PDA

View Full Version : How Capitalism will Destroy the World



Ewan
8th December 2020, 19:48
For the longest time, perhaps some 15 years now, I've had a thought in the back of my mind to write a book called....

How Capitalism Will Destroy The World

I've obviously thought about this a great deal over the years but have never even begun to type a word, just many, many thoughts upon the subject. My reticence for writing is simply that I have zero qualifications to write such a book and even if I did a sterling job of research, collating and presentation it would be dismissed by the majority of 'listened to' experts because it would be too disturbing to contemplate in its entirety. It would literally require a worldwide overhaul of thinking, something that could actually be accomplished in just one generation as a particular chapter of the book would have outlined - but would never succeed as our current GC's would never allow such a thing to happen.

So what's the point in even writing it. Humanity, as a whole, has no interest in being saved. Sad but true. I believe the planet, as is, is a baptism of fire to promote spiritual growth, and the small pay-off, (percentage-wise of rapid awakening,) is worth the cost. What reason/cause for (spiritual) growth if we live in comfort and bliss wanting for nothing?

Why did I post this here, in The Depopulation Plan thread? The last chapter of the book would have been a description how the future would actually look in a capitalist free world. In that chapter I explained that the human population would almost certainly stabilise at around 8 billion, fluctuating between 7.5 and 8.5 over the decades with 96% of beings very content with life.

That is not why we are here, in 3-dimensional form, it is not where we belong. Bliss cannot be found in circumstances, only in the mind, and mind is not to be confined to such a 3-dimensional existence.

I'm not sure, ultimately, how that helps humanities real intention of awakening, so the book will never be written.

Bill Ryan
8th December 2020, 20:32
For the longest time, perhaps some 15 years now, I've had a thought in the back of my mind to write a book called....

How Capitalism Will Destroy The World

Yes, we should have a Capitalism thread as well. :thumbsup:

Here's the problem. For the last 200,000 years (and maybe much longer), people anatomically identical to modern humans have been working incredibly hard from dawn to dusk to improve their levels of comfort and chances of survival. It was even a Darwinian survival characteristic: a lazy caveman was unlikely to do very well back then. :)

But now the simple equation of work harder = do better has become corrupted. There's a nasty bug in the system.

Greed, often accompanied by sometimes insatiable hunger for power and control, has entered the equation. I doubt our hunter-gatherer ancestors had to cope with very much of that. (A greedy caveman would quickly be punished by his or her companions.)

So what's needed are ways of decoupling greed, and the selfish (or psychopathic) desire to diminish others, from capitalism. This does connect with the population question, because it's psychopathic greed that impacts the environment and all living things the most, and also (to a great extent) keeps the poorest and weakest in the world in their place.

It's capitalism that has allowed all that to flourish — like a pandemic of its own.

panpravda
10th December 2020, 17:37
Ewan ... I'd respectfully encourage you to think again about writing your book. I'll explain below why I say that ...


For the longest time, perhaps some 15 years now, I've had a thought in the back of my mind to write a book called....

How Capitalism Will Destroy The World

I've obviously thought about this a great deal over the years but have never even begun to type a word, just many, many thoughts upon the subject. My reticence for writing is simply that I have zero qualifications to write such a book and even if I did a sterling job of research, collating and presentation it would be dismissed by the majority of 'listened to' experts because it would be too disturbing to contemplate in its entirety. It would literally require a worldwide overhaul of thinking, something that could actually be accomplished in just one generation as a particular chapter of the book would have outlined - but would never succeed as our current GC's would never allow such a thing to happen.

I also had no qualifications to write the book that I did after many years of what might be called my attendance at the Layman's University, studying the particular subject I eventually wrote about.

My energies back then when I began to see clearly the mistakes and misinterpretations that had been made within theoretical science, as it relates to how our universe actually works, were such that I felt that I simply had no option but to dedicate my time to ensure that for laypeople like myself who are not schooled as part of their earlier life in the basics of physics and cosmology, there would at least exist something of a translation from the often obfuscated language worlds of theoretical cosmology and physics that stood a chance of being understood and appreciated by others.

This reply to you is not about my book, but ... the controversial subject of how our universe really works has been and remains very important to me, for it is not the story we have been given for many decades by mainstream science. The reasons for this are close to the same reasons you touch on in your own post; i.e. the explanation for this is too big and will never be taken seriously. That, however, didn't stop me.

I do sympathise, but if you feel in your soul that you are meant to *tell things as you see them*, then please do that, for there is something of an invisible nature (a spiritual companion if you like) that helps us operate beyond the impression of such things as *qualifications are required* that is there to guide us when are truly motivated do what we feel in our hearts is the right thing to do.

I remember the day very clearly in 2010 when I decided to begin putting fingers to keyboard on my book ... I sat down that morning and never left my chair in front of my computer till around 30,000 words had been typed ... now, this was not only me doing that ... I swear I had help.

Tom.

Constance
11th December 2020, 06:55
fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

Ewan
21st December 2020, 08:36
Here's the problem. For the last 200,000 years (and maybe much longer), people anatomically identical to modern humans have been working incredibly hard from dawn to dusk to improve their levels of comfort and chances of survival. It was even a Darwinian survival characteristic: a lazy caveman was unlikely to do very well back then. :)

But now the simple equation of work harder = do better has become corrupted. There's a nasty bug in the system.

Greed, often accompanied by sometimes insatiable hunger for power and control, has entered the equation. I doubt our hunter-gatherer ancestors had to cope with very much of that. (A greedy caveman would quickly be punished by his or her companions.)

So what's needed are ways of decoupling greed, and the selfish (or psychopathic) desire to diminish others, from capitalism. This does connect with the population question, because it's psychopathic greed that impacts the environment and all living things the most, and also (to a great extent) keeps the poorest and weakest in the world in their place.

It's capitalism that has allowed all that to flourish — like a pandemic of its own.

I don't think our ancestors thought of it as work, it was just life and they were living it. It would have had many peaceful, idyllic moments interspersed among the hunting and gathering.

Where work came into being, and perhaps the moment the capitalism bug entered the system, was the Agricultural Revolution. Now they really did have to work hard, ploughing, tilling, watering, winnowing. Praying for rain, for no insects, no rats in the barns. And the goatherders, they had to watch their flocks all day to protect from predators. That's more like a prison sentence compared to the freedom they'd had as hunter/gatherers.

Meanwhile actual hunter gatherers would look on in bewilderment at what these crazy people were doing as they, themselves, were forced into smaller and smaller areas. More and more land needed for crops, livestock, building. Population would flourish in such times as successful harvests* and the consequences meant more resources were needed to feed and house such expansions.

It was also here that trades entered the equation. Bakers, millers, leatherworkers and tanners, carpenters etc and as wealth began to accumulate, assuming they'd avoided drought and plague, a new class emerged, poets and artists, songsters and entertainers. Alongside all that came fledgling bankers in the shape of exchange markets and moneylenders. A wealthy elite was mere generations away.

The toilers still toiled though, they'd given up their freedom in exchange for what looked like a potentially easier more secure way of living. It wasn't, not for them. Now they truly did work from dawn to dusk, much the same as farmers today, seven days a week.

But some part of humanity found the conditions very acceptable. The greedy caveman had found a way to survive very well indeed.

Edit:
* An interesting fact about humanities population expansion during the various Agricultural Revolutions around the world..

https://vividmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Agriculture-768x467.jpg

..our diet became much less nutritional and..

Studies of ancient skeletons indicate that the transition to agriculture brought about a plethora of ailments, such as slipped discs, arthritis and hernias.

Source: Sapiens A Brief History of Humankind

lunaflare
21st December 2020, 09:36
I'd say everyone on this forum reaps the benefits of Capitalism; tinkering on your technological device, brought to you from a creative and entrepreneurial human mind, for a start.
Any system (or "ISM") created by humans, has the potentiality to better serve or not. Is the glass half empty or half full? If supply and demand becomes a formula that better serves the Earth (and therefore all creatures)...then great.

At this point in time there is a growing demand for organic foods, cruelty-free products, cleaner energy (not coal, but solar and wind), farmers' markets, recycling waste products, preserving forests, rivers and oceans; sanitation plants for cleaner air, water...
It is humans that make choices and create positive change; free will is needed to be able to do this.
So if you wanted to write a book, maybe a more honest title would be,
How Humans Will Destroy the World.

Ewan
11th February 2021, 22:39
I'd say everyone on this forum reaps the benefits of Capitalism; tinkering on your technological device, brought to you from a creative and entrepreneurial human mind, for a start.
Any system (or "ISM") created by humans, has the potentiality to better serve or not. Is the glass half empty or half full? If supply and demand becomes a formula that better serves the Earth (and therefore all creatures)...then great.

At this point in time there is a growing demand for organic foods, cruelty-free products, cleaner energy (not coal, but solar and wind), farmers' markets, recycling waste products, preserving forests, rivers and oceans; sanitation plants for cleaner air, water...
It is humans that make choices and create positive change; free will is needed to be able to do this.
So if you wanted to write a book, maybe a more honest title would be,
How Humans Will Destroy the World.

Creative minds exist whether Capitalism does or doesn't. The Soviets had some of the best creative minds at work on Vostok I when Yuri Gargarin became the first man to complete an earth orbit in 1961. Profit was not the goal. A creative mind does not have to be entrepreneurial and would probably be more effective when financial returns were never considered. Supply and demand is part and parcel of economics in today's world and is ever so easy to manipulate, free will is manipulated on a daily basis at this level through marketing and misinformation.

I agree there is increasing demand for organic foods, cleaner air, alternative power etc. It is still a small percentage of people though (most don't give it a second thought) and unfortuantely all the solutions are severely hampered by the need for profit. This is a simple enough thing to understand. No-one will be effective or efficient in any of the preceding ventures as long as profit is the primary goal of any venture.

Humans, given an appropriate education would never destroy the world. Contrary to the common premise of a mad, mad world humans are not insane. Undoubtedly a few of them are and unfortunately many of those are in high position amassing wealