose.

Most of humanity has been reduced to a rag-tag bunch of meme-spewing automatons with no grasp of the social engineering ongoing in today's world. Most have embraced it, shed their humanity, and taken on a role as one of the designated and accepted cookie-cutter robot lives.

It could just as easily be played on a computer sort of like farmville 101 for human opt-out.

Log in, start game, tune out.

[Dennis Leahy]

...
My main fear with socialism, in general, is that it flattens out hierarchies. It might eradicate the more corrupt and sinister hierarchies, but it would also do the same for the largely competent ones. Wouldn't it? And without our best and brightest and most competent running things, stuff could fall apart pretty quickly. Right? I don't know for sure...just thinking out loud here. Open to correction, of course.

6am here. The real question is, what the hell am I still doing up? Gonna be a long day at work tomorrow, that's for sure. Damn you Dennis Leahy
So sorry to have destroyed your productivity at work today, Slave #8325348036. Give me your boss's phone number, and I will call and explain the situation, and get you a 3 hour siesta at work today.

Not picking on you, but I feel compelled to address this: "without our best and brightest and most competent running things, stuff could fall apart pretty quickly."
Point 1: Ah, the illusion that these greedy conmen, agents of the oligarchs, are among the best and brightest. In no way is this true. False meme. They are groomed and hand-picked for compliance with oligarchs. They do seem to need to be proficient at bald-face lying, so that is evidently another required skill for the job of oligarch's representative.

Point 2: Specifically what function within "governance" would actually require that the office-holder was among the best and brightest? Every non-governmental aspect of life is run by us ordinary people, (including the workers in corporations that actually do the work), and we do just fine. Just how bright does someone have to be to send out the Social Security checks from our own pool of money? How bright do they need to be to hire experts (non-governmental) to examine our infrastructure, and other experts (non-governmental) to repair it? How bright does someone have to be to perform the day to day duties of governance? This false meme that elected officials can't be ordinary but must be "special" has all high office positions stacked with clever, oligarch-connected people, and a Congress full of clever lawyers that work for the oligarchs.

[waves]

Thinking just as big as the system we're up against, what is a truly practical approach?

In terms of anything truly mass scale practical that would be necessary to break the incredibly tightly woven web of roadblocks protecting the oligarch stranglehold - Dennis, I think you are right that we have no practical way to take back media as I say is required for mass enough momentum and unification, and I am right that it will take far more than changed election laws or any sprinkling of honest elected people to break the backs of the oligarch system.

There are gatekeepers, laws, infiltrators and killers now in place monitoring every bubble of momentum against the beast - I think big enough scale changed elections laws has no chance of happening in practicality. But elections laws STILL wouldn't break the system anyway. ALL elected are still crippled ants up against a system of a million unified beasts.

So with that in mind, what could really happen and matter on a mass scale and how? What really are any practical, workable, probably ideas to break the unified beasts stranglehold on every aspect of our lives, keeping in mind that we couldn't even get the whole of Avalon to unify on any one platform of objective and procedure.

I wonder if the worst cleverness of the stranglehold is that the biggest problem is not the perpetrators, it's rising above the mass of vehemently closed minded people with Stockholm Syndrome defending their abusers.

[shaberon]

I think the underlying problem is that most people simply don't understand the nature of evil.
The reason that most find it so difficult is that they don't understand the difference between a human being and a being that is in a human body, but does not have a human soul.

I think the loss of soul is true in extreme cases.

Still, an ordinarily ensouled being is evil; we/I are.

The political problems are largely true, but, they are conditions only of the outer or physical person. They don't really affect "me", as in the person trying to become aware of how they themselves are evil and re-work it. So the narrative, propaganda, etc., is irrelevant, having no effect. I have to deal with the "imposed conditions", that's it. My personal process, "becoming the real person in the heart", is supposed to become iron clad, even in hell.

In U. S., citizenship is surrender to the entity. To rebuke the invader, one terminates the agreement. If this was done, collectively, the thing would disintegrate almost immediately. If one were to salvage the framework at all, it would have to be entirely purged, re-written from the beginning. For example, our original, "unprotected" corporations were mostly only used for big infrastructure like bridges and canals. They were limited to a twenty-year charter, and were routinely broken up for any kind of corruption or grafting. Now they are basically immortal and win in court. Physical slavery--"a person is property"--was just about directly traded to this form of bondage--"property is a person". So from that view, there definitely was a period of fifty years or so when U. S. A. was not "Inc."

[Kotch]

My current favourite thinker is Yuval Noah Harari (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuval_Noah_Harari).

Kotch

He's written about a lot of topics. Which ones are you referring to? And what appeals to you most about his thinking?

He seems to me to be the most realistic and far reaching thinker in terms of how our future could play out. Like many he identifies the threats of Nuclear conflict and Climate Change, but he adds the very real and imminent threat of complete lack of privacy via Social Networks. For example, could you imagine if Hitler or Stalin had access to the amount and depth of personal information that exists TODAY in the databases of Facebook, Google, Amazon, Twitter and the like? The ability to control not only the news but also individual perceptions makes our present notions of freedom laughable.

In terms of a more precise definition of freedom, I do have some (completely uninformed) thoughts...

Freedom To...
Freedom From...

At what point does your freedom to do as you wish infringe on my (or my descendants') ability to enjoy the planet?

It seems to me that a lot of US based doctrine uses the word very freely (sorry) and plays on all sorts of paranoid fears and resentment.

My base reality is that I MUST be prepared to share this planet with 7.5 Billion others many of whom I have little in common with. That in itself dictates that I have to limit my range of activities to that which will not diminish the freedom of those others. I have to trust that they feel the same way. (I'm not naiive enough to believe that they will, but I believe in personal responsibility over freedom.

Was it Simone deBeauviour who said something like 'There are no rights; simply the responsibilities of social organizations to provide for their members' (I probably mangled this, but perhaps you get the point...)

Hope this helps...

BTW - Loving this thread!!!!:clapping::bigsmile:

Cheers,

Kotch

[Marta]

As I see it, the main problem here is excluding the population using sutile and subconscious methods. Like a very formal language empty of real meaning, so they will never understand what’s the point being discussed and they will never participate actively. Another subconscious trick to prevent people for reclaiming their power and rights is speaking about theories. “Socialism”, “capitalism”, etc. The more abstract the term is, the further the discussion will be from the real life, the touchable problems we have to face every day. Losing the mind of people all the time in useless words which mean nothing to them is very effective to keep them apart. Only listening, only reading, but never spreading what they really think inside.

[Ernie Nemeth]

I think the underlying problem is that most people simply don't understand the nature of evil.
The reason that most find it so difficult is that they don't understand the difference between a human being and a being that is in a human body, but does not have a human soul.

Still, an ordinarily ensouled being is evil; we/I are.

Unfortunately this is too true.

There is a war on against the truth - and it is winning. The reason it is winning is because we have sided with the enemy. We are all liable and we are all at fault. It is this statement that causes all the uproar because most do not want to do battle with their own psyches. Ordinary American citizens have failed the constitution. They dropped the ball, opting for business as usual as opposed to upholding and defending the bill of rights. It would have cost too much in terms of wealth, time, energy and convenience. So the elite took that wealth, that time, that energy and that convenience to steal the very earth from under our feet.

[heretogrow]

I tend to paint my own little world to keep optimistic and I don't know how well I will be received, but listen, what do we have left when they manipulate and take everything away. We have hearts and feelings, and compassion, and empathy and sparks of ideas that can kindle great movements. They want us divided and spend endless time concocting ways to keep us so. And right now the world seems divided. It also has. Somehow I think that there is some innate, intuitive, undescribable essence inside of us that we haven't yet named that will have more impact on the quality of our lives than they ever will. We are still here! We are waking up to the charade and individually we are deciding we aren't going to take it anymore. We don't buy it.

My cousin once said something so interesting that stuck with me all these years. I was complaining about the times we are living in and trying to find answers. He said, "do you realize if we all just said, NO MORE, all at once, the world would change in an instant. "
I said change to what? We can't agree on what would be best for everyone. He told me that each person would hold in their own mind what seemed right for them. And then he told me to pray for evil. Include them in my prayers and forget that they are even labeled evil. Give them no more negative energy.

When we talked about this, I thought it was either the most the most profound thought, or the most naive.

Right now my family is at a crossroads. We have lost more than three-fourths of our income do to the largest plant closing in our area. We are at risk, real risk of losing our home, and it will be sad, because my man built it with his own two hands. But I will miss the land the most. The forest, the river, the garden, the trees that were planted. You might think I would be miserable and I can't say I won't be someday when it is all gone. I know we will find some place else to live. Until then I don't plan to just make due.

I have too many things to be grateful for. Even now when it seems like we are on the precipice of a downhill tumble, I try to give what we have away. I try to make a tiny difference in this world. I take my grandbaby outside and let him feel the rain instead of looking at the dark cloud overhead. I want to live and embrace this life without worrying about what is next. The only way I know how to do that is to count my blessings and look for the silver lining. I have to do this. The rest of my family is falling apart. I'll be damned if I will let us throw this good life away and live in misery.

Much of our personal problems, here in my family revolve around wants versus need. In truth we had lots of things we thought we wanted, but didn't really need. We still have much to give. I hope I can get through to them and make them see that if it gets worse and worse we still have each other. I am ashamed we were mass consumers and bought into the whole system. Now we have paired down to what we need and it feels a little like freedom.

I can't say any of this is relevant to this thread. When I started to type it seemed so, but now it seems kind of selfish talking about my life. I guess in a nutshell good humans are all over the world are probably not that different. We probably all want the same freedoms to carve out a happy and productive life. We don't need to buy their baubles and shiny things. Success can come from being a discerning and genuine person just trying to figure things out. I think we have that capability even when the cards are stacked against us. When one door closes, another one opens. We all need to slam this door of inequality in all of its forms, all of us, together, at the same time. Who knows what we could achieve.

I am alone a lot, and I try to fill my heart and minds with things I can be thankful for. I am not saying we cannot come up with great plans to get a movement going. But what I am suggesting is that we don't give into the negative division at all. In our minds and hearts we create a place of equality where we can all thrive. Most everyone I have met on here is creative, passionate and has very strong feelings. That's power baby! Power in a good way. Let's not waste it!

I envision a movement and shift in mentality where we are slaves no more! I can taste it!
Julia:)

[Mike]

...
My main fear with socialism, in general, is that it flattens out hierarchies. It might eradicate the more corrupt and sinister hierarchies, but it would also do the same for the largely competent ones. Wouldn't it? And without our best and brightest and most competent running things, stuff could fall apart pretty quickly. Right? I don't know for sure...just thinking out loud here. Open to correction, of course.

6am here. The real question is, what the hell am I still doing up? Gonna be a long day at work tomorrow, that's for sure. Damn you Dennis Leahy
So sorry to have destroyed your productivity at work today, Slave #8325348036. Give me your boss's phone number, and I will call and explain the situation, and get you a 3 hour siesta at work today.

Not picking on you, but I feel compelled to address this: "without our best and brightest and most competent running things, stuff could fall apart pretty quickly."
Point 1: Ah, the illusion that these greedy conmen, agents of the oligarchs, are among the best and brightest. In no way is this true. False meme. They are groomed and hand-picked for compliance with oligarchs. They do seem to need to be proficient at bald-face lying, so that is evidently another required skill for the job of oligarch's representative.

Point 2: Specifically what function within "governance" would actually require that the office-holder was among the best and brightest? Every non-governmental aspect of life is run by us ordinary people, (including the workers in corporations that actually do the work), and we do just fine. Just how bright does someone have to be to send out the Social Security checks from our own pool of money? How bright do they need to be to hire experts (non-governmental) to examine our infrastructure, and other experts (non-governmental) to repair it? How bright does someone have to be to perform the day to day duties of governance? This false meme that elected officials can't be ordinary but must be "special" has all high office positions stacked with clever, oligarch-connected people, and a Congress full of clever lawyers that work for the oligarchs.



How do you know my slave number??? Now I'm paranoid. Look out for my next thread titled, "Dennis Leahy is a Deep State Insider"...

I guess I just don't subscribe to the notion that they're all greedy conmen. Institutions and hierarchies can be inherently rotten, but it's not always so when it comes to individuals comprising it. For example, we can all agree that big pharma is corrupt, but I've met many well meaning and honest doctors. In politics you're much more likely to find seedy characters, I'll grant you that.

There are many leaders in industry that have earned their stripes. To say that they're all greedy and corrupt, and that's the only reason they've achieved what they've achieved seems like a pretty simple approach. Many many people have earned what they've gotten thru good ol blood sweat and tears. Even (gulp) some politicians .

The Pareto thing states that in any given domain, the square root of the number of people operating in that domain do half the productive work. If you have 10 employees, 3 do half the work. If you have 100, 10 do half the work. 1000, and 30 do half the work. And so on. Its a pretty ironclad rule and it applies across many dimensions, capitalism and socialism and whatever other ism you can think of. It also explains the 1%. I'm not saying that corruption and tyranny and downright evil haven't played a role in their rise to the top, and i'm not saying they're maintaining their control thru moral means.....but I am saying that if we all started at zero tomorrow, those same oligarchs would become oligarchs all over again eventually . Not just because they're shrewd and clever and evil, but also because they're highly competent. I'm not debating their moral character with you, but I am suggesting that competence has much more to do with wealth and positions of power than we think. Much more so than tyranny, in my view.

We need to know who the best are. Not so much as it applies to your musician buddies, but certainly as it applies to brain surgeons, dentists, and plumbers. If I'm getting brain surgery, I want the best surgeon. When hierarchies flatten out, we no longer know who the best is.

And I'm not sure how we could equally distribute resources without a Marxist takeover of the corporations. The corporations own and direct the resources.

Look, I've made arguments for socialism in the past. If someone offered me a living wage tomorrow and lowered my rent, id offer my allegiance and loyalty immediately. At the moment, I'm not so much arguing for capitalism or socialism or for the oligarchs, I'm simply offering up ideas that are popping into my feeble mind as I'm reading along here, and trying to learn as i go. Plus, Bill has offered me 20 dollars for every post i make that will likely annoy you.

[Antagenet]

I don't really believe that it is the system of rules or type of government that is most important. If emotionally mature, unselfish, loving people were at the helm, they would direct the culture and laws to benefit as many people as possible. All systems have altruistic ideals, but none live up to them.
The problem is the evil ones, the immature ones, or the nonhumans (whatever your preferred semantics is for them) somehow seems to always grab the power.

WHY?

Is it because they are the smartest and the smart ones are always bad?

Is it because the loving ones are too busy helping everyone around them
and become exhausted, and also have no need for wealth or power?

Is it because those without a conscience have an upper hand and can outmaneuver the decent people because they understand us but we cant really understand or even admit they exist?

When people start talking this or that system is better or worse, I feel myself rolling my eyes in boredom and it just makes me wonder... when are human beings going to really mature. Without our spiritual and emotional maturity the greedy satanic sociopaths will always have their way.

This begs the question. How many people are really capable of emotional maturity? My best psychologist told me that a mere 20% of humans are capable of it, and since the culture (USA) doesn't encourage it, many of these fail due to faulty role models and lack of direction.

So there is a need for spiritual and emotionally mature leaders, and a seeming lack of people to step up and lead.

There have been so many disappointing leaders that even the whole idea of leadership is questioned, and every leader is grilled to the bone to reveal everything
about themselves.

Also the curiosity of the bored and unfulfilled has no bounds, as demonstrated by social media, news, celebrity status etc etc.. I am sure this discourages many potential leaders (especially introverts) from attempting to make a public contribution.

I used to want, in my youth, everything to be burned down... and for the survivors
to start all over again. I think this is part of why analcapulco and the libertarians meet in their utopian bubble, hoping for a cleansing anarchy to give them a chance in a safe world where no one will gain enough power to dominate or rape them.

John Marks and his propertarian Guru, I forget his name, have some rather novel ideas about a new structure that has not been tried yet.

But unless individual human beings and enough of us actually grow up emotionally or spiritually, I don't think any system will matter.

Imagine suddenly half the controllers/elites suddenly woke up and no longer needed to assuage their ego's because suddenly they felt actually happy and fulfilled? In their happiness they no longer needed to hoard everything for themselves?

What could ever propel or help this to occur? Jesus Christ gave it a good shot, and although it is not a totally failed experiment, too many dogmatic, stupid, selfish religious leaders practically screwed Christianity out of being able to redeem or guide the masses in the direction of Love, Happiness or Freedom.

The theory of narcissism, and understanding of psychopathy and sociopathy is very new. It at least gives us a handle on understanding who could be among us without souls or consciences. The more people learn and recognize the evil ones... who include both the satanic, and also those who just don't care about anyone else...
the closer we get to finding at least some answers.

To rescue humanity from oligarchs, satanists, cynics, the depraved, the immature
is a collective goal that comes from painful education and letting go of childish hopes
that we don't have to face up to reality and assume our rightful responsibility as adults and guides. It is everyone of us that has evolved past needing to strut in front of others, or demean others, everyone of us who loves others as ourselves. (well it takes loving oneself also.. right? Maybe that is the biggest challenge of all!)

Of course, there are always the stray viruses and plagues which come along either intentionally or not, to wipe out large swaths of populations. Perhaps this is what God reverts to doing when Good People Don't Stand Up?

[Dennis Leahy]

How do you know my slave number???

Remember that one time when you did mushrooms and danced naked around the bonfire? Everyone saw it, tattooed on your butt.


Now I'm paranoid. Look out for my next thread titled, "Dennis Leahy is a Deep State Insider"...
Damn! Just when I was counting on my Deep State Christmas bonus! You've ruined everything!


I guess I just don't subscribe to the notion that they're all greedy conmen.

I don't make statements like "they are all sociopaths" or "conmen" or "they are all greedy and corrupt" lightly (and I was referring to federal level US politicians.) Let's start with Congress: I watched loosely for the past 40 years and with great scrutiny for probably a decade each bill that came up in the US House and Senate, and watched not only what bills passed into law, but also who wrote the bills and co-sponsored the bills. I have made a serious challenge in front of politically savvy and politically active groups and have challenged them to find a bill that has passed into law in the last 40 years that is actually (not in a Doublespeak title like W bush's "Clear Skies Act" that actually loosened air quality standards) citizen-centric or actually eco-centric. Try to find one single law. There isn't one. All the laws that have passed are corporate-centric and/or warmongering and/or ecocidal. If you think I am exaggerating, that there just had to be some eco-centric and/or citizen-centric laws passed, I challenge you to find one. You'll find hundreds of corporate-centric laws that have passed.

Have you seen the statistic showing the average net worth of Congresspersons before entering Congress and after leaving Congress? They exploited loopholes and cashed-in on insider trading in the stock market up until about 10 years ago - then passed a law against the practice, that they subsequently changed to make it near impossible to get a disclosure from them (in order to hide the fact that they are still insider trading. Hey, who better to know when a corporate (often MIC corporation) stock was going to go up (or tank) than the people writing the laws affecting those corporations. It has been pointed out by others that they also spend their entire last year of their term of office on their own reelection. Do you see some good guys here, serving the citizens of the US that they are supposed to represent? Name some names. Tell me who the good guys are.

Were some Congresspersons that have held seats over those past 40 years actually fighting against the expansion of the Americentric/American Global Empire, fighting against the incredible metastasis of the Military Industrial Complex and US military, fighting against the security state, fighting for environmental safeguards, fighting for the rights of citizens rather than corporations, and casting vote after vote with impeccable ethics and integrity, or were their votes strategically complying with the highly unethical "politicking"/back room dealmaking that Congresspersons are well known for and that citizens are trained to appreciate?


Institutions and hierarchies can be inherently rotten, but it's not always so when it comes to individuals comprising it. For example, we can all agree that big pharma is corrupt, but I've met many well meaning and honest doctors. In politics you're much more likely to find seedy characters, I'll grant you that.

There are many leaders in industry that have earned their stripes. To say that they're all greedy and corrupt, and that's the only reason they've achieved what they've achieved seems like a pretty simple approach. Many many people have earned what they've gotten thru good ol blood sweat and tears. Even (gulp) some politicians .

The Pareto thing states that in any given domain, the square root of the number of people operating in that domain do half the productive work. If you have 10 employees, 3 do half the work. If you have 100, 10 do half the work. 1000, and 30 do half the work. And so on. Its a pretty ironclad rule and it applies across many dimensions, capitalism and socialism and whatever other ism you can think of. It also explains the 1%. I'm not saying that corruption and tyranny and downright evil haven't played a role in their rise to the top, and i'm not saying they're maintaining their control thru moral means.....but I am saying that if we all started at zero tomorrow, those same oligarchs would become oligarchs all over again eventually . Not just because they're shrewd and clever and evil, but also because they're highly competent. I'm not debating their moral character with you, but I am suggesting that competence has much more to do with wealth and positions of power than we think. Much more so than tyranny, in my view.

Obviously some ordinary worker in a corporation is not in a position as a decision-maker to cause exploitation and great harm - there is a hierarchical structure, and the top of the pyramid (major corporate offices such as CEO and CFO, and board members) bear that responsibility.

Not all individuals with oligarch-class wealth make up the "shadow government" that creates the nefarious and greed-driven agenda, but do keep in mind that the shadow government stepped out of the shadows on Nov. 22, 1963, and again on Sept. 11, 2001 to deliberately flex their muscles publicly, and that at the heart of it, they really are some mighty sick psychopaths, not hardworking, bright, boy scouts. Don't be so kind as to assume these are hard working bright guys that happened to make great wealth. (The hardest working people I have ever known are all working poor.) We're talking about the likes of the Rockefellers and Carnegie - that many people have naively lauded as brilliant industrialists rather than recognizing them as masters of exploitation and deceit.

A lot of wealth is in the hands of the recipients of inherited fortunes, who were not themselves the clever exploiters (nor did they work hard for it.) I doubt these individuals would regain wealth if it was all taken away.


We need to know who the best are. Not so much as it applies to your musician buddies, but certainly as it applies to brain surgeons, dentists, and plumbers. If I'm getting brain surgery, I want the best surgeon. When hierarchies flatten out, we no longer know who the best is.


I guess I don't understand this comment. Like, the Grammy winner is not actually the best musician, the Oscar winner isn't the best actor, the department head in academia is rarely really the best (unless we are talking about buttkissing), and of the 4 neurologists I just saw, the lowest underling doc was by far the best and the department head was an arrogant ass (that missed key details in his examination that the underling doc caught.) You won't find the "best" of anything by looking at the top of the hierarchy, because the hierarchy is not merit-based, it is politically-based. (the politics of the workplace) You find the best by asking people whose opinions you trust, and who have experienced and compared more than one specialist. It's not impossible for "the best" to also gain high position, but I can't think of any examples that I have witnessed. Maybe Elon Musk as his own CEO? (I have not studied him, but I get the impression his companies are mainly following his own ideas, rather than just hiring bright people - which is what Bill Gates says of himself.)


And I'm not sure how we could equally distribute resources without a Marxist takeover of the corporations. The corporations own and direct the resources.
A good example might be the timber/logging industry. They often don't own the resource - typically the resource is trees on federal public land. It's already ours, we the people already have it, it is already "distributed"/apportioned to us. We can go on federal public land and hang a hammock from our trees, burn some in our campfire, even cut a Christmas tree down and take it home. The federal government allocates permits to the timber corporations to extract trees from those public forests ($1 per tree), and the federal government pays for (our tax dollars) logging roads to be built in those commercially-allocated forests. It is typically the same for the mining industry - that is "we the people's" gold and iron and copper that is then allocated to the mining companies for nearly nothing. Unless you are an Alaskan (there is a kickback to Alaskan citizens from oil extraction), your resources are being completely stolen by corporate entities. In these examples, "redistribute resources" might be more a matter of the public trust executor charging a fair price and allocating some of the profits to citizens, and giving citizens a legitimate seat at the table to make decisions of which raw resources can or cannot be extracted from specific locales. "Re-distribution" wouldn't be cutting down all the public trees and giving every citizen a few cords of wood.

However, the greatest accumulation of real wealth is property/land, as the US 'founding fathers' knew, and they wrote a Constitution to protect theirs. Like the end of the monopoly game, I do suspect at some point that the serfs will kill the landlord and take the land, but can't visualize it happening while the lords have the protection of the US military.


Look, I've made arguments for socialism in the past. If someone offered me a living wage tomorrow and lowered my rent, id offer my allegiance and loyalty immediately. At the moment, I'm not so much arguing for capitalism or socialism or for the oligarchs, I'm simply offering up ideas that are popping into my feeble mind as I'm reading along here, and trying to learn as i go. Plus, Bill has offered me 20 dollars for every post i make that will likely annoy you.


Ha! Bill pays me $30 every time I make you snort!

I'm really not arguing for political Socialism in the opening post, I mentioned that the USA, Inc. stomps out any socialism that pops up anywhere, and that should be a pretty good clue that the VERY last thing the oligarchs want is sharing. This is unbounded greed at work. Currently, the USA, Inc. is attempting to destroy a government that displays some socialist principles (The Venezuelan government nationalized the Venezuelan oil industry, and shared the profits with the people of Venezuela in social programs. This successful example of a form of partial socialism had to be destroyed to protect the oligarchs.)

OK, this reply has gotten ridiculously long. Can't you just grunt some simple questions/comments that I could reply to with one word answers? :bigsmile: Bill owes you a lot of money!

[Ernie Nemeth]

It's a shame that Dennis and Rakyt do not run for office. They would make a formidable team!

[Dennis Leahy]

Thinking just as big as the system we're up against, what is a truly practical approach?

In terms of anything truly mass scale practical that would be necessary to break the incredibly tightly woven web of roadblocks protecting the oligarch stranglehold - Dennis, I think you are right that we have no practical way to take back media as I say is required for mass enough momentum and unification, and I am right that it will take far more than changed election laws or any sprinkling of honest elected people to break the backs of the oligarch system.

There are gatekeepers, laws, infiltrators and killers now in place monitoring every bubble of momentum against the beast - I think big enough scale changed elections laws has no chance of happening in practicality. But elections laws STILL wouldn't break the system anyway. ALL elected are still crippled ants up against a system of a million unified beasts.

So with that in mind, what could really happen and matter on a mass scale and how? What really are any practical, workable, probably ideas to break the unified beasts stranglehold on every aspect of our lives, keeping in mind that we couldn't even get the whole of Avalon to unify on any one platform of objective and procedure.

I wonder if the worst cleverness of the stranglehold is that the biggest problem is not the perpetrators, it's rising above the mass of vehemently closed minded people with Stockholm Syndrome defending their abusers.

OK, let's 'up the ante' a bit:
As part of the takeover of the election system by citizens, dismiss, "with prejudice", every currently elected and appointed official, who then are removed from the pool of future candidates (because they were selected using the old system.) Every elected and appointed office would be single term, and each office-holder and appointee could never run for or hold that position again.

With one of the requirements for candidacy of not being tied to the Global Corporate Network, every single new office holder and appointee would not be beholden to or controlled by that GCN. I'm not talking about putting a smattering of new faces into the existing system with the existing power structure (that would be like peeing on a forest fire), I'm talking about flushing the toilet and starting anew with an entirely new elected body. Once that elected body had served their single term of office, the next election cycle would remove all of them from office (no longer a "toilet flush", but a full renewal), and again an entire new group not tied to the GCN would take office, and the previous office-holders could never run for that office again. No career politicians, just ordinary people chosen by the rest of the citizens to act as representatives for 4 years - a position that would actually be able to honestly be called "public service."

Mandating no election influencing by media and no political advertisements, a method of exposing each candidate to the same citizen-authored topics, requiring candidates' written responses, would allow each citizen voter to differentiate between candidates to find one that most closely espouses their own responses to the same list of topics. Currently, candidates do not actually have to reveal anything specific about anything, and can use emotion, good looks, demeanor, nebulous emotionally-charged words and phrases such as "patriot", "freedom", "a thousand points of light", "yes, we can", etc. as an election strategy. Without forcing all candidates to respond to the same topics, it is impossible to do any sort of logical comparison. Worse, currently there is no expectation that an elected official will actually fulfill "campaign promises", and there is a nearly impossibly steep hill to climb to remove someone from office that obviously lied in campaigning and is doing the opposite of what was "promised."

It's obvious that the oligarchs, the real deep state, that actually creates the agenda and policy that their representatives follow and codify into law and policy as US government agenda, need the US federal government to be compliant to their agenda. It's a multi-billion dollar game show every 4 years, and multi-billions are spent every year on their propaganda machine to placate the stirring masses of disappointed aware and quasi-aware citizens and to convince unaware sheep that they are in green pastures.

The firewalls that are in place can only be dismantled from the inside by members of the US federal government. Those changes can never be made by a citizen's movement outside the government, and will never be made by oligarch's representatives inside the government. I'm proposing a bloodless revolution, attacking and taking over the election system (rather than attacking the government or the individuals in government.) Removing all currently elected from office and replacing every one of them with a citizen not tied to the GCN wouldn't be "crippled ants" - it would remove the superhighway of control over the government by the oligarchs. I'm only proposing it as a possible solution to those who understand the veracity of my statements in the opening post and actually want to drastically change it. It is possible, it is doable (but even I agree that it is unlikely to occur.) For those that prop-up and support the current system of oligarch/deep state control over US agenda, it is merely a list to giggle at, and they embrace it continuing on as status quo ad infinitum, because they expect to benefit from the arrangement.

[ExomatrixTV]

42464

Good question and 100% related!
cheers,
John

[onawah]

A very interesting analysis of the caucus events in Iowa and what it portends from Dark Journalist in the first hour of Episode 81 in the X Series.
See:WGJOj-ZSBW4

[T Smith]

There is competency in any field of endeavor and then there is 'competency' in the realm of the shrewd , clever and unethical. Without making these kinds of distinctions, Peterson doesn't make a full bodied case for the 'cream rising to the top.' He is ignoring or dismissing the ruthless and the oligarchic components that Dennis has laid out.



I believe from what I understand from Peterson's writings that he does make this distinction. He would characterize "competency in the realm of the shrewd, clever and unethical" as corruption of the hierarchy--which he accepts as a transient aspect of all hierarchies, i.e. hierarchies are corruptible but cannot function indefinitely as such and are ultimately not sustainable. Peterson argues there must be a inherent holistic benefit to all participants or the hierarchy will collapse.

Whether we can agree with this assessment or not is another issue entirely (as Dennis's bullet point list certainly demonstrates corrupted hierarchies are functioning, alive, and well).

However, I would point out that the very fact that we highlight and recognize the corruption Peterson talks about is but a nascent development of the very remedy he argues is inevitable. Just my two cents on Peterson's discourse on the subject....

Carry on…

[ExomatrixTV]

A very interesting analysis of the caucus events in Iowa and what it portends from Dark Journalist in the first hour of Episode 81 in the X Series.
See: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...=1#post1335479


link does not work :HELP!:

[onawah]

Try this: WGJOj-ZSBW4

Sorry--corrected that in the original post

[AutumnW]

There is competency in any field of endeavor and then there is 'competency' in the realm of the shrewd , clever and unethical. Without making these kinds of distinctions, Peterson doesn't make a full bodied case for the 'cream rising to the top.' He is ignoring or dismissing the ruthless and the oligarchic components that Dennis has laid out.



I believe from what I understand from Peterson's writings that he does make this distinction. He would characterize "competency in the realm of the shrewd, clever and unethical" as corruption of the hierarchy--which he accepts as a transient aspect of all hierarchies, i.e. hierarchies are corruptible but cannot function indefinitely as such and are ultimately not sustainable. Peterson argues there must be a inherent holistic benefit to all participants or the hierarchy will collapse.

Whether we can agree with this assessment or not is another issue entirely (as Dennis's bullet point list certainly demonstrates corrupted hierarchies are functioning, alive, and well).

However, I would point out that the very fact that we highlight and recognize the corruption Peterson talks about is but a nascent development of the very remedy he argues is inevitable. Just my two cents on Peterson's discourse on the subject....

Carry on…

Peterson argues there must be a inherent holistic benefit to all participants or the hierarchy will collapse.

A perfect metaphor that refutes this idea is Egypt under the pharoahs, Europe under the various Popes, etc..Once power is corralled by the corporate few and their military proxies, it is no longer the case...and it can go on for thousands of years. Oh, I forgot Rome. It did fall....eventually.

Peterson understands Fascism and Communism but leaves out Corporatism. I have watched all of his videos, his long lectures, his emphasis on IQ, that he has been taken to task for. I am his age, his ethnicity, his nationality, etc...I can tell you where a lot of his ideas come from.

I appreciate nearly all of his claims but do not think he is the be all and end all.

[Dennis Leahy]

It's a shame that Dennis and Rakyt do not run for office. They would make a formidable team!


I'd be honored just to hang out with Rahkyt, a very bright and compassionate guy - among the best and brightest. But this brings back a point Mike made about needing the best and brightest in positions of governance. I don't think we need that, or want that. I think we need to shift our thinking to embrace the "ordinary citizen*" as representatives, and that their job would be to carry out the collective will of the people, which would be gleaned via the new election process. There is a mistaken notion that we need "leaders." There are 3 branches in the US government, and their tasks are defined: legislators are supposed to write legislation, not lead. The judicial branch is supposed to adjudicate the laws that the legislators wrote, not lead. Only the executive branch is tasked with some variation of leadership, and really, it should be to lead the government body, not the citizenry. We citizens should be free to lead ourselves, within the constraints of the constitution and laws of the nation (which I would define as "freedom.") (Anarchists believe that we should be able to lead ourselves without any constraints - a lovely notion if everyone was evolved enough to do so, but utterly impossible other than as a notion.) The executive branch should lead the government and represent our nation to the other countries of the world.

Where I do see a great fit for the brightest minds, tempered with compassion, is in composing and fleshing-out the list of topics that the next electoral cycle candidates would all need to respond to in writing (rather than voting for reps that would decide what issues to address, as is the current state.) That list of issues/topics would actually be the main "to do" list for the next 4 years for the legislators.

I see that list as comprised of extremely hard-hitting, major issues, such as Monetary Reform (whether to break away from the Federal Reserve, whether to default on the national debt, whether to end the practice of money creation by debt, what, if anything, to back currency with...), Energy Reform (taking on the oil cartel syndicate, ending all oil subsidies, ending current hydrofracking practices, forcing the oil cartel to remove and clean up the disaster-in-waiting pipelines, reversing the Secrecy Act status of new energy technology, etc.)

That list of topics and fleshing out the topics would require bright minds to compose, and would need to be from citizens also not pre-compromised by ties to the Global Corporate Network, as well as being tempered with compassion and not simply logic. AI would do a better job if all that was required is logic, which is why I stress the compassion attribute. The citizen authors of the topics would need to have a balance of logic and compassion.

*(Until the mass media propaganda machine is neutered, there is a current problem that the citizenry contains a lot of (hopefully temporarily) "sub-ordinary"-minded individuals who don't actually think but rather succumb to the oligarch propaganda, which falls far below what I'm trying to describe as an "ordinary mind." If the "average" mentality is actually somewhat less than "ordinary", then the individuals would need to be mentally "above average.")

[Dennis Leahy]

Try this: [you tube]WGJOj-ZSBW4[/you tube]



Can I ask for a synopsis of what you gleaned from this Dark Journalist video, Onawah?

[cascadian]

Great thread Dennis.
In your recent comment therein lies the crux of democratic means to nationalistic self-governance, how best to define the "major issues for reform". Until we as a species reaffirm our common humanity, there will be constant division about the issues that are important to each group who would potentially be representatives to be elected to carry out agreed upon reforms.
I agree that if the current oligarchic structure is an impediment to our common evolution as a species, you present some practical structural change ideas to the current paradigm. I live in a small community, somewhat isolated from large populated cities but also under the economic influence of nearby urban communities. We in our small community are feeling the pressures of expanding population growth, economic inequalities, and resultant harm to underlying ecosystems which support all of our existence on this planet.
I encourage further discussion of these ideals and basic issues facing all of humankind.

[Delight]

I read the posts on this thread. I am not sure, doubting sometimes, but I think we will survive as a species. It confuses me a great deal that the intelligence that people have is often directed towards actions of self/earth destruction. There is incoherence between the heart and the mind IMO. Gabor Mate keys in on it that trauma splits us so we are incoherent. Inner disunity yields outer Disunion? IMO that's true. It starts inside and gets seen outside.

I finally noticed Mike's thread on Jordan's illness but going to keep this video here as I think there is something related to the topic.

xMxxnoVMBpA

[Frank V]

Peterson understands Fascism and Communism but leaves out Corporatism.

That's because corporatism is fascism ─ literally. ;)

<deep sigh> I've been trying to put off saying this and getting involved in political threads again because past experience has shown me that US Americans in general tend to get upset when I mention this, but the truth of the matter is that the USA, as a nation, is a de facto fascist regime. And most US Americans won't see it that way, because they've been completely misled on account of what fascism is, what socialism is, and so on. US Americans tend to think that fascism is totalitarianism, as in Nazi Germany. Hitler and his fellow Nazis were certainly fascists, but Nazism was only one form of fascism ─ one in which ethnic issues took precedence over socio-economic issues.

Fascism is a form of government whereby the true power over the nation lies with private corporations. Most fascist regimes also only have a single political party. Now, the USA has two officially recognized political parties ─ all other parties are lumped together under the moniker "Independent" (and for good reason too, if you think of it) ─ but both of those two officially recognized political parties are controlled by the same corporate entities. They also both strive toward the same goal ─ i.e. corporate power ─ and it is only in the execution of their methods that they differ.

The US Republicans are nationalists and the US Democrats are globalists, but both parties are right-wing from the international perspective, and they both aim for corporate domination. Both parties also adhere to American Exceptionalism, which is a belief that the USA is somehow exceptional in its values ─ notwithstanding irrefutable exposure, time and time again, of how the US government continuously betrays the very values it claims to uphold.

Let's take this apart even further. Fascist regimes all have a dictator. The USA has an elected leader, but this elected leader has the legal power to suspend the constitution and suspend any elections by declaring a nationwide state of emergency, effectively ensuring his or her continued presidency for as long as he or she deems necessary ─ for life, if they so wish. So instead of a president, what the USA actually has is an elected emperor.

Fascist regimes also place high value on masculinity. Not only do you see this in the typical US American propaganda productions coming out of Hollywood, but you also see it in the body language of US politicians ─ even female ones. And somewhat related to that, fascist regimes are also militarist, with the US military's battle dress uniforms and the US military vehicles emanating overt masculine strength. You may not believe the following, but during the Vietnam War, the USAF even "accidentally" dropped survival packs over the Vietnamese jungle with maximum-sized condoms in them, so as to make the Vietnamese people who found those packs think that all US troops were, um, well-endowed.

No nation in the world today is as militarist as the USA. Donald Trump even had tanks driving through the streets on 2019's Independence Day. And people may deny it all they want, but if you want to gather social status in the USA, then joining the US military is the way to go ─ and especially so if you join the US Marine Corps, an elite contingent with its own air force, its own logistics, its own special forces and so on, specifically created for fighting wars outside of the borders of the USA. In fact, the Marines are by law even precluded from operating within the US borders. Of course, once you return from the war as a wounded veteran, you no longer enjoy any special status. Then the US government only considers you an embarrassing nuisance anymore.

Other significant traits of fascist regimes are nationalism, patriotism ─ which is actually only a weaker form of nationalism ─ and emphasis on citizenship, combined with propaganda and indoctrination throughout one's entire life by way of the education system, the (corporately controlled) mainstream media and official government communication. Yet, the last thing a fish would ever question is the water it swims in. The average US American is completely oblivious of how brainwashed they are, and completely unfamiliar with any other culture than their own. They also don't see that the US Democrats are not "the left", because there is no real "left" in the USA. The US Democrats only sit marginally to the left of the US Republicans, and from the international standpoint, both parties are right-wing and authoritarian.

For those of you who believe that the USA stands for freedom and democracy, I have only two words: Patriot Act. Enough said.

And as a bonus ─ I might as well spit it all out now ─ I'm also going to address those who believe that Donald Trump would be fighting the so-called Deep State™. Donald J. Trump is as corporatist as it gets ─ he owes his entire fortune to the corporate world ─ so how or why would he ever want to fight them? Quite the contrary, he's making the USA into a tax haven for the big corporations, and he's annulling the Endangered Species Act and other environmental protection acts so that Big Coal™ and Big Oil™ can have free reign.

Face it, US Americans, you are living in a fascist nation. And it is high time to start contemplating something other than what you've been indoctrinated with. Capitalism inevitably leads to corporatism, and corporatism quickly turns into fascism proper. In the USA, this had already been the case since before World War II.

Dennis is on the right track ─ kudos to you, Dennis. :thumbsup: What the western world needs is mass civil disobedience, with a complete overhaul of the political and electoral systems as an immediate objective. But it's not going to go down easily, because grassroots movements can and do get hijacked ─ it's what happened with the hippie movement in the 1960s, it's what happened with the Occupy movement, and it's what happened when Donald Trump started running for president. Trump and others like him ─ e.g. Nigel Farage in the UK ─ are merely populists, and populists are people who know how to hijack the public opinion by appealing unto the deep frustrations of the common man, channeling them, putting a face on the enemy, and then using that to their own advantage. Trump does not represent the will of the people. Trump hijacked the will of the people. Likewise for Farage in the UK, and now they're stuck with their Brexit over there, which is going to cost them all dearly.

There, I've said it. :unsure:

[Praxis]

One can not be a unity consciousness and support children in cages on the border.

One can not be love and light while Guantanamo Bay is open and violating rights of human beings.

We are still occupying, now in direct contradiction of a request of a sovereign government, Iraq.

We are still occupying Afghanistan.

9-11 has not be re examined. . Have we forgotten here that this is an issue? Wouldnt a New York Real Estate Developer be in the perfect position to make the case that it was an inside job>? But not suprised here but Guiliani is part of the 9-11 cover up

JFK files WERE NOT RELEASED. Wouldnt a political outsider with no party ties be the perfect person to start a real look at this area?

RFK has not be re examined.

The Patriot Act is still in Force.

AUMF is still in force.

People are still in jail for cannabis and hemp or any drug really.

The military is getting more money than ever.

We just stood up a new Branch of the UCC to dominate and control space as a war fighting domain. Side note, this should be dominating this board as it is project avalon but for some reason nobody is talking about it.

Trump brags about spending the most ever on the military.

Trump supporters are militarist. They are low key into the authoritarianism that is going on. Otherwise they would reject trump as he has fully embraced it, that and Evangelical lunacy.

Literally, Jeffrey Epstein died while in trumps and Barrs custody. DIRECTLY. He was in federal custody. And then got murdered or whatever happened. And somehow this doesnt paint Trump, a man who has said how young Epstein likes em, as the sick pedo he is. Clinton is just as connected to Epstein as Trump yet Trump gets a pass? Did you forget that Barrs dad got Epstein his job teaching at that private school?

This my friends really shows the game for what it is.

This is the real dis union. "spiritual people" who support a direct associate of Epstein.

[ExomatrixTV]

Corporatism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism) & (Forced) Collectivism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism) (Statism!) is like Government using gunpowder and fire at the same time claiming it is "safe" and PsychoTechnocrats pushing "Global Governance" using (Quantum) A.I. run #5G 'Smart Grid (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?100537-Stop-5G-before-it-s-irreversible-)' (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?100537-Stop-5G-before-it-s-irreversible-http://) micromanaging everybody (Global 'Social Credit System' 2021-2030) to "Save the Earth" BS ... only if we let them!

John Kuhles
February 12th, 2020

Statism: The Most Dangerous Religion (feat. Larken Rose (https://www.mixcloud.com/discover/larken-rose/)).
N6uVV2Dcqt0
https://yt3.ggpht.com/a/AGF-l7-Mzww7ZkydOj4XL5Ip6krG8dr6AWhZ44oHJA=s288-c-k-c0xffffffff-no-rj-mo

Larken Rose (https://www.youtube.com/user/LarkenRose)
37,6K subs

Download FREE PDF (https://www.mensenrechten.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/the-most-dangerous-superstition-larken-rose-20111.pdf) File!

[Dennis Leahy]

Peterson understands Fascism and Communism but leaves out Corporatism.

That's because corporatism is fascism ─ literally. ;)

<deep sigh> I've been trying to put off saying this and getting involved in political threads again because past experience has shown me that US Americans in general tend to get upset when I mention this, but the truth of the matter is that the USA, as a nation, is a de facto fascist regime. And most US Americans won't see it that way, because they've been completely misled on account of what fascism is, what socialism is, and so on. US Americans tend to think that fascism is totalitarianism, as in Nazi Germany. Hitler and his fellow Nazis were certainly fascists, but Nazism was only one form of fascism ─ one in which ethnic issues took precedence over socio-economic issues.

Fascism is a form of government whereby the true power over the nation lies with private corporations. Most fascist regimes also only have a single political party. Now, the USA has two officially recognized political parties ─ all other parties are lumped together under the moniker "Independent" (and for good reason too, if you think of it) ─ but both of those two officially recognized political parties are controlled by the same corporate entities. They also both strive toward the same goal ─ i.e. corporate power ─ and it is only in the execution of their methods that they differ.

The US Republicans are nationalists and the US Democrats are globalists, but both parties are right-wing from the international perspective, and they both aim for corporate domination. Both parties also adhere to American Exceptionalism, which is a belief that the USA is somehow exceptional in its values ─ notwithstanding irrefutable exposure, time and time again, of how the US government continuously betrays the very values it claims to uphold.

Let's take this apart even further. Fascist regimes all have a dictator. The USA has an elected leader, but this elected leader has the legal power to suspend the constitution and suspend any elections by declaring a nationwide state of emergency, effectively ensuring his or her continued presidency for as long as he or she deems necessary ─ for life, if they so wish. So instead of a president, what the USA actually has is an elected emperor.

Fascist regimes also place high value on masculinity. Not only do you see this in the typical US American propaganda productions coming out of Hollywood, but you also see it in the body language of US politicians ─ even female ones. And somewhat related to that, fascist regimes are also militarist, with the US military's battle dress uniforms and the US military vehicles emanating overt masculine strength. You may not believe the following, but during the Vietnam War, the USAF even "accidentally" dropped survival packs over the Vietnamese jungle with maximum-sized condoms in them, so as to make the Vietnamese people who found those packs think that all US troops were, um, well-endowed.

No nation in the world today is as militarist as the USA. Donald Trump even had tanks driving through the streets on 2019's Independence Day. And people may deny it all they want, but if you want to gather social status in the USA, then joining the US military is the way to go ─ and especially so if you join the US Marine Corps, an elite contingent with its own air force, its own logistics, its own special forces and so on, specifically created for fighting wars outside of the borders of the USA. In fact, the Marines are by law even precluded from operating within the US borders. Of course, once you return from the war as a wounded veteran, you no longer enjoy any special status. Then the US government only considers you an embarrassing nuisance anymore.

Other significant traits of fascist regimes are nationalism, patriotism ─ which is actually only a weaker form of nationalism ─ and emphasis on citizenship, combined with propaganda and indoctrination throughout one's entire life by way of the education system, the (corporately controlled) mainstream media and official government communication. Yet, the last thing a fish would ever question is the water it swims in. The average US American is completely oblivious of how brainwashed they are, and completely unfamiliar with any other culture than their own. They also don't see that the US Democrats are not "the left", because there is no real "left" in the USA. The US Democrats only sit marginally to the left of the US Republicans, and from the international standpoint, both parties are right-wing and authoritarian.

For those of you who believe that the USA stands for freedom and democracy, I have only two words: Patriot Act. Enough said.

And as a bonus ─ I might as well spit it all out now ─ I'm also going to address those who believe that Donald Trump would be fighting the so-called Deep State™. Donald J. Trump is as corporatist as it gets ─ he owes his entire fortune to the corporate world ─ so how or why would he ever want to fight them? Quite the contrary, he's making the USA into a tax haven for the big corporations, and he's annulling the Endangered Species Act and other environmental protection acts so that Big Coal™ and Big Oil™ can have free reign.

Face it, US Americans, you are living in a fascist nation. And it is high time to start contemplating something other than what you've been indoctrinated with. Capitalism inevitably leads to corporatism, and corporatism quickly turns into fascism proper. In the USA, this had already been the case since before World War II.

Dennis is on the right track ─ kudos to you, Dennis. :thumbsup: What the western world needs is mass civil disobedience, with a complete overhaul of the political and electoral systems as an immediate objective. But it's not going to go down easily, because grassroots movements can and do get hijacked ─ it's what happened with the hippie movement in the 1960s, it's what happened with the Occupy movement, and it's what happened when Donald Trump started running for president. Trump and others like him ─ e.g. Nigel Farage in the UK ─ are merely populists, and populists are people who know how to hijack the public opinion by appealing unto the deep frustrations of the common man, channeling them, putting a face on the enemy, and then using that to their own advantage. Trump does not represent the will of the people. Trump hijacked the will of the people. Likewise for Farage in the UK, and now they're stuck with their Brexit over there, which is going to cost them all dearly.

There, I've said it. :unsure:


:clapping:

Even though there are diehard Trump supporters at Avalon who will despise you for pointing out the reality of Trump as fascist and militarist, and the USA, Inc. as a fascist nation, I think it is critically important that you and others that can see the truth to speak up. I applaud you. Actually, I think that those who can see the truth are duty-bound to speak the truth.

I find it quite odd that Avalon is a gathering place for people who routinely dissect and reject propaganda and lies, who lived through 9/11 and are living through the unfolding agenda of the biggest and most obvious false flag operation in history, yet are fooled into supporting the 9/11 perpetrators and lauding them, cheering on the corporatists and warmongers, cheering on fascism. It can't just be fluoride in the drinking water.

The work of Edward Bernays, plus the oligarch's think tanks, have mapped the psychology to control the human mind, and the oligarchs' propaganda division has applied their expertise very effectively to US citizenry - said to be the most propagandized people in history. The propaganda is all or at least primarily all fear-based, rarely overt, usually insidious. Fear of "loss of freedom", fear of immigrants (in a nation of immigrants!), fear of the other wing of the "republi-crat" political party, fear of loss of property or employment, and perhaps most amazingly, a promoted fear of democracy, cooperation, and sharing (fear of any form of socialism.) The oligarch complete control of mass media and entertainment - people hearing multiple variations of the same propaganda from multiple sources in multiple ways - guarantees that almost all minds will be manipulated into believing and even promoting the agenda of the oligarchs.

The other major applied technique is to drastically limit the income of the vast majority of workers (through the federal minimum wage), which has the effect of forcing people into paycheck-to-paycheck survival mode, making it nearly impossible to be able to devote the time, energy, and focus it takes to unravel the propaganda and discover the truth.

There is also the ongoing reality of the Rockefeller takeover of the education system, ensuring that young minds are filled with enough bull**** to grow a giant redwood tree by the time the schooling/indoctrination is complete. American exceptionalism and "manifest destiny" and patriotic fealty are hard-wired into young minds - and the critical thinking skills that would have been developed in the "trivium" are deliberately left undeveloped.

Hopefully, there are more people like you who clearly see the truth about the fully-developed fascism and imperialism of the USA, and speak up. Here at Avalon, I know we lost a number of them who were disgusted with the inability of every Avalonian to see the Q propaganda as simply more oligarch propaganda, and to clearly see Trump as the fascist/corporatist/warmonger that he is, and that he and all the Republicans are inexorably enmeshed with the same Global Corporate Network as the equally fascist/corporatist/warmonger Democrats. Unfortunately, the reply I expect you will get is, "Why do you hate America?" But don't let that deter you! Keep speaking up. Maybe, just maybe the truth repeated often enough will be seen as the truth.

[Frank V]

[...]

There, I've said it. :unsure:


:clapping:

Even though there are diehard Trump supporters at Avalon who will despise you for pointing out the reality of Trump as fascist and militarist, and the USA, Inc. as a fascist nation, I think it is critically important that you and others that can see the truth to speak up. I applaud you. Actually, I think that those who can see the truth are duty-bound to speak the truth.

Well, in my case, it's also compulsive. I just can't stand injustice, and I always want to expose it. But given the reactions I usually get ─ in this case, US Americans taking my comments personally and thinking that I hate them ─ and the social stigmas that follow from this sort of confrontations do often tend to make me swallow my words, thinking "What's the point? They're never going to listen to what I have to say, and they've already got their minds made up in advance."


I find it quite odd that Avalon is a gathering place for people who routinely dissect and reject propaganda and lies, who lived through 9/11 and are living through the unfolding agenda of the biggest and most obvious false flag operation in history, yet are fooled into supporting the 9/11 perpetrators and lauding them, cheering on the corporatists and warmongers, cheering on fascism. It can't just be fluoride in the drinking water.

No, it's not the fluoride in the drinking water ─ which I personally think would be highly overrated as a threat ─ but rather the fact that from early childhood on, US Americans are exposed and subjected to propaganda. Back when I was still on Facebook ─ which was now, oh, some ten years ago ─ there was a woman who prided herself in still being able to recite the pledge of allegiance to the American flag she had to make in elementary school. A pledge of allegiance to the American flag for ignorant kids in elementary school? Are you kidding me?

And then there's all the other propaganda, and every US president of the last couple of decades has been guilty of promoting that in public, all the way from Bush Sr. to Trump. But most Americans just don't know any better. They've been kept insulated from any knowledge or understanding of non-American culture. And like I said, Hollywood is one big propaganda machine.


[...]

Hopefully, there are more people like you who clearly see the truth about the fully-developed fascism and imperialism of the USA, and speak up. Here at Avalon, I know we lost a number of them who were disgusted with the inability of every Avalonian to see the Q propaganda as simply more oligarch propaganda, and to clearly see Trump as the fascist/corporatist/warmonger that he is, and that he and all the Republicans are inexorably enmeshed with the same Global Corporate Network as the equally fascist/corporatist/warmonger Democrats. Unfortunately, the reply I expect you will get is, "Why do you hate America?" But don't let that deter you! Keep speaking up. Maybe, just maybe the truth repeated often enough will be seen as the truth.

Yes, the typical knee-jerk reflex. As I've told someone else when talking about US politics only a few days ago, people are always eager to point out the splinter in someone else's eye while completely missing the beam in their own. This is not a political trait but a human trait ─ it's everywhere. But as such, it also plays out in politics, and when one person utters criticism on the part of something another person supports. Criticism ─ even constructive criticism ─ gets twisted around until it looks like a personal attack.

For instance, I have already been called antisemitic for simply criticizing the state of Israel. Another reaction I often get is "What the hell would you know about America? You don't live here!"

:facepalm:

The truth is what it is, and it isn't going to go away because some people choose to turn a blind eye. Again, I just can't stand injustice, and even though I am often put off by the anticipated responses to what I'd be saying, there are still plenty of moments like this one, when I have the courage and the energy to speak my mind and point out the facts. And then I will.

:)

[Yetti]

Dennis you sound too leftist , Venezuela was destroyed by a comunist narco dictatorship, and yes I am from there and know exactly one important thing, : I LOST MY COUNTRY DO TO THE COMUNIST AND NOW I'M NOT GOING TO LET THEM TAKE DOWN THIS , MY NEW HOME, I AM AN AMERICAN CITIZEN NOW AND I HAVE TO DEFEND THE FUTURE OF MY KIDS.

[araucaria]

Another important ingredient of fascism is gangsterism, criminality, the flouting of the rule of law simply by being in charge. There is another word to describe this type of rule. Here is a page from Norman Mailer in The Presidential Papers (1963).

The Bay of Pigs remains a mystery. One can doubt if it will ever be found out how it came to pass, or who in fact was the real force behind it. But there is a tool of investigation for political mysteries. It is Lenin’s formula: “Whom?” Whom does this benefit? Who prospers from a particular act?
Well, whom? Kennedy and the liberal center did not gain honor from the Bay of Pigs. Castro most certainly did not gain an advantage, for he was forced now finally to commit his hand altogether to Russia. The Left in America, that fine new Left of Pacifists and beatniks and Negro militants and college students who just knew something was bad–this Left certainly did not benefit from the Bay of Pigs, because they were now divided about Castro even as an earlier generation of Leftists had been divided by the Moscow Trials.
No, the people who benefited from the Bay of Pigs were the people who wanted a serious Communist threat to exist within ninety miles of America’s shore. They were the people who had taken the small and often absurd American Communist Party and had tried to exaggerate its menace to the point where the country could be pistol-whipped into silence at the mention of its name. They had infiltrated this party until even the Saturday Evening Post offered hints that a large part of the American Communist Party was by now made up of FBI men. These were indeed the people, these secret policemen, who would face an excruciating dilemma if the Communist threat disappeared altogether in America. Because then what would they do? If there were no Communists, the FBI would be required by the logic of their virility to take on the next greatest danger to American life, the Mafia, and how were they ever to do that, how were they to investigate the Mafia without ripping the Republican and Democratic parties up from top to bottom? Because the Republican Party was supported by the Mafia, and the Democratic Party was supported by the Mafia. Through and through down at the low level where the little heelers and the small cops got their bite at the local bar, and up at the high level where the monster housing projects were contracted out, and the superhighways, and the real estate grafts. No, it was safer by far that Cuba go Communist. That would be good for the FBI, and it would be good for the Chinese Communists, who wished to increase the pressure on Khrushchev’s back. Whom? asked Lenin; who benefits? And the answer is clear: All the totalitarians of the world were benefited by the Bay of Pigs and the missiles that followed.

[Dennis Leahy]

Dennis you sound too leftist , Venezuela was destroyed by a comunist narco dictatorship, and yes I am from there and know exactly one important thing, : I LOST MY COUNTRY DO TO THE COMUNIST AND NOW I'M NOT GOING TO LET THEM TAKE DOWN THIS , MY NEW HOME, I AM AN AMERICAN CITIZEN NOW AND I HAVE TO DEFEND THE FUTURE OF MY KIDS.
I recommend that you immediately buy stock in USA, Inc. military industrial complex corporations. You can't lose. You'll be helping out the imperialists that are actually stealing your ex-country, making sure that an obedient globalist puppet is installed rather than a democratically elected one. The oil extracted from Venezuela is the property of globalists, right? Why should the people of Venezuela get a share of it? Nothing wrong with globalist Guaido declaring himself the president, right?

Damn, that gives me an idea:

HERETOFORE AND HENCEFORTH, I HEREBY DECLARE DENNIS LEAHY TO BE THE LEGITIMATE PRESIDENT OF THE USA.

OK, it's done. Now that I am President, I am deporting you and your entire family, because you are immigrants and we don't like immigrants. But first I will put you in a cage for a while, and torture you, because the USA legalized rendition, imprisonment without charge or defense, and torture. We may even perform human experimentation on you, or harvest your organs.

Sorry, amigo, you have swallowed the propaganda hook, line, and sinker. Your comments are so fantasy-based that all I can do is mock the comments.

[onawah]

I'm so glad some Avalon members still have the courage and energy to speak out--I confess I've grown weary and only have the energy to make small stabs anymore as it's so disheartening to see the amount of blindness.
In any case, THANKS, and please keep up the good work.
Even if it doesn't change as many minds as we might wish, for those of us who already see clearly, it's a great relief to see the truth still being presented with clarity and energy.



The truth is what it is, and it isn't going to go away because some people choose to turn a blind eye. Again, I just can't stand injustice, and even though I am often put off by the anticipated responses to what I'd be saying, there are still plenty of moments like this one, when I have the courage and the energy to speak my mind and point out the facts. And then I will.
:)



Try this: [you tube]WGJOj-ZSBW4[/you tube]

Can I ask for a synopsis of what you gleaned from this Dark Journalist video, Onawah?
In a way, it's very frustrating to be a fan of Dark Journalist because he covers so much territory and connects so many dots, all in a seemingly rambling, disjointed kind of way, that it's difficult to explain why it's all so compelling.
All the info comes together quite sensibly and clearly if you listen to the shows in the order in which they are presented, however.
It's time consuming, but very much worth it, imho, and quite fascinating.
Transcripts would be great, but inasmuch as his shows are often 3 hours long or more, apparently no one has volunteered to do the work.

The first hour or so of Episode 81 is devoted to the Iowa caucus and how John Kerry and Mitt Romney may be planning to take over the Dem nomination.
The rest is devoted to the Venus Transit, what it has meant in the past especially in the formation of the US
how that relates to all the info DJ has been presenting about Mason and Dixon and the Mason Dixon line
how that relates to Moon, PA.
how and why Moon relates to where Washington DC was originally supposed to be, how politicians and other VIPs mysteriously keep showing up in Moon for various events
how the airport in Moon may be similar to the airport in Denver and may be the home of an underground base and possibly a stargate.
And so on.
It may sound disjointed, but the patterns emerge gradually and inform us as to how little we really know about everything that goes on below the surface in this amazing world we live in.
DJ is a remarkable researcher and his connections with Joseph Farrell, C.A. Fitts and others keep the flow of seminal info steadily coming in.
His ability to connect the dots and trace the patterns is prodigious.

[Sarah Rainsong]

I listened to the whole 3+ hours of the Dark Journalist episode (while dismantling and trying to repair my robot vacuum which stopped working 1 month past the warranty! GRRRR!)

It was a very interesting listen, the first I've listened to by him. I found the idea of the "Hail Mary pass" intriguing, and then all the other stuff they got into was some stuff I'd never heard before, so again, very interesting.

But at the end, as they come back around the "Hail Mary pass" theory. It seemed like they were saying that's a good thing? Like they wanted that to happen? And I'm of the idea the whole time that it's not. It just seems like more behind-the-scenes manipulation to me. I'm not a fan of Bernie, but I would consider him just to shake up the party. I really don't want more of the status quo.

So what are y'all's opinions on that theory? Good or bad or meh?

[onawah]

I can recommend listening to this show even if you haven't listened to the preceding parts 1 & 2 (though you may want to go back and listen to them too, after part 3).
There is so much new and interesting information that I can't imagine it not being compelling listening.
I would say that DJ clearly doesn't think that the Kerry/Romney Hail Mary thing is a positive development, but it may sound like he does simply because he anticipates feeling a sense of satisfaction when more evidence is revealed proving that his suppositions have been correct.
I think he's concerned about the possibility of HRC getting back into the game, and he hopes that a third force will come into play.
The Hail Mary is proof that the entrenched Dems really don't want Sanders to be the nominee ( and that's an indication that he would probably be the best choice for the voters, imho, in spite of his support of Biden.)
(Given that we are talking about the lesser of evils here.)
DJ thinks Trump was a better choice than HRC, and he still thinks Trump is (or at least, WAS) anti-globalist (unfortunately), though he's been much more disillusioned of late.
But there is so much more info of worth in this show (particularly historical) that has nothing to do with the election, so I hope that part won't put anyone off.


I listened to the whole 3+ hours of the Dark Journalist episode (while dismantling and trying to repair my robot vacuum which stopped working 1 month past the warranty! GRRRR!)

It was a very interesting listen, the first I've listened to by him. I found the idea of the "Hail Mary pass" intriguing, and then all the other stuff they got into was some stuff I'd never heard before, so again, very interesting.

But at the end, as they come back around the "Hail Mary pass" theory. It seemed like they were saying that's a good thing? Like they wanted that to happen? And I'm of the idea the whole time that it's not. It just seems like more behind-the-scenes manipulation to me. I'm not a fan of Bernie, but I would consider him just to shake up the party. I really don't want more of the status quo.

So what are y'all's opinions on that theory? Good or bad or meh?

[Mark]

It's a shame that Dennis and Rakyt do not run for office. They would make a formidable team!


I'd be honored just to hang out with Rahkyt, a very bright and compassionate guy - among the best and brightest. But this brings back a point Mike made about needing the best and brightest in positions of governance. I don't think we need that, or want that. I think we need to shift our thinking to embrace the "ordinary citizen*" as representatives, and that their job would be to carry out the collective will of the people, which would be gleaned via the new election process.

Thanks Ernie, I think we would make a good team, as part of a larger group of concerned citizens of the type and working toward the implementation of some of the innovative governmental forms that have been discussed in this thread and, in particular, Dennis's response here. And I would be honored in turn, Dennis, to just hang! If you ever make it to Central Texas, don't hesitate to let me know.

After 2 years on the Ethics Review Commission for my city, San Marcos, TX, I was honored last Fall to be elected to the City Council in December after a run-off election. As it is a non-partisan position, I didn't have to make a choice of political parties, thank God, as, even though my ideologies and understandings of the world lean more to the far distant fields beyond Left and Right. I'm pretty active in social media and have gotten to know folks in my community and around February of last year, small groups started asking me to do it. I'd never considered it previously, although my family has a history of service to our nation and communities. Many of y'all have known me since I came here in 2011, so you're familiar with the span of my ethical and spiritual beliefs and probably some of my political understandings as well. They are not mainstream.

I can report that local government IS NOT THE SAME as state or national government. We are accountable directly to the people, to the extent that going to the grocery store, stopping to get some gas, just walking down the street or going to eat out at a restaurant is always an opportunity to stand accountable to your community. Because the people around you, in your immediate environment, are the ones who elected you to office and they demand accountability! They want reports, as they should, and they want to question you to know your thinking, why you made the decisions you made, why did you approve that new industry going up by the river, what the hell business do you have putting up a 5 story apartment building next to my house, what's taking so long with the streets in my neighborhood and why don't the cops enforce the speed limit or noise ordinance in my neighborhood like they do across the tracks or up on the hill or over in those good neighborhoods?

So far, I've not been approached with any bribes, nobody has offered me expensive gifts, no black helicopters over my house or men in black suits hanging about as far as I can tell. But then, my memory could be getting erased, which might not be a new thing in my life anyway, as I'm a military brat and am perennially suspicious of potential MILAB history, as I've stated in threads here before.

I have seen how people get corrupted. How they get in office, even local, at one economic level and when they leave office, they've gone up a level or two. My stance is what it is, I've been very poor, couch surfing with friends and sleeping in my car, too poor to buy food and calling it fasting and not that long ago, in these latter years of my life so I know what it is to have nothing. I've spent a night in jail for a Class C Misdemeanor and have been unable to find more than a minimum wage job for a decade, despite my Master's Degree and being ABD PhD. I'm blessed now to be stable, to be able to take care of my kids, and to be able to represent my neighbors and friends, who trust me and expect me to stand for them, which I am doing despite the intransigence of government and the difficulty of changing the direction of the "Ship of State" without the utmost group effort, as no single person can do it alone.

I want to see the systems change. After a year of being a "part" of the Empire as it were, a representative of local government, and seeing what it is like on the "other side", I don't know how much we can do to change it without a massive, paradigm shifting series of events that force us to move beyond the current matrice of interlocked and sychophantic institutions and organizations that currently lock power and potentiality up in the hands of those who rise to the elite status of their communities, whether that be through a corrupt political process or by dint of their own efforts, psychopathic or empathic.

Mine has been the latter. People absolutely fed up and wanting something different. And, I must add, the Springs and river, here in my city, wanted me to protect them. So that has been my charge. Taking care of my people and my river. It's amazing how much other stuff comes with that.

[Sarah Rainsong]

I can recommend listening to this show even if you haven't listened to the preceding parts 1 & 2 (though you may want to go back and listen to them too, after part 3).
There is so much new and interesting information that I can't imagine it not being compelling listening.
I would say that DJ clearly doesn't think that the Kerry/Romney Hail Mary thing is a positive development, but it may sound like he does simply because he anticipates feeling a sense of satisfaction when more evidence is revealed proving that his suppositions have been correct.
I think he's concerned about the possibility of HRC getting back into the game, and he hopes that a third force will come into play.
The Hail Mary is proof that the entrenched Dems really don't want Sanders to be the nominee ( and that's an indication that he would probably be the best choice for the voters, imho, in spite of his support of Biden.)
(Given that we are talking about the lesser of evils here.)
DJ thinks Trump was a better choice than HRC, and he still thinks Trump is (or at least, WAS) anti-globalist (unfortunately), though he's been much more disillusioned of late.
But there is so much more info of worth in this show (particularly historical) that has nothing to do with the election, so I hope that part won't put anyone off.


Thanks. I didn't get the impression that he thought it was positive until the very end, and actually it was the co-host that suggested that, but he didn't really argue with her. So that's why I was a little confused.

Where do I find parts 1 & 2? I thought it was the whole thing LOL! He's got a ton of videos on his channel, so I'm not sure which ones you're talking about.

This is the link I used. :

Try this: WGJOj-ZSBW4

Sorry--corrected that in the original post

[onawah]

Here are parts 1 and 2
9gs93adcO9A
Nwoxa7d_Rhs


Where do I find parts 1 & 2? I thought it was the whole thing LOL! He's got a ton of videos on his channel, so I'm not sure which ones you're talking about.

This is the link I used. :

Try this: WGJOj-ZSBW4

Sorry--corrected that in the original post

You can find the whole X Series here in numerical order: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m2Qvh85QBY&list=PLNfJkzByQRux01gvudalzEGUgoH496qay

[onawah]

I wish we could clone you, Rahkyt!
We could really use one of you on my town's council! :nod:



It's a shame that Dennis and Rakyt do not run for office. They would make a formidable team!


I'd be honored just to hang out with Rahkyt, a very bright and compassionate guy - among the best and brightest. But this brings back a point Mike made about needing the best and brightest in positions of governance. I don't think we need that, or want that. I think we need to shift our thinking to embrace the "ordinary citizen*" as representatives, and that their job would be to carry out the collective will of the people, which would be gleaned via the new election process.


Thanks Ernie, I think we would make a good team, as part of a larger group of concerned citizens of the type and working toward the implementation of some of the innovative governmental forms that have been discussed in this thread and, in particular, Dennis's response here. And I would be honored in turn, Dennis, to just hang! If you ever make it to Central Texas, don't hesitate to let me know.

After 2 years on the Ethics Review Commission for my city, San Marcos, TX, I was honored last Fall to be elected to the City Council in December after a run-off election. As it is a non-partisan position, I didn't have to make a choice of political parties, thank God, as, even though my ideologies and understandings of the world lean more to the far distant fields beyond Left and Right. I'm pretty active in social media and have gotten to know folks in my community and around February of last year, small groups started asking me to do it. I'd never considered it previously, although my family has a history of service to our nation and communities. Many of y'all have known me since I came here in 2011, so you're familiar with the span of my ethical and spiritual beliefs and probably some of my political understandings as well. They are not mainstream.

[shaberon]

However, the greatest accumulation of real wealth is property/land, as the US 'founding fathers' knew, and they wrote a Constitution to protect theirs. Like the end of the monopoly game, I do suspect at some point that the serfs will kill the landlord and take the land, but can't visualize it happening while the lords have the protection of the US military.



This is largely correct, and it is called Private Property, which is protected by the Constitution and by laws. And for example, in the Louisiana Purchase, it was protected--whoever really owned a farm then suffered nothing from leaving France.

The overthrow of Private Property is called Real Estate. The estate is no longer really the land, but a legal entity, like a corporation, a permanent lease under threat. If you get a house, can you even check a box marked "private?" No, your choice is probably Residential. Well, a resident is just a status criminal like a homeless vagabond, a pauper at law. Private Property where one lives is called a Domicile.

Amendment Seven (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) protects Private Property purchased for more than twenty dollars: it cannot be seized, it can only be subjected to due process. This means it has to cost over twenty dollars of Lawful Money--i. e., silver dollars. You can't even buy property with legal tender, it works on debts, which can never be paid, only extinguished.

The whole shebang of hassles pretty much vanishes if you are a non-citizen National Domiciled on Private Property. Nothing will affect you except for Code. Statutory law only applies to "serfs".

You can do the same thing with a car and get rid of its registration and insurance, but, you better know the right words--"operating a motor vehicle" is considered a type of taxi which is a form of commerce, subject to statues. So, yes, it is done by the "sleight of hand" in changing legal words from what they "really mean" into what it "sounds like it means".

For instance, when I was young and didn't understand, one of the courts or police asked me if I was a citizen. I said what does it mean--they said it means "were you born here". That is a trick, false, or wrong. It means do you consent for the Fed to have sovereignty over you. Just like Resident does not mean do you live here, and Operating a Motor Vehicle does not mean driving a car. A Person may be a Corporation. Basically the whole statutory legal vocabulary is terms of voluntary servitude.

It does not work if you don't agree to it. The Federal government has no jurisdiction outside of properties it owns, until it is handed to them.

As far as I can tell, whatever was achieved in the Revolution is still sitting right there, but it isn't being used because we have forgotten what it means. A web of words has conned us out of our legal standing.


One of my favorite things I have seen was a piece of money from around 1922. So there were some years from around 1918-1926 when each branch of the Federal Reserve printed its own stuff. So you would see Chicago or wherever it was from. And beside that, someone had written "Bolshevik". So there really was awareness and opposition to this kind of money power for a long time, but, subsequently, with all the advertising and propaganda, the main issues are almost unknown.

[onawah]

One of the things which Dark Journalist said in episode 81 ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGJOj-ZSBW4 ) which I certainly agree with is that the only thing that has ever really brought about the kind of changes that are needed now has to come from the people, a mass movement from the grass roots up.
Which is also what various day prophets, both modern and historic, have foretold would be happening to bring about the next shift (such as Dr. Christopher Hills, a great visionary, imho, and my favorite mentor, whose work Dennis also appreciates).
What has been called "the Second Coming" may be not so much the appearance of another great avatar in the tradition of Jesus, Buddha, etc., but the awakening of a higher state of consciousness in humanity as a whole.
Not a new subject to this forum, of course, but it seems like the year 2020 may finally be the turning point.
Of course this is being hindered by as many obstacles as the regressive element can throw in our path--toxins of all kinds--vaccines, GMOs, chemtrails, emfs, glysophate, pharmaceuticals, fluoride, pandemics, etc etc.
But if the prophets are right, it's inevitable that the leap will be accomplished in time.
Not as easy as I suspect many of us anticipated, but I don't think there is reason to give up hope just yet.
I like the analogy of the yo-yo--it doesn't build the momentum to make its' ascent back up the string until it has hit the bottom, though it definitely takes a lot more energy on the ascent than on the descent.
Apologies if this is sounding trite, but sometimes the truth isn't really all that complicated.

[onawah]

Update today from Dark Journalist revealing the Hail Mary pass of Election 2020:
A Unity Ticket featuring Former Secretary of State Democrat John Kerry and Utah Senator Mitt Romney will be forthcoming as a major attempt to capture the White House in November
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkSZh-aJuOQ
Also posted here: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?102135-Dark-Journalist-Joseph-Farrell-UFO-X-Factor-Black-Budget-Secret-Space-Network-16-March-2018&p=1335835&viewfull=1#post1335835

[onawah]

DEEP STATE PETE (Buttgieg)
2/13/20
Alexandra Bruce
https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/deep-state-pete/

"Incredibly, a winner has still not been declared in the Iowa Caucuses ten days after the election. Current data indicates Pete Buttigieg has narrowly won the pledged delegate count, despite Sanders having slightly more votes and much stronger grass roots support. Ironically, Buttigieg wants to abolish the Electoral College if elected president.

Dark horse candidate, Pete Buttigieg has been helicoptered in from behind because the Globalist Neoliberal establishment is desperate to prevent a Sanders candidacy. As YouAreFreeTV explains here, Mayor Pete has been groomed to be the US President since he was a teenager, with ties to the most ignominious war profiteering firms, like McKinsey, Baupost Group and Franklin Templeton.

These Deep State firms buy up the debt of countries that have been ravaged by USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives (USAID-OTI), which contract private mercenaries to destabilize designated “rogue” regimes, like Syria, Libya and Ukraine and then they finance the debt right back to USAID, in a vulture capitalist handshake that parasitizes US taxpayers while destroying weak nations.

It’s so diabolical and it explains that evil glint in Buttigieg’s eyes. His buddy from Harvard, who was his Best Man at his 2018 wedding, Nathaniel Myers is currently a Senior Transition Advisor at USAID-OTI. Buttigieg also has strong ties to two Neoliberal think tanks, the Truman National Security Project, where he sits on the Board of Advisors and the Aspen Institute, where he received a Rodel Fellowship.

Last December, Max Blumenthal wrote an éxposé of the young candidate, who some wags on Twitter are calling “Vanilla Barry”:https://thegrayzone.com/2019/12/17/national-security-mandarins-groomed-pete-buttigieg/

“Pete Buttigieg has crafted an image for himself as a maverick running against a broken establishment…the real Buttigieg [is] a Neoliberal cadre whose future was carefully managed by the mandarins of the national security state since almost the moment that he graduated from Harvard University.”

It’s beyond nauseating that someone so entrenched in the darkest machinations of the Deep State can pontificate about Donald Trump’s phone call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky: “He’s made it clear that he deserves to be impeached.”

Pete’s deadpan duplicitousness isn’t surprising, once you understand that he is a proponent of covert interventionism, vulture capitalism and the diabolical fraud that is USAID.

The problem is, almost nobody is aware of the unfathomably dark side of Mayor Pete, as he radiates his millennial platitudes and bland psychobabble to his would-be base.

His neotony and his “marginalized” status as a gay man will largely shield him from the kind of scrutiny required of someone who shills the predatory Neoliberalism of the past three decades that has so damaged the world.

Last night, Tucker Carlson joked, “Is this so-called Pete Buttigieg exactly what he appears to be, a corporate hologram designed by the HR Department at Google for instructional purposes? Every word Buttigieg utters is perfectly synchronized with the official view from Silicon Valley and the finance world.”

Chikin’Pete: G00GLE Nevada, CIA McKinsey Proxy Stand In- UNITY Ticket 2020
Feb 12, 2020
You Are Free TV
2/13: "How is PETE claiming so many delegates? Globalists are backing him and he has paid his dues every single step of the way! Meanwhile, AG Barr sets mutliple investigations in motion..."33qc1htP3Jo
(start 15 minutes in for focus on Buttigieg)

[onawah]

How National Security Mandarins Groomed Buttigieg & Managed his Future
12/17/19
by Max Bloomenthal
https://thegrayzone.com/2019/12/17/national-security-mandarins-groomed-pete-buttigieg/

"Pledging to “end endless wars,” Pete Buttigieg claims he has “never been part of the Washington establishment.” But years before he was known as Mayor Pete, an influential DC network of military interventionists placed him on an inside track to power.
By Max Blumenthal

In his quest for front-runner status in the 2020 presidential campaign, Pete Buttigieg has crafted an image for himself as a maverick running against a broken establishment.

On the trail, he has invoked his distinction as the openly gay mayor of a de-industrialized Rust Belt town, as well as his experience as a Naval reserve intelligence officer who now claims to oppose “endless wars”. He insists that “there’s energy for an outsider like me,” promoting himself as “an unconventional candidate.”

When former Secretary of State John Kerry endorsed Joe Biden this December, Buttigieg went full maverick. “I have never been part of the Washington establishment,” he proclaimed, “and I recognize that there are relationships among senators who have been together on Capitol Hill as long as I’ve been alive and that is what it is.”

But a testy exchange between the South Bend mayor and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard during a November 20 Democratic primary debate had already complicated Buttigieg’s branding campaign.

Like Buttigieg, Gabbard was a military veteran of the 9/11 generation. But she had taken an entirely different set of lessons from her grueling stint in Iraq than “Mayor Pete.” Her campaign had become an anti-war crusade, with opposition to destructive regime change wars serving as her leitmotif.

After ticking off her foreign policy credentials, Gabbard turned to Buttigieg and lit into him for stating his willingness to send US troops to Mexico to crack down on drug cartels.

A visibly angry Buttigieg responded by accusing Gabbard of distorting his record, then quickly deflected to Syria, where he has argued for an indefinite deployment of occupying US troops.

Rehashing well-worn criticism of Gabbard for meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad during a diplomatic visit she took – her trip was devoted to de-escalating the US-backed proxy war that had ravaged the country’s population – Buttigieg attacked the congresswoman for engaging with a “murderous dictator.”

Throughout the exchange, Buttigieg appeared shaken, as though his sense of inviolability had been punctured. Gabbard had clearly struck a vulnerable point by painting the self-styled outsider as a conventional DC-style politician unconsciously spouting interventionist bromides.

How could someone who served in the catastrophically wasteful US wars in the Middle East, and who had seen their human toll, be reckless enough to propose sending US troops to fight and possibly die in Mexico? “But Assad!” was the best response he could muster.

The remarkable dust-up highlighted a side of the 37-year-old political upstart that has been scarcely explored in mainstream US media accounts of his rise to prominence. It revealed the real Buttigieg as a neoliberal cadre whose future was carefully managed by the mandarins of the national security state since almost the moment that he graduated from Harvard University.

After college, the Democratic presidential hopeful took a gig with a strategic communications firm founded by a former Secretary of Defense who raked in contracts with the arms industry. He moved on to a fellowship at an influential DC think tank described by its founder as “a counterpart to the neoconservatives of the 1970s.” Today, Buttigieg sits on that think tank’s board of advisors alongside some of the country’s most accomplished military interventionists.

Buttigieg has reaped the rewards of his dedication to the Beltway playbook. He recently became the top recipient of donations from staff members of the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department, and the Justice Department – key cogs in the national security state’s permanent bureaucracy.

His Harvard social network has been a critical factor in his rise as well, with college buddies occupying key campaign roles as outside policy advisors and strategists. Among his closest friends from school is today the senior advisor of a specialized unit of the State Department focused on fomenting regime change abroad.

That friend, Nathaniel “Nat” Myers, was Buttigieg’s traveling partner on a trip to Somaliland, where the two buddies claimed to have been tourists in a July 2008 article they wrote for The New York Times.

Their contribution to the paper was not any typical travelogue detailing a whimsical safari. Instead, they composed a slick editorial that echoed the Somaliland government’s call for recognition from the US government. It was Buttigieg’s first foreign policy audition before a national audience.

A short, strange trip to Somaliland
Under public pressure for more transparency about his work at the notoriously secretive McKinsey consulting firm, the Buttigieg campaign released some background details this December. The disclosures included a timeline of his work for various clients that stated he “stepped away from the firm during the late summer and fall of 2008 to help full-time with a Democratic campaign for governor in Indiana.”

How Buttigieg’s “full-time” role on that gubernatorial campaign took him on a nearly 8,000-mile detour to Somaliland remains unclear.

Buttigieg and Nathaniel Myers spent only 24 hours in the autonomous region of Somaliland. In that short time, they interviewed unnamed government officials and faithfully relayed their pro-independence line back to the American public in a July 2008 op-ed in the New York Times.
https://i2.wp.com/thegrayzone.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Pete-Buttigieg-New-York-Times-Somaliland.png?w=988&ssl=1
The column read like it could have been crafted by a public relations firm on behalf of a government client. In one section, the two travelers wrote that “the people we met in Somaliland were welcoming, hopeful and bewildered by the absence of recognition from the West. They were frustrated to still be overlooked out of respect for the sovereignty of the failed state to their south.”

Since declaring its independence from Somalia in 1991, Somaliland has campaigned for recognition from the US, EU, and African Union. It even offered to hand its deep water port over to AFRICOM, the US military command structure on the African continent, in exchange for US acceptance of its sovereignty.

Several months after Buttigieg traveled to the autonomous region, Al Jazeera reported, “The Somaliland government is trying to charm its way to global recognition.”

And just a few weeks before Buttigieg’s visit, the would-be republic inked a contract with an international lobbying firm called Independent Diplomat, presumably to help oversee that charm offensive.

Founded by a self-described anarchist named Carne Ross, Independent Diplomat represents an array of non and para-state entities seeking recognition on the international stage. Ross’s client list has included the Syrian Opposition Coalition, which tried and failed to secure power through a Western-backed war against the Syrian government.

Independent Diplomat did not respond to questions from The Grayzone about whether it had any role in facilitating the trip Buttigieg and Myers took to Somaliland.

According to John Kiriakou, a former CIA case officer, ex-senior investigator for the Senate Intelligence Committee, and celebrated whistleblower, Somaliland is an unusual destination for tourism.

“There really is nothing going on in Somaliland,” Kiriakou told The Grayzone. “To say you go to Somaliland as a tourist is a joke to me. It’s not a war-torn area but nobody goes there as a tourist.”

Kiriakou visited Somaliland in 2009 as part of an investigation for the Senate Intelligence Committee on what he described as the phenomenon of “blue-eyed” American citizens converting to Islam, traveling to Somalia and Yemen for training with Salafi-jihadist groups, then returning home on their US passports.

To reach Somaliland, Kiriakou said he took an arduous seven-hour journey from the neighboring state of Djibouti. His junket was coordinated by the US ambassador to Djibouti, a regional security officer of the US Diplomatic Security Service, and an embassy attaché.

“It is not the easiest place to reach and there’s no business to do there,” Kiriakou said.

Whether or not Buttigieg’s trip was coordinated without the assistance of lobbyists, the trip offered him and Myers an opportunity to weigh in on international affairs on the pages of the supposed newspaper of record – and on an absolutely non-controversial issue.

In his bio, Nathaniel Myers identified himself simply as a “financial analyst based in Ethiopia.” According to his resume, which is available online at Linkedin, he was working at the time as a World Bank consultant on governance and corruption.

By 2011, Myers had moved on from that neoliberal international financial institution to a specialized government at the center of US regime change operations abroad.

The imperial social network
Nathaniel Myers’ relationship with the presidential hopeful began at Harvard University. There, they formed two parts of “The Order of Kong,” a close-knit group of political junkies named jokingly for the Chinese restaurant they frequented after intensive discussion sessions at the school’s Institute of Politics.

Like most members of the college-era “Order,” Myers and Buttigieg have remained close. When the mayor married his longtime partner in 2018, Buttigieg chose him as his best man.

Myers currently works as a senior advisor for the United States Agency for International Development’s Office of Transition Initiatives (USAID-OTI) in Washington DC. The OTI is a specialized division of USAID that routinely works through contractors and local proxies to orchestrate destabilization operations inside countries considered insufficiently compliant to the dictates of Washington.

Wherever the US seeks regime change, it seems that USAID’s OTI is involved.

https://i1.wp.com/thegrayzone.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Nathaniel-Myers-USAID-Pete-Buttigieg.png?w=795&ssl=1

In a 2015 op-ed arguing for a loosening of bureaucratic restraints on USAID’s participation in counter-terror operations, Myers revealed that he had “specialized in programming in places like Yemen and Libya” – two conflict zones destabilized by US-led regime-change wars. (Myers was working as a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations at the time, but would return to USAID’s OTI the following year.)

USAID’s OTI has also fueled Syria’s brutal proxy war, coordinating US government assistance to supposed civil society groups like the White Helmets that were attached to the armed extremists who ruled over portions of the country for several years.

In Venezuela, the OTI has spent tens of millions of dollars cultivating and training opponents of the late President Hugo Chavez and his successor, Nicolas Maduro. It has done the same in Nicaragua, serving as the linchpin of a US effort to “lay the groundwork for insurrection.”

In Cuba, meanwhile, the OTI attempted to stir up civil unrest through a fake, Twitter-style social media site called ZunZuneo, hoping to turn the public against the country’s leftist government through coordinated flash mobs. To populate the phony social media platform, the OTI contracted a DC-based firm called Creative Associates that had illicitly obtained half a million Cuban cellphone numbers.

USAID and Creative Associates attempted to place ZunZuneo into private hands through a Miami foundation called Roots of Hope, which was founded by students at Harvard University. Twitter founder Jack Dorsey was even solicited by the State Department to operate the platform. (Roots of Hope board member Raul Moas, who personally trained ZunZuneo employees, is today the director of the Knight Foundation.)

The devious operation and its eventual exposure revealed the extent to which covert operations historically associated with the CIA had been outsourced to private contractors and NGOs.

And the role of the Harvard-founded “Roots of Hope” in the scheme demonstrated how much USAID and its contractors depended on the same Ivy League talent pool that produced Buttigieg and Myers.

A lengthy paper Myers authored for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in 2015 indicated that he had special knowledge of the ZunZuneo scheme and had been invested in its success.

Myers took the journalists who exposed the USAID-OTI program to task, claiming that “individual grants were pulled out of context and described as failures without heed to their actual goals,” provoking an unfair “Capitol Hill pillorying.”

He lamented that the exposure of covert programs like these had forced USAID officials to pursue “the opposite of the programming most likely to produce real impact in a hard aid environment.” In other words, fear of public scrutiny had complicated efforts to subvert societies targeted by the US for regime change – and he didn’t like it one bit.

To Syracuse University professor of African American studies Horace Campbell, youthful cadres like Myers were a symptom of the American university’s transformation into a neoliberal training ground.

“Many idealistic graduates from elite centers such as the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, the Maxwell School of Citizenship of Syracuse University or the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University among others had been seduced” into careers with USAID contractors like Creative Associates, Chemonics, and McKinsey, Campbell lamented in a lengthy 2014 survey of the OTI’s sordid record.

“It has been painful,” the professor wrote, “to see the ways in which the so called NGO initiatives have been refined over the past twenty years to support neoliberalism and to depoliticize idealistic students.”

Campbell’s comments painted a clear portrait of Myers, who earned his master’s degree at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School on his way towards becoming a “hard aid” specialist at USAID.

They also captured the psychology of Buttigieg, who celebrated Bernie Sanders as a hero when he was a high school senior, and spoke out against the Iraq war as a Harvard junior before being absorbed into the culture of McKinsey and DC institutions like the Truman Center.

The Truman show
When Pete Buttigieg made his journey to Somaliland in 2008, he had just earned a fellowship at the Truman Center, a Washington-based think tank that provided a steppingstone for national security-minded whiz kids like him to leadership positions in the Democratic Party.

Buttigieg likely earned the fellowship after answering an ad like the one the Truman Center published on the website of the Harvard Law School Student Government in 2010. Soliciting applicants for its security fellowship, the center declared that it was seeking “exceptionally accomplished and dedicated men and women who share President Truman’s belief in muscular internationalism, and who believe that strong national security and strong liberal values are not antagonistic, but are two sides of the same coin.”

This was not the first time Buttigieg had dipped his toes into Washington’s national security swamp. After graduating from Harvard, he worked at the Cohen Group, a consulting firm founded by former Secretary of Defense William Cohen that maintained an extensive client list within the arms industry. (As The Grayzone reported, the Cohen Group has been intimately involved in the Trump administration’s bungling regime change attempt in Venezuela).

But it was Buttigieg’s fellowship at the Truman Center that placed him on the casting couch before the Democratic Party’s foreign policy mandarins.

https://i0.wp.com/thegrayzone.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Pete-Buttigieg-Truman-Center.png?w=876&ssl=1

A Tablet Magazine profile of Truman Center founder Rachel Kleinfeld described her as a “gatekeeper and ringleader” whose network of former fellows spanned Congress and the Obama administration’s National Security Council. Her career trajectory mirrored Buttigieg’s.

She had earned degrees at elite institutions (Yale and Oxford, where Buttigieg pursued his Rhodes scholarship) before accepting a job at a private contractor, Booz Allen Hamilton, that performed an array of services for the US military and private spying for intelligence agencies.

Kleinfeld’s boss at the company was James Woolsey, the neoconservative former CIA director who has lobbied aggressively for US military assaults on Iraq and Iran.

According to Tablet, “Woolsey positioned Kleinfeld to work on sensitive government projects the company was pursuing in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, including one that involved working as a researcher for the military’s Defense Science Board, investigating information-sharing between intelligence and law-enforcement agencies.”

When Kleinfeld founded her think tank in 2005, she named it for the president who oversaw the detonation of nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities, threats of another nuclear assault on North Korea and the killing of 20 percent of that country’s population. The Truman doctrine, which called for “containing” the Soviet Union through internal destabilization and relentless pressure on its periphery, was the basis of Washington’s Cold War policy. (Following Kleinfeld’s lead, Buttigieg named one of his two pet dogs Truman).

“We decided there really was a need to create a movement of Democrats to stand up for these ideas and to really start to think about it, very much as a counterpart to the neoconservatives of the 1970s,” she told the Forward at the time.

To fill the center’s board of advisors, Kleinfeld assembled a cast of Democratic foreign policy heavyweights whose accomplishments included the devastation of entire countries through regime change wars.

Among the most notable Truman advisors were Madeleine Albright, the author of NATO’s destruction of Yugoslavia and president of an influence-peddling operation known as the Albright Stonebridge Group; the late Council on Foreign Relations President Les Gelb, who once proposed dividing Iraq into three federal districts along sectarian lines; former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who oversaw record levels of migrant deportations; and Anne-Marie Slaughter, the former State Department Policy Planning Director who conceived the Responsibility To Protect (R2P) doctrine deployed by the Obama administration to justify NATO’s disastrous intervention in Libya and drum up another one against Syria.

“The Truman Project mobilizes Democrats who serve the conventional interventionist agenda,” journalist Kelly Vlahos wrote. “Beyond that, they are part of a broader orbit of not so dissimilar foot soldiers on the other side of the aisle.”

Buttigieg listed his fellowship at the Truman Center as one of the credentials that qualified him for Indiana State Treasurer when he ran for the position in 2010.

Though he lost in a landslide, Buttigieg won election as mayor of South Bend the following year. “Mayor Pete” had not only secured his future in the Democratic Party, he had won a place in its foreign policy pantheon with a seat on the Truman Center’s advisory board.

Balancing opposition to “endless wars” with support for new ones?
This July 11, Buttigieg rolled out his foreign policy platform in a carefully scripted appearance at Indiana University. Introduced by Lee Hamilton, a former Indiana congressman who was a fixture on the House Foreign Affairs and Intelligence Committees, Buttigieg blended a call to “end endless wars” with Cold War bluster directed at designated enemies.

Before an auditorium packed with the national press, he rattled off one of the more paranoid talking points of the Russiagate era, blaming President Vladimir Putin for fueling racism inside the US. He then attacked Trump for facilitating peace talks in Korea, slamming the president for exchanging “love letters” with “a brutal dictator,” referring to North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un.

More recently, Buttigieg’s campaign pledged to “balance our commitment to end endless wars with the recognition that total isolationism is self-defeating in the long run.” This was the sort of Beltway doublespeak that defined the legacy of Barack Obama, another youthful, self-styled outsider from the Midwest who campaigned on his opposition to the Iraq war, only to sign off on more calamitous wars in the Middle East after he entered the White House.

On the presidential campaign trail, “Mayor Pete” has done his best to paper over the instincts he inherited from his benefactors among the national security state. But as the campaign drags on, his interventionist tendencies are increasingly exposed. Having padded his resume in America’s longest and most futile wars, he may be poised to extend them for a new generation to fight."

Max Blumenthal is an award-winning journalist and the author of several books, including best-selling Republican Gomorrah, Goliath, The Fifty One Day War, and The Management of Savagery. He has produced print articles for an array of publications, many video reports, and several documentaries, including Killing Gaza. Blumenthal founded The Grayzone in 2015 to shine a journalistic light on America’s state of perpetual war and its dangerous domestic repercussions.

[Dennis Leahy]

Update today from Dark Journalist revealing the Hail Mary pass of Election 2020:
A Unity Ticket featuring Former Secretary of State Democrat John Kerry and Utah Senator Mitt Romney will be forthcoming as a major attempt to capture the White House in November
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkSZh-aJuOQ
Also posted here: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?102135-Dark-Journalist-Joseph-Farrell-UFO-X-Factor-Black-Budget-Secret-Space-Network-16-March-2018&p=1335835&viewfull=1#post1335835


I don't think Daniel's apparent enthusiasm has anything to do with the douchebag militarist-corporatist "hail mary team", but rather was excited to present a journalistic "scoop." I honestly haven't listened to him much (I'm not one for talk radio or podcasts, especially long ones), but he seems WAY too intelligent to support these globalist clowns. At least, I hope so.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

I'm going to edit the opening post and add or expand on another important point.

[AutumnW]

I ignore Liszt, with prejudice. I don't care what his political beliefs are. I get lost in the weird constellations of frenzied dot connecting. "Look, I can connect Trump's professor uncle with Nichola Tesla!" And he's OFF to the races, leaving substance in his wake while pursuing curly cue trails of "OMG, REALLY, LOOKY HERE!!"

His show will deteriorate even more over time because he must generate content, as Bill Ryan so aptly describes. Joseph Farrell the same.

Ignore the distractions. There is some quality there but most of it is pure hokum!

[onawah]

I doubt very much that DJ is having any problem generating content, and I doubt that Fitts or Farrell will either, certainly not in the year 2020.
Different kinds of minds think differently, and for some, DJ's approach is very interesting.
I like to know about the big picture as well as lesser known subjects which tend to be underestimated in terms of importance, and he is very good at bringing those to light.
It's a spontaneous, unpredictable, participatory process, which is rather unique in journalism, and if it weren't for DJ, I wouldn't be nearly as interested in what's going on in the world;he has a way of making people care, and some of the information that his viewers add to the show via chat can be quite fascinating.
I'm generally double-tasking at the same time that I'm listening to his shows and I stop if there's something vital that needs my focus, so there's no waste of time .
But each to his own.

[Dennis Leahy]

Well, Daniel Lizst is getting too much "airtime" or "column inches" in this thread, for only being peripherally related to the thread's topic. There are a bunch of bullet points in the opening post that are on-topic, and the overview that US citizens have been locked out of the actual election process is on topic.

The report nicknamed the "Princeton Report" (which has been partially scrubbed from the Internet, last time I searched), states that US citizens have ZERO input in governance. The Democrat and Republican corporations not only completely run elections, but also pre-select all candidates that they, and the corporate mass media owned by the same oligarchs that control the "two" political parties, make those and only those candidates viable. Thus, all elections are rigged long before voting starts. The corporate duopoly hires its own replacements, which is why nothing ever really changes. These corporate-owned puppets are not in office to change anything, they are in office to protect the status quo. The status quo is murder, incorporated, on a global scale. These corporate-owned puppets feed the global death machine that the oligarchs have designed and that has become the number one industry of the USA. American citizens who are silent, or supporting the status quo, are complicit in imperialism and murder on a global scale, and are (whether they understanding it or not) supporting fascism. I don't give a rat's ass who the particular miscreants are that the Democrat corporation and the Republican corporation are putting on the ballot - that's not the point. The point is that they are all controlled by the oligarchs through their allegiance to the Global Corporate Network, which is fascism.

This topic isn't about Trump, Pelosi, Sanders, Biden, Pence, Gabbard, Clinton, Buttigeig, etc. That's all temporary. I'm discussing the bigger picture, that US citizens have no control over US elections which is why US citizens have zero control over "their" government. This topic is about the fact that the corporate overlords, the oligarchs, have created a global empire based on global dominance not just financially but by imperialist war. This Empire already is the new world order, so people can stop waiting for it to happen (and dedicate themselves to ending it.) There is also far too much emphasis placed on the president of the US (though, via misuse of the privilege of executive order, the office of the president has unconstitutionally usurped some of the authority of the legislative branch, Congress.) There are 535 corporate-supported henchmen of the oligarchs in the US Congress, and replacing all of them with citizens who represent citizens and are not connected to the oligarchs' Global Corporate Network is just as important as the presidency.

If anyone reading these words supports ANY of the miscreants in the US federal government, ANY Democrat or ANY Republican, they are ignorant - they are ignoring reality. Ignorance can be cured by facts (stupidity can't.) This topic is about whether each reader understands the current oligarch-controlled electoral and governance reality and supports it, or whether each reader understands the current oligarch-controlled electoral and governance reality and doesn't support it. For those in the latter group, I propose a citizen takeover of the entire election system, locking out the oligarchs' henchmen from office. I propose that the citizens of each country control their country's elections and thus control their own governance.

This topic also isn't about a new or different form of government, it is about citizens gaining control of the one that exists, and unplugging the oligarch control.

[T Smith]

Peterson understands Fascism and Communism but leaves out Corporatism.

That's because corporatism is fascism ─ literally. ;)



Hi Aragorn, no need to apologize for your cogent insights, particularly the following:


the USA, as a nation, is a de facto fascist regime.


Both parties also adhere to American Exceptionalism, which is a belief that the USA is somehow exceptional in its values ─ notwithstanding irrefutable exposure, time and time again, of how the US government continuously betrays the very values it claims to uphold.


The average US American is completely oblivious of how brainwashed they are, and completely unfamiliar with any other culture than their own. They also don't see that the US Democrats are not "the left", because there is no real "left" in the USA. The US Democrats only sit marginally to the left of the US Republicans, and from the international standpoint, both parties are right-wing and authoritarian.

For those of you who believe that the USA stands for freedom and democracy, I have only two words: Patriot Act. Enough said.

There absolutely is a widespread delusion US Americans maintain regarding their government and political system, but I would say most of us here already understand this--even those who---gasp---follow the infamous Q Anon phenomenon (more on this below). For a detailed historical perspective I would encourage those interested further to read Tragedy and Hope (https://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-Hope-History-World-Time/dp/094500110X/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?keywords=tragedy+and+hope&qid=1581717924&sr=8-1-spons&psc=1&spLa=ZW5jcnlwdGVkUXVhbGlmaWVyPUEzUzkyTjhEOU4wSUxWJmVuY3J5cHRlZElkPUEwMDYxNTE1VTBSSzlVTDlIT1gmZW5jcnl wdGVkQWRJZD1BMDIzMzA4ODFYQzhTSzcyTk1RTUgmd2lkZ2V0TmFtZT1zcF9hdGYmYWN0aW9uPWNsaWNrUmVkaXJlY3QmZG9Ob3R Mb2dDbGljaz10cnVl) and Anglo-American Establishment (https://www.amazon.com/Anglo-American-Establishment-Carroll-Quigley/dp/0945001010/ref=sr_1_1_sspa?crid=X0Q5C192265L&keywords=anglo+american+establishment&qid=1581718021&sprefix=anglo+american+EST%2Caps%2C143&sr=8-1-spons&psc=1&spLa=ZW5jcnlwdGVkUXVhbGlmaWVyPUFYRFk0SEZXR0ZEVU8mZW5jcnlwdGVkSWQ9QTA5MDExNTgzMlg3R1U4M05RTDI5JmVuY3J 5cHRlZEFkSWQ9QTAxNjY0MDUzVEQ3WVpIRzczQkQyJndpZGdldE5hbWU9c3BfYXRmJmFjdGlvbj1jbGlja1JlZGlyZWN0JmRvTm9 0TG9nQ2xpY2s9dHJ1ZQ==) by American historian Carroll Quigley. Quigley does an outstanding job laying out USA's fascist proclivities and documents the history you eloquently describe.

However--and now to share your <deep sigh> by delving into more controversial observations--I find some who understand the geopolitical machinations underpinning the false veneer of America's political system are sometimes overly cynical of what appears to me to be an extremely complex dynamic riddled with various ambiguities and shades of gray. Yes, USA is a fascist regime. We can all agree. Yes, corporatism is the driving force of American imperialism, militarism, and the exploitation of planetary resources, including the exploitation of humans. These observations are indeed poignant, but I find it over-simplifying to render every politician who participates in the aforementioned system, or who condones or fails to eradicate or forcefully condemn every single injustice inherent to the system, to be a sociopath non-human without a soul (as some have suggested), wound up and controlled, as it were, only by selfish ulterior motives and sinister forces. It seems to me these kind of uniform judgments are overly cynical and derive more from frustration and anger than from a critical examination of the human condition. Of course none of us like being subjected to psychological warfare (we’re mad as hell and aren’t going to take it anymore!) so perhaps we are all too quick to assume the populist actors currently on stage (Farage/Trump, etc.) have merely hijacked the will of the people to further advance the fascist interests that have a stranglehold on our political system. Be that as it may, what we are really railing against, it would seem to me, is our collective state of learned helplessness with which we have been inculcated since birth. We are all powerless, or at least we believe ourselves to be powerless; to assume otherwise would be to embrace our naiveté and cognitive dissonance.

Let’s consider. We know our elected officials’ jobs are to serve the interests of the corporate power structure in whatever way is required while pretending to represent their constituents. We can all agree. Some do this because they are evil and only want to seize power, some play to enrich themselves along the way, others to satisfy their ambitions and ego, yet others for more idealistic reasons, to wage some implausible plot against the controlling yolk of power (think Bernie Sanders), which always turns out to be an empty threat in the final equation. In other words, the sociopolitical dynamic in America is a complex deception of varying agendas, the only common denominator being the Corporate Power Structure’s management of public expectation through elected proxies who pretend to serve the interests of the people.

The question is, why does the corporate power structure need their proxies to pretend in this way? Why not just shed the pretense and adopt fascism proper (as you allude is inevitable) as Hitler and others did? Why not just do away with the whole charade? Would that not be a much easier and more efficient way to affect the agendas of the PTB? In the infamous words of George W. Bush, who attempted a sarcastic answer to the question after falsely being accused of being a dictator “…if this were [truly] a dictatorship it would be a heck of a lot easier… Hehehe…”

And so it would.

It is evident to me the reason why the particular brand of fascism we see in the USA requires deception and the utter manipulation of its people. And the answer is the elephant in the room. It is because a good majority of the 300 million people in the USA, unlike their European, Asian, and Australian counterparts, are armed to the teeth on account of an inconvenient 2nd Amendment to the Constitution the people of the US apparently take seriously, even though they don’t quite understand why. What’s even more dangerous is these armed serfs have deluded themselves with deep-seated beliefs in democracy and freedom and a system of government that, save for fantastical constructs existent only in the minds of the 18th-century Enlightenment thinkers who devised them, are mere relics on paper (as Dennis aptly points out). In my view the concept of this fictional form of government, which promises empowerment to the people, and which ironically has nothing whatsoever to do with the real system of governance in the USA—constitutes the American Exceptionalism to which most Americans subscribe and in the name of which so many injustices around the world are carried out.

The greater irony, of course, is the corporate power structure is founded and utterly dependent on this ongoing deception and psyop on the people; it needs to continually maintain this charade in order to sustain its power via sophisticated indoctrination beginning at birth, subtle brainwashing, and 24/7 propaganda. So in other words so long as we serfs are armed (American Revolutionists be damned), the PTB must cajole the masses with illusions of freedom and democracy at all costs. Were the corporate power structure ever to do anything overtly totalitarian, expose themselves for what they are, or shatter the collective illusion—say to drop elections altogether or attempt to establish some form of hard fascism or dictatorship—no power on Earth could contain the uprising.

To address your final point, I find myself often defending the Trump Administration’s modus operandi in response to some observations people have regarding their varying insights on American politics. This is never really my intent at the outset. However, I do feel compelled to share my humble perception not because I’m advocating or cheerleading or pitching for Trump—or even because I like Trump or support his agenda—but because I am often confused by how so many people perceive and understand Trump. It would seem a lot of people misunderstand DJT through a distorted lens (which is an entirely different subject matter altogether).

The first thing I found perplexing about your insights regarding Trump was the implication that POTUS Trump, like his predecessors, is a corporatist, or at very least is serving corporatist interests, presumably unbeknownst to the common men and women who support him. It is true this is more or less the generic definition of the modern American politician, but in my view this implication does not at all fit the model of Trump, the man. It is also true capitalism ultimately evolves to corporatism (fascism), but regardless of the ulterior motives that may or may not drive the Trump Administration’s policies, I would argue Trump is a capitalist, not a corporatist. Subscribe or not, we are now amid a new era. Corporatism is the consolidation or centralization of power, whereas Capitalism is the decentralization and breakdown of power via competition.

We do not have a true form in capitalism in America (for better or worse), nor have had for several decades, but if we did it would not look like fascist corporatism characteristic of USA circa 2020. The point is people often conflate Trump with the corporatist model and condemn him right alongside mega corporations that have amassed tremendous political power and own entire political parties. It is evident to me that Trump, the man—and the politician—has no affiliation with this power bloc.

If we did have a capitalist America it would look much more like the socioeconomic model Trump espouses in his populist rants, e.g. an expansion of manufacturing and production, fair competition, entrepreneurial laissez-faire markets and deregulation, etc. (again, for better or worse) and not the socioeconomic model David Rockefeller espouses, which describes a system rigged to the highest bidder. All said “Trump’s brand of capitalism” is also highly problematic, as Marx and Dickens point out, and I am not necessarily advocating for this economic model. I’m merely pointing out that people who do not discern the subtleties between Capitalism and Corporatism continually misbrand and misunderstand Trump.

Let’s consider. The man now occupying the White house is not an elitist; he is a nouveau-riche commoner. His father was a self-made businessman and Trump himself is but three generations removed (essentially) from the humble heritage of poor European land serfs. Donald Trump is a throw-back capitalist whose family went from rags to riches in very short period, whereas Corporatists and elitists loathe competition, amass their fortunes by forming oligarchies and monopolies, concentrate political power to achieve their objectives, and lock out the likes of enterprising serfs. In the famous words of David Rockefeller, the ultimate corporatist, competition is a sin….

Expanding on this, Donald Trump’s back-story segues nicely into our current state of the union, or disunion, as it were, depending on one’s vantage. What we are currently seeing in American politics, in my view, and contrary to the idea that DJT is a shill for corporatist oligarchs, is a faction of capitalists who vehemently oppose the corporatists, and who have tapped the populist uprising to gain the necessary political capital to wage a silent coup d’état on the stranglehold the corporatist global concentration of power has on we the people. As evident as this is to me, it is admittedly a controversial thesis because it validates the Q Anon narrative to some degree and also the idea that Donald Trump is indeed fighting the “Deep State,” which he absolutely is. I don’t hang on the words of Q drops, but I do respect the views of many here on the forum more versed on the topic than I. I respect their insights and know for a fact that they hold no illusions about the chilling political reality Dennis describes in the OP. In short, Q Anon is not a psyop; it is a public relations platform for the capitalist bloc at war with the “Deep State” corporatists. This does not mean Q Anon is 100% credible or accurate anymore than we might say MSM (or any corporatist propaganda platform) is 100% credible or accurate. Rather, we should understand the bigger picture as small faction of outsiders fighting a battle on the terms that support their own interests (and by extension, they argue, the interests of the people) vs. the corporatists. Trump supporters, who also bitterly oppose the corporatists, and who have backed the cause, may or may not fully understand this. Frankly, I’m surprised no one has ever pointed this distinction out in the “Trump is Not the Answer” thread.

In sum, we should not confuse what is going on in American politics with whether or not the battle with the Deep State is real. This should be abundantly evident when we consider the interests of the players. For example, why would you expect capitalists fighting corporatists to condemn the Endangered Species Act? Why would you expect them to not to promote tax havens for big corporations? Corporations are not the enemy, so long as they exist in free markets that encourage competition and do not concentrate political power.

There, I’ve said it, withstanding all judgement on what is...

There are two schools of thought regarding regime change. We can either reform what we have or raze it to the ground and try to start over. I fully agree with how we have identified the problem here. Kudos to your insights Aragorn and also to Dennis, more "purveyor of truth" than "fool on the hill" :clapping:. I’m just a little weary about talk of a complete overhaul of the political and electoral system; we all know how the latter worked out for the people under the Bolsheviks in the early 20th century....

[AutumnW]

If we did have a capitalist America it would look much more like the socioeconomic model Trump espouses in his populist rants, e.g. an expansion of manufacturing and production, fair competition, entrepreneurial laissez-faire markets and deregulation, etc. (again, for better or worse) and not the socioeconomic model David Rockefeller espouses, which describes a system rigged to the highest bidder. All said “Trump’s brand of capitalism” is also highly problematic, as Marx and Dickens point out, and I am not necessarily advocating for this economic model. I’m merely pointing out that people who do not discern the subtleties between Capitalism and Corporatism continually misbrand and misunderstand Trump.==TSmith

Aside from California, this is where blue collar manufacturing is going. And it is ramping up under Trump. This is textbook fascism.

Thanks to prison labor, the United States is once again an attractive location for investment in work that was designed for Third World labor markets. A company that operated a maquiladora (assembly plant in Mexico near the border) closed down its operations there and relocated to San Quentin State Prison in California. In Texas, a factory fired its 150 workers and contracted the services of prisoner-workers from the private Lockhart Texas prison, where circuit boards are assembled for companies like IBM and Compaq.

[Former] Oregon State Representative Kevin Mannix recently urged Nike to cut its production in Indonesia and bring it to his state, telling the shoe manufacturer that “there won’t be any transportation costs; we’re offering you competitive prison labor (here).”

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-industry-in-the-united-states-big-business-or-a-new-form-of-slavery/8289

[Dennis Leahy]

T,

The problem with attempting to differentiate a single corporation (the basic "unit" of capitalism since the 1800s) from the Global Corporate Network is the network.

Trump has his own corporate assets, but they are but a dot on the following 3D cloud chart:
https://images.newscientist.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/mg21228354.500-3_600.jpg
The study author's main emphasis is the interconnectedness of the corporations - a global network of corporations.

The red dots are "superconnected" corporations, and the yellow dots are "connected" corporations. This graphic represents the Global Corporate Network, that Trump and every other office-holder of high office is fed by. Not all of them have a dot (Trump's dot is probably pretty tiny), but they are all fed by this network. Even if Trump didn't have his own tiny dot, he would at best be shaking an empty fist at the Global Corporate Network (like Sanders does) while at the same time suckling on it.

Is Trump going after the "Deep State" or just the Democrats that "done him wrong?" (It appears to me that he has a right to be pissed off at the criminal actions of the DNC against him personally, the whole bull**** 'Russiagate' nonsense - especially within the reality of Israel's actual vector and degree of control over elections and US foreign policy. But it ain't actually the Deep State/oligarchs.)

Is Trump fighting the Deep State by imprisoning Assange - one of, if not 'thee', greatest threat to the Deep State? (Oh, I know, Q probably calls it 'protective custody.') Or fighting the Deep State by attacking Venezuela? Or attacking and occupying Syria? Or by shoveling taxpayer money to the military industrial complex corporations which are clearly one of the largest assets/moneymakers for the Global Corporate Network? Other than going after the Democrats (who are indeed controlled by the Deep State, as are the Republicans), just exactly what is Trump doing to end fascism, to end the control of the US government by the Deep State? I noted in a post of yours elsewhere, that you give Trump a pass on following the militarist imperialist agenda of the GCN/oligarchs/deep state, as if he could do nothing about the fact that he stepped into an ongoing agenda and is simply along for the ride. If the GCN has Trump too scared or impotent to do anything about the USA's greatest connection to and collaboration with the GCN (the US military and military industrial complex corporations), and too scared or impotent to do anything about the intelligence/security state, then why is he given something between a pass and hero worship?

Really, specific discussion of Trump or any other individual politician is off topic in this thread, and I am now guilty of doing it as well. We're never going to discuss the real issues if we keep falling back to discussing politicians rather than the oligarchs/GCN/deep state that controls those politicians. Trump is not the enemy, he is an asset of the enemy of the people of the USA and the world.

[AutumnW]

More on the same subject:

Executive Director of the Alliance for American Manufacturing, Scott Paul stated that "It's bad enough that our companies have to compete with exploited and forced labor in China. They shouldn't have to compete against prison labor here at home. The goal should be for other nations to aspire to the quality of life that Americans enjoy, not to discard our efforts through a downward competitive spiral."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labor_in_the_United_States

I would like someone, anyone, to explain to those participating on this forum how this phenomenon will change under either party, with the exception of true progressives who can somehow gain leverage over the single minded drive for profit. That is the essence of capitalism, be it corporate or otherwise. But capitalism, by its very nature will end up oligarchic or monopolistic.

[onawah]

From Caitlin Johnstone's latest entry, which explains why she is supportive of Sanders: "I’ve been writing for a long time about the possibility of a grassroots information rebellion in which ordinary people use new media in sufficient numbers to actually seize control of important dominant narratives, and, at least within the limited scope of Sanders’ presidential campaign, we’re seeing an actual model for what such an insurgency might look like. In their endless freeform improvisation on social media, Berners have demonstrated the ability to collectively send hashtags to the top of Twitter’s trending list like #ILikeBernie, #BloombergIsRacist and #WarrenIsASnake, and to meme top presidential campaigns like that of Kamala Harris completely out of existence.

Centrist elitists are fond of saying “Twitter isn’t real life”, meaning the dominant views you’ll see on social media aren’t necessarily reflective of the broader public, and of course that’s true. But clearly Twitter, like any other large and influential media platform, is able to help shape narratives which affect real life. The difference is that unlike other forms of billionaire-owned media, Twitter allows for the possibility of a grassroots campaign by the people to influence those narratives.

Even if you’re not a Sanders supporter I highly recommend keeping tabs on his online base, because it’s a force that is truly something to behold. And also because it sets an example of something that could change the world, if people could just figure out a way to expand their grassroots information rebellion beyond the scope of a single candidate’s presidential campaign.

And that’s the real reason the imperial narrative managers are so freaked out about it. Not because anyone is being “viciously attacked”, but because they understand that narrative control is power. The people collectively seizing control of the dominant narratives within the empire is the stuff of oligarchic nightmares, because whoever controls the narrative controls the world.

Power is the ability to control what happens. Absolute power is controlling what people think about what happens.Humans are story-oriented creatures, so if you can control the stories that the humans are telling about what’s going on, you can control those humans. Any adept manipulator understands this. So they understand that the people taking control of dominant narratives is a direct threat to their rule."
See more at:http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?106650-The-thread-of-Caitlin-Johnstone-s-words&p=1336055&viewfull=1#post1336055


Well, Daniel Lizst is getting too much "airtime" or "column inches" in this thread, for only being peripherally related to the thread's topic. There are a bunch of bullet points in the opening post that are on-topic, and the overview that US citizens have been locked out of the actual election process is on topic.

The report nicknamed the "Princeton Report" (which has been partially scrubbed from the Internet, last time I searched), states that US citizens have ZERO input in governance. The Democrat and Republican corporations not only completely run elections, but also pre-select all candidates that they, and the corporate mass media owned by the same oligarchs that control the "two" political parties, make those and only those candidates viable. Thus, all elections are rigged long before voting starts. The corporate duopoly hires its own replacements, which is why nothing ever really changes. These corporate-owned puppets are not in office to change anything, they are in office to protect the status quo. The status quo is murder, incorporated, on a global scale. These corporate-owned puppets feed the global death machine that the oligarchs have designed and that has become the number one industry of the USA. American citizens who are silent, or supporting the status quo, are complicit in imperialism and murder on a global scale, and are (whether they understanding it or not) supporting fascism. I don't give a rat's ass who the particular miscreants are that the Democrat corporation and the Republican corporation are putting on the ballot - that's not the point. The point is that they are all controlled by the oligarchs through their allegiance to the Global Corporate Network, which is fascism.

This topic isn't about Trump, Pelosi, Sanders, Biden, Pence, Gabbard, Clinton, Buttigeig, etc. That's all temporary. I'm discussing the bigger picture, that US citizens have no control over US elections which is why US citizens have zero control over "their" government. This topic is about the fact that the corporate overlords, the oligarchs, have created a global empire based on global dominance not just financially but by imperialist war. This Empire already is the new world order, so people can stop waiting for it to happen (and dedicate themselves to ending it.) There is also far too much emphasis placed on the president of the US (though, via misuse of the privilege of executive order, the office of the president has unconstitutionally usurped some of the authority of the legislative branch, Congress.) There are 535 corporate-supported henchmen of the oligarchs in the US Congress, and replacing all of them with citizens who represent citizens and are not connected to the oligarchs' Global Corporate Network is just as important as the presidency.

If anyone reading these words supports ANY of the miscreants in the US federal government, ANY Democrat or ANY Republican, they are ignorant - they are ignoring reality. Ignorance can be cured by facts (stupidity can't.) This topic is about whether each reader understands the current oligarch-controlled electoral and governance reality and supports it, or whether each reader understands the current oligarch-controlled electoral and governance reality and doesn't support it. For those in the latter group, I propose a citizen takeover of the entire election system, locking out the oligarchs' henchmen from office. I propose that the citizens of each country control their country's elections and thus control their own governance.

This topic also isn't about a new or different form of government, it is about citizens gaining control of the one that exists, and unplugging the oligarch control.

I was posting info from Dark Journalist because he was bringing to light a great example of current political moves designed to keep the oligarchy operating with the unity ticket Hail Mary, and advancing elite puppet Pete Buttigieg over Bernie Sanders, who has the best good grass roots base.

Johnstone's ideas are a compromise compared to what you propose, Dennis, but it's a step, at least...

But back to topic! :focus:

[AutumnW]

Just real quick, because I don't know if it's on topic. Socialism is not Communism. The oligarchs have worked double time to entrench their power through media with little tactics like never using the word Communist anymore, just referring to any system other than the Oligarchy as "Socialism."

I am not surprised Caitlin supports the Socialist, Sanders, Onawah. Thank you so much for posting that. I wasn't aware where she stood on the matter. A vote for Sanders is not a vote for collective farms, a grey stagnant life where upward mobility is impossible. It is a vote to somehow move a little closer to the European and Canadian economic model that supports universal health care for all--for starters.

Apologize for hijacking thread, a bit.:bigsmile:

Love to hear more from Aragorn. Really enjoying his posts!

[T Smith]

T,

The problem with attempting to differentiate a single corporation (the basic "unit" of capitalism since the 1800s) from the Global Corporate Network is the network.

Trump has his own corporate assets, but they are but a dot on the following 3D cloud chart:
https://images.newscientist.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/mg21228354.500-3_600.jpg
The study author's main emphasis is the interconnectedness of the corporations - a global network of corporations.

The red dots are "superconnected" corporations, and the yellow dots are "connected" corporations. This graphic represents the Global Corporate Network, that Trump and every other office-holder of high office is fed by. Not all of them have a dot (Trump's dot is probably pretty tiny), but they are all fed by this network. Even if Trump didn't have his own tiny dot, he would at best be shaking an empty fist at the Global Corporate Network (like Sanders does) while at the same time suckling on it.

Is Trump going after the "Deep State" or just the Democrats that "done him wrong?" (It appears to me that he has a right to be pissed off at the criminal actions of the DNC against him personally, the whole bull**** 'Russiagate' nonsense - especially within the reality of Israel's actual vector and degree of control over elections and US foreign policy. But it ain't actually the Deep State/oligarchs.)

Is Trump fighting the Deep State by imprisoning Assange - one of, if not 'thee', greatest threat to the Deep State? (Oh, I know, Q probably calls it 'protective custody.') Or fighting the Deep State by attacking Venezuela? Or attacking and occupying Syria? Or by shoveling taxpayer money to the military industrial complex corporations which are clearly one of the largest assets/moneymakers for the Global Corporate Network? Other than going after the Democrats (who are indeed controlled by the Deep State, as are the Republicans), just exactly what is Trump doing to end fascism, to end the control of the US government by the Deep State? I noted in a post of yours elsewhere, that you give Trump a pass on following the militarist imperialist agenda of the GCN/oligarchs/deep state, as if he could do nothing about the fact that he stepped into an ongoing agenda and is simply along for the ride. If the GCN has Trump too scared or impotent to do anything about the USA's greatest connection to and collaboration with the GCN (the US military and military industrial complex corporations), and too scared or impotent to do anything about the intelligence/security state, then why is he given something between a pass and hero worship?

Really, specific discussion of Trump or any other individual politician is off topic in this thread, and I am now guilty of doing it as well. We're never going to discuss the real issues if we keep falling back to discussing politicians rather than the oligarchs/GCN/deep state that controls those politicians. Trump is not the enemy, he is an asset of the enemy of the people of the USA and the world.

Perhaps I should come in at this from another angle. We are on the same page identifying the problem. However, I am not suggesting the "Deep State Corporatists" and the "Capitalist Populists" maintain mutually exclusive interests.

https://s16-us2.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https:%2F%2Fi2.wp.com%2Fc1.staticflickr.com%2F3%2F2842%2F33913950390_05e9297204_o.jpg %3Fresize%3D625%252C354%26ssl%3D1&sp=e1c8c59e05a5e64d9cfdfd23431ce1af.

Let's just say, for sake of illustration the "Deep State" represents the Kings in the image above and "Trumpism" represents the Hearts... They both don't give a damn about the Endangered Species Act or Juiian Assange. Trump is rogue and has foolishly (and arbitrarily) followed some policy advice from his neo-con advisors, while at times he has agitated the very same advisors by ignoring similarly-delivered advise. On these matters there is no consistency in this Administration, which suggests to me a situation just the oppose of being controlled. In other words, being manipulated and/or cajoled by said interests is not the same as being controlled by said interests. On these issues, among others, we may refer to the King of Hearts in the image... Anyway, you get the gist.

All this really has nothing to do with the Democrats; they just so happen to be the most vocal political mouthpiece of the Kings at the moment (I would also point out that it was not too long ago that both Democrats and Republicans were firmly in this Deep State bloc. Both parties adamantly opposed Trump, we sometimes forget, until Trump hijacked, co-opted, and essentially commandeered the latter political party, essentially bending it to his will).

In sum, I am not refuting the problem. What I am refuting is the notion of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss, puppet of said problem..." That's not what is going on, in my estimation. We can avoid talk about specific politicians if it serves the topic best, but in my view The GCN/Deep State bloc does not control DJT.... there is something much more complicated going on here. If we can't continue our discussion on this premise it won't serve our mutual understanding of the problem, in my humble estimation.

Of course we can agree to disagree on this point if you judge I am mistaken. And I am of course open to your arguments. What seems clear to me, however, is Trump’s regulatory reforms and anti-corporatist policies favor the Hearts (save for the King of Hearts), e.g. the small businesses and a brand of throw-back capitalism counter to corporatist interests, whereas the yellow-dotted corporations in your model are best positioned for a regulated global economy, unlimited immigration, and unencumbered foreign access to U.S. markets.

Perhaps most unsettling of all for those who oppose the current Adminstration is not the idea that the GCN/deep State is controlling Trump, but the notion that it is not controlling the current Administration...

[Praxis]

T,

The problem with attempting to differentiate a single corporation (the basic "unit" of capitalism since the 1800s) from the Global Corporate Network is the network.

Trump has his own corporate assets, but they are but a dot on the following 3D cloud chart:
https://images.newscientist.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/mg21228354.500-3_600.jpg
The study author's main emphasis is the interconnectedness of the corporations - a global network of corporations.

The red dots are "superconnected" corporations, and the yellow dots are "connected" corporations. This graphic represents the Global Corporate Network, that Trump and every other office-holder of high office is fed by. Not all of them have a dot (Trump's dot is probably pretty tiny), but they are all fed by this network. Even if Trump didn't have his own tiny dot, he would at best be shaking an empty fist at the Global Corporate Network (like Sanders does) while at the same time suckling on it.

Is Trump going after the "Deep State" or just the Democrats that "done him wrong?" (It appears to me that he has a right to be pissed off at the criminal actions of the DNC against him personally, the whole bull**** 'Russiagate' nonsense - especially within the reality of Israel's actual vector and degree of control over elections and US foreign policy. But it ain't actually the Deep State/oligarchs.)

Is Trump fighting the Deep State by imprisoning Assange - one of, if not 'thee', greatest threat to the Deep State? (Oh, I know, Q probably calls it 'protective custody.') Or fighting the Deep State by attacking Venezuela? Or attacking and occupying Syria? Or by shoveling taxpayer money to the military industrial complex corporations which are clearly one of the largest assets/moneymakers for the Global Corporate Network? Other than going after the Democrats (who are indeed controlled by the Deep State, as are the Republicans), just exactly what is Trump doing to end fascism, to end the control of the US government by the Deep State? I noted in a post of yours elsewhere, that you give Trump a pass on following the militarist imperialist agenda of the GCN/oligarchs/deep state, as if he could do nothing about the fact that he stepped into an ongoing agenda and is simply along for the ride. If the GCN has Trump too scared or impotent to do anything about the USA's greatest connection to and collaboration with the GCN (the US military and military industrial complex corporations), and too scared or impotent to do anything about the intelligence/security state, then why is he given something between a pass and hero worship?

Really, specific discussion of Trump or any other individual politician is off topic in this thread, and I am now guilty of doing it as well. We're never going to discuss the real issues if we keep falling back to discussing politicians rather than the oligarchs/GCN/deep state that controls those politicians. Trump is not the enemy, he is an asset of the enemy of the people of the USA and the world.

Perhaps I should come in at this from another angle. We are on the same page identifying the problem. However, I am not suggesting the "Deep State Corporatists" and the "Capitalist Populists" maintain mutually exclusive interests.

https://s16-us2.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https:%2F%2Fi2.wp.com%2Fc1.staticflickr.com%2F3%2F2842%2F33913950390_05e9297204_o.jpg %3Fresize%3D625%252C354%26ssl%3D1&sp=e1c8c59e05a5e64d9cfdfd23431ce1af.

Let's just say, for sake of illustration the "Deep State" represents the Kings in the image above and "Trumpism" represents the Hearts... They both don't give a damn about the Endangered Species Act or Juiian Assange. Trump is rogue and has foolishly (and arbitrarily) followed some policy advice from his neo-con advisors, while at times he has agitated the very same advisors by ignoring similarly-delivered advise. On these matters there is no consistency in this Administration, which suggests to me a situation just the oppose of being controlled. In other words, being manipulated and/or cajoled by said interests is not the same as being controlled by said interests. On these issues, among others, we may refer to the King of Hearts in the image... Anyway, you get the gist.

All this really has nothing to do with the Democrats; they just so happen to be the most vocal political mouthpiece of the Kings at the moment (I would also point out that it was not too long ago that both Democrats and Republicans were firmly in this Deep State bloc. Both parties adamantly opposed Trump, we sometimes forget, until Trump hijacked, co-opted, and essentially commandeered the latter political party, essentially bending it to his will).

In sum, I am not refuting the problem. What I am refuting is the notion of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss, puppet of said problem..." That's not what is going on, in my estimation. We can avoid talk about specific politicians if it serves the topic best, but in my view The GCN/Deep State bloc does not control DJT.... there is something much more complicated going on here. If we can't continue our discussion on this premise it won't serve our mutual understanding of the problem, in my humble estimation.

Of course we can agree to disagree on this point if you judge I am mistaken. And I am of course open to your arguments. What seems clear to me, however, is Trump’s regulatory reforms and anti-corporatist policies favor the Hearts (save for the King of Hearts), e.g. the small businesses and a brand of throw-back capitalism counter to corporatist interests, whereas the yellow-dotted corporations in your model are best positioned for a regulated global economy, unlimited immigration, and unencumbered foreign access to U.S. markets.

Perhaps most unsettling of all for those who oppose the current Adminstration is not the idea that the GCN/deep State is controlling Trump, but the notion that it is not controlling the current Administration...

You are praising a con man that is conning you just because he is not conning you for the wrong people.

For those paying attention to policies, we are watching the same thing again and again and again.

[T Smith]

Perhaps I should come in at this from another angle. We are on the same page identifying the problem. However, I am not suggesting the "Deep State Corporatists" and the "Capitalist Populists" maintain mutually exclusive interests.

https://s16-us2.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https:%2F%2Fi2.wp.com%2Fc1.staticflickr.com%2F3%2F2842%2F33913950390_05e9297204_o.jpg %3Fresize%3D625%252C354%26ssl%3D1&sp=e1c8c59e05a5e64d9cfdfd23431ce1af.

Let's just say, for sake of illustration the "Deep State" represents the Kings in the image above and "Trumpism" represents the Hearts... They both don't give a damn about the Endangered Species Act or Juiian Assange. Trump is rogue and has foolishly (and arbitrarily) followed some policy advice from his neo-con advisors, while at times he has agitated the very same advisors by ignoring similarly-delivered advise. On these matters there is no consistency in this Administration, which suggests to me a situation just the oppose of being controlled. In other words, being manipulated and/or cajoled by said interests is not the same as being controlled by said interests. On these issues, among others, we may refer to the King of Hearts in the image... Anyway, you get the gist.

All this really has nothing to do with the Democrats; they just so happen to be the most vocal political mouthpiece of the Kings at the moment (I would also point out that it was not too long ago that both Democrats and Republicans were firmly in this Deep State bloc. Both parties adamantly opposed Trump, we sometimes forget, until Trump hijacked, co-opted, and essentially commandeered the latter political party, essentially bending it to his will).

In sum, I am not refuting the problem. What I am refuting is the notion of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss, puppet of said problem..." That's not what is going on, in my estimation. We can avoid talk about specific politicians if it serves the topic best, but in my view The GCN/Deep State bloc does not control DJT.... there is something much more complicated going on here. If we can't continue our discussion on this premise it won't serve our mutual understanding of the problem, in my humble estimation.

Of course we can agree to disagree on this point if you judge I am mistaken. And I am of course open to your arguments. What seems clear to me, however, is Trump’s regulatory reforms and anti-corporatist policies favor the Hearts (save for the King of Hearts), e.g. the small businesses and a brand of throw-back capitalism counter to corporatist interests, whereas the yellow-dotted corporations in your model are best positioned for a regulated global economy, unlimited immigration, and unencumbered foreign access to U.S. markets.

Perhaps most unsettling of all for those who oppose the current Adminstration is not the idea that the GCN/deep State is controlling Trump, but the notion that it is not controlling the current Administration...

You are praising a con man that is conning you just because he is not conning you for the wrong people.

For those paying attention to policies, we are watching the same thing again and again and again.

I'm not sure what part of my post appears to you as if it is praising, but regardless, I think you have may have misunderstood my post if that is how you infer what I am saying.

[onawah]

Society Is Too Complicated to Have a President, Complex Mathematics Suggest
By Jason Koebler
Nov 7 2016
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wnxbm5/society-is-too-complicated-to-have-a-president-complex-mathematics-suggest

(From a few years ago, but still descriptive of the basic problem.)


Society Is Too Complicated to Have a President, Complex Mathematics Suggest

"We’ve become fundamentally confused about what the decisions are, and what their consequences are. Roughly two-thirds of Americans believe the country is going in the "wrong direction," and Tuesday the country will vote for two of the least popular presidential candidates of all time. Both the left and the right say that the United States' government is ineffective.

One potential reason for this? Human society is simply too complex for representative democracy to work. The United States probably shouldn't have a president at all, according to an analysis by mathematicians at the New England Complex Systems Institute.

NECSI is a research organization that uses math cribbed from the study of physical and chemical systems—bear with me for a moment—and newly available giant data sets to explain how events in one part of the world might affect something seemingly unrelated in another part of the world.

Most famously, the institute's director, Yaneer Bar-Yam, predicted the Arab Spring several weeks before it happened. He found that seemingly unrelated policy decisions—ethanol subsidies in the US and the deregulation of commodity markets worldwide—led to skyrocketing food prices in 2008 and 2011. It turns out that there is a very neat correlation between the United Nations food price index and unrest and rioting worldwide that no one but Bar-Yam had picked up.

https://motherboard-images.vice.com/content-images/contentimage/no-id/1478559705546464.png

The countries listed are where food-related rioting occurred. Numbers in parentheses are number of deaths related to the violence.


When considering our system of government, the link between these policies and unexpected global violence is an illustrative but hardly unique one: Bar-Yam was able to describe these cause-and-effect relationships in detail because he looking at very specific inputs and very specific outputs. He was zooming in on specific parts of the "system" that is human civilization in an attempt to explain one small but important part of the world.

It is absurd, then, to believe that the concentration of power in one or a few individuals at the top of a hierarchical representative democracy will be able to make optimal decisions on a vast array of connected and complex issues that will certainly have sweeping and unintended ramifications on other parts of human civilization.

"There's a natural process of increasing complexity in the world," Bar-Yam told me. "And we can recognize that at some point, that increase in complexity is going to run into the complexity of the individual. And at that point, hierarchical organizations will fail."

"We were raised to believe that democracy, and even the democracy that we have, is a system that has somehow inherent good to it," he added. But it's not just democracy that fails. "Hierarchical organizations are failing in the response to decision-making challenges. And this is true whether we're talking about dictatorships, or communism that had very centralized control processes, and for representative democracies today. Representative democracies still focus power in one or few individuals. And that concentration of control and decision-making makes those systems ineffective."

The 'Complexity' of Human Society

https://motherboard-images.vice.com/content-images/contentimage/39320/1478615396637907.png

Society has been increasing in complexity since the beginning of human civilization.


This idea of a quantifiable, measurable "complexity," refers to the difficulty of describing what the hell is going on in a system. And Bar-Yam says that human society is just like every other system.

An individual human is made up of atoms, which make up cells, which make up organs, and so on. Describing the behavior of each individual atom is incredibly difficult; describing the behavior of organs is less difficult, and it's trivially easy to tell you that my organs are doing something inside me right now to allow me to type on a computer right now. Collective behaviors are inherently more "simple" than individual ones, in other words. Describing the behavior of atoms is more complex than describing the collective behavior of the many atoms that make up a human being.

This analogy extends to humans living in society. Predicting the specific behavior of a car factory worker in his day to day life is much harder than predicting that he and a collective of other people will produce cars at the factory.

"In human organizations, coordination occurs because individuals influence each other's' behavior," Bar-Yam wrote in a paper explaining this hypothesis. "A control hierarchy is designed to enable a single individual to control the collective behavior."

Governance, then, is an attempt to organize the behavior of many individually complex humans (like the atoms above) into something simpler and more coherent.

"During the time of ancient empires, large-scale human systems executed relatively simple behaviors, and individuals performed relatively simple individual tasks that were repeated by many individuals over time to have a large scale effect," he added.

https://motherboard-images.vice.com/content-images/contentimage/no-id/1478560046125146.png

C-individual is the point at which one person cannot effectively make decisions. Representative democracies are not strict hierarchies, however they still centralize power in a few individuals (the "hybrid" model). Bar-Yam suggests society will need to move toward a more team-minded decision making process to cope with the complexity of human society.


The relatively simple nature of the world at the time allowed one single person to be a master of all aspects of governance, in other words. The collective behavior of the whole of a city, town, or empire in early society was easily describable, because everyone was doing more or less the same thing.

The issue here is that the sheer scale and interdependence of society has vastly increased since the days of ancient empires, increasing the overall complexity of society. To take this back to the biological analogy, it is as if society itself has evolved from being a very simple organism, such as a microbe to something much more complex, like a human (in all likelihood society will get much more complex—maybe a better analogy is something like a jellyfish right now). This is what you would expect—physics theory suggests that all systems increase in complexity over time.

"We've become fundamentally confused about what the decisions are, and what their consequences are. And we can't make a connection between them"

Technological advances during the industrial revolution allowed the automation of menial tasks and diversified the number of tasks human beings could perform. The industrial revolution led to advances in transportation and shipping that connected disparate parts of the world, and the internet, computers, and smartphones, of course, have served to intermingle nearly every corner of the world.

"Human society" is now one gigantic, incredibly complex system or organism rather than many smaller, isolated, and simpler ones.

This is how you end up with ethanol policies signed in America in the the late 1990s leading to widespread global unrest decades later. There are, of course, an unknowable number of decisions and events that have untold and difficult-to-predict effects on disparate parts of the world.

Complexity and the presidency

https://motherboard-images.vice.com/content-images/contentimage/no-id/1478560179754430.png

The complexity of our governance system needs to stay on the good side of the "survive/fail" line



A framework put forward by cybernetics pioneer Ross Ashby in the 1950s that served as the underlying basis for Bar-Yam's work suggests that organizations will begin to fail if the demands placed upon it exceed the complexity of the governance structure of that organization. When that governance structure concentrates power in one or a few people at the top, that means the demands placed on the structure can't be any more complex than one person can handle.

In the case of a representative democracy, we are expecting a president—aided by advisors and Congress, of course—to ultimately make decisions in an environment that is far too complicated for any one person. Democracy as we know it is failing.

"We cannot expect one individual to know how to respond to the challenges of the world today," Bar-Yam said. "So whether we talk about one candidate or another, the Democrats or Republicans, Clinton versus Trump. The real question ultimately is, will we be able to change the system?"

"We've become fundamentally confused about what the decisions are, and what their consequences are. And we can't make a connection between them," he added. "And that's true about everybody, as well as about the decision-makers, the policymaker. They don't know what the effects will be of the decisions that they're making."

Bar-Yam proposes a more laterally-organized system of governance in which tons of small teams specialize in certain policies, and then those teams work together to ultimately make decisions.

"We end up with people who will say, 'I will do this, and things will be better.' And another person who will say, 'I will do this. And things will do better.' And we can't tell," he said. "Right now the danger is that we will choose strategies that will really cause a lot of destruction, before we've created the ability to make better decisions."

When you vote Tuesday, don't vote for blowing up the system—Bar-Yam advocates for a gradual move to more lateral governance structures. But know that the person you're voting for will certainly be in over their head."

[Dennis Leahy]

T, I think you and I are probably not that far apart in our understanding, and I don't feel the need to attempt to convert you on the rest (and think you're saying the same to me.)

I observe that US high office politicians, and especially the president, are not literal marionettes, micro-managed by their oligarch bosses. The deep state overlords don't give a crap about what they would see as low level stuff. Trump's servitude to Israel and abandonment of Palestinians, for example. That's Trump (with Adelson and AIPAC in his ear), but that's Trump's own sociopathy showing. The deep state/oligarch overlords, the New World Mafia Dons, primarily just need whichever liar-in-chief that the Democrats or Republicans can install in office to be obedient to the oligarch's grand agenda.

If there were billions or trillions of dollars to be skimmed off the top of an agenda of literally saving the Palestinians from Israeli slow-motion genocide, reigning-in Israel's power, and removing Israel from occupying Palestine, then the sitting president would not be allowed to throw a monkeywrench into the oligarch's agenda, and Trump would not have been allowed to help the Israeli's continue to steal Palestine and genocide the Palestinians. I think the racism aimed at Mexicans and Arabs by Trump is actually from Trump - again, if it doesn't really significantly affect the "take" of the Big Mobsters, they don't care (in fact, it helps them hide in the shadows where only a conspiracy nut would blame the oligarchs.)

But, if Trump actually did something to reduce the flow of money into the oligarch's pockets, if he tried to thwart their master plan/agenda, well... not to worry, Trump supporters (or Obama supporters, or Bush supporters, or Clinton supporters, or Bush supporters...) it isn't going to happen. The message of who actually calls the shots on big issues was sent loud and clear on Nov 22, '63.

I believe that you are wrong about Trump fighting (or even really believing that he is fighting) the Deep State/oligarchs that he is fully enmeshed with (see diagram above.) The bigger picture that there really is a fully visible Global Corporate Network that is the host organism for both of the US political parties and their politicians, and that not only do US citizens have no control over these politicians, but also have no control over electing them or replacing them. Being in US high-office is nothing but mid management/crowd control to the oligarchs.

On deregulation of corporations, you have to think like a capitalist (C corporate charters meet DMS IV definition of sociopath) to think that deregulation is "good." Of course it's good for the corporation's profits to remove environmental safeguards (most of what "deregulation" is), but loosening environmental safeguards is obviously bad for the environment and all life forms. Deregulation of corporations isn't heroic, it's anti-citizen and anti-environment. Deregulation of citizens would be heroic.

[Dennis Leahy]

Onawah, that's an interesting concept. It isn't going to happen, but it reminds me of some thoughts I have had that the US presidency should not be one individual, but rather at least three.

Flashback to 1971, with Class of '72 student body elections at my high school. John Schultz was just too cool, the white-skinned conduit for Motown music, smart, athletic, good looking, with a very likeable personality, confidence, and warm smile. How in the hell to defeat this guy, running for class president... Then it came to me. I got 4 other seniors to join me on the ticket, and we won. So, rather than a class president, there were 5 class co-presidents at my high school my senior year. I admit that was a strategy to beat the probable winner, but also knew it would both divide the labor and provide a whole lot more ideas. We got a lot done (including creating a student lounge, and starting an intramural sports program), but more importantly, the reality of 5 co-presidents limited any one person's power, prevented autocracy, guaranteed cooperation, and reduced expressed egos.

Corporations have a CEO, but the CEO's job can be terminated by the board of directors, if the CEO is going against the wishes of the board. So, a CEO is not a "king." A lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is maybe even closer to a king's coronation than the US presidency's possible 8 year stint, but the US presidency gives far too much power to one person.

Obviously, 3 or 5 or 7 sociopathic co-presidents is not much of a solution, but - years after the successful takeover of the election system by citizens, ensuring that candidates cannot be connected to the Global Corporate Network (which will still exist, it just won't be fascistically controlling government) - I'd present the possibility of changing the constitution to have multiple co-presidents. (I'd say 3 - maybe the top 3 in the vote count, rather than a pre-assembled team.) I realize that the current system, with a vice-president and cabinet, is supposed to ensure that the president sees multiple sides of issues and buffers the president from making stupid or misinformed decisions, but it appears to be a vestigial mechanism to me. We have 9 supreme court justices to make important top-tier legal decisions (but of course in the present system, they were all appointed by corporate duopoly partisans, D and R) - why would we want just one person making presidential executive decisions?

[ExomatrixTV]

Bernie Sanders: What You're Not Being Told — With Larken Rose:
i-dPvFr8kl0
Larken Rose (http://youtube.com/LarkenRose)

[onawah]

That sums it up nicely! :thumbsup:

[B]Bernie Sanders: What You're Not Being Told — With Larken Rose

[Dennis Leahy]

Larken Rose's state of the union would probably be similar to a few of my bullet points describing the current reality (he gets that Bernie is just another puppet of Empire, gets that the Democrats and Republicans are Kabuki theater, and that mobsters control the US government), but his recommendations for what to do about it are completely different than mine.

I think he doesn't understand that a society made up of millions of individuals operating collectively isn't going to ever be able to morph into millions of totally independent, autonomous, totally self sufficient ranchers/homesteaders with zero public infrastructure - even less infrastructure than Amish or Quakers. Maybe his vision could work for a small cluster of already rich and already skilled and vibrantly healthy young ranchers, but it can't scale up to millions of people of all ages and degrees of physical capability. It's kind of a ridiculous fairy tale to preach that it could, and quite frankly, the "EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF!" mindset is based on selfishness, not love and compassion, so it fails my sniff test as an ideology. His main bullet point is that government should not exist because it requires taxation to run and that all taxation is a gun-to-the-head threat if you don't pay up. It's a clever talking point - who's going to argue that they want a gun to their head?

(I do agree that some - even most - taxation should be ended, such as property tax.)

I know one guy (he's a member of this forum, and a dear brother) that actually lives off-grid, way back in the woods, a long drive on a 4-wheel drive gravel road that he has to repair or his car would get stuck in the ruts from the last rainstorm. He built his house and other buildings on the property, with his hands. A long hose to a pond at a slightly higher elevation than his house provides the running water in his kitchen sink. He hauls drinking water from a well at a state park 10 miles away, and showers there. No flush toilet and a wood burning stove that he has to go out and chop wood to feed. Etc., etc., etc. I visited him (full of romantic notions that I too could live the off-grid life) and was disabused of my notions. I honestly don't personally know anyone else who could actually live the life. It's much tougher than most people imagine. He himself could not have created a homestead when he was young (nor would he have had the money to buy land, and building materials), and at my age, couldn't start over and do it again.

So, it is something only an extremely determined, strong, healthy person - maybe 20 to 50 years old - with a previously-earned "grub stake" could have ever pulled off. What percentage of society does that describe? I'd guess less than 5%, and I may be being generous. So, Larken, are you OK with the fact that 95% of individuals would perish, you know, 'survival of the fittest?' And being willing to look the other way is sociopathy, to have your vision become reality. Is this Darwinian sociopathy really better than the oligarch's sociopathy? Hey, they just want things their own way too, right? Wanting your own self-sufficient ranch, with no public infrastructure (oh those roads and bridges that Larken says anyone could build and maintain, with volunteers) is great. Assuming that everyone else would want that (or could actually do it) is a big blind spot. Reading Larken and thinking that he has a cogent plan is like reading the Tao te Ching and thinking that everyone could be a "man of Tao." Unicorn poop.

There is also no pathway to go from the current reality to anarchy, and the repeated meme from anarchists is that the path is waiting for the complete collapse of the Western world - not much of a game plan if you ask me.

[onawah]

Not much of a game plan, but not that unlikely either, unfortunately, or at least, not completely....



There is also no pathway to go from the current reality to anarchy, and the repeated meme from anarchists is that the path is waiting for the complete collapse of the Western world - not much of a game plan if you ask me.

[Dennis Leahy]

Not much of a game plan, but not that unlikely either, unfortunately, or at least, not completely....



There is also no pathway to go from the current reality to anarchy, and the repeated meme from anarchists is that the path is waiting for the complete collapse of the Western world - not much of a game plan if you ask me.
Actually, a meltdown of "Western civilization" would leave all of the global ruling class relatively intact, at least the ones that have personal fortresses, stockpiled gold, ammunition, and food. They would be the only ones with the means (and will) to hire mercenaries (paid in gold, water, and food, and allowed the protection of the fortress) to protect them and their fortress. The rest of us would indeed be living in anarchy (no governmental control.) Once the initial phase of murdering anyone who dared approach the fortress was complete, and when supplies started to run low, the mercenaries would become raiding parties, stealing food from the peasantry, possibly taking a few strong slaves to do farm labor and a few women and children to rape. If Larken's ranch was far enough away from the ruling class' fortresses and raiding parties, he would only need to contend with scores of have-not peasants coming to take his food. A meltdown of Western civilization is not the panacea it is made out to be.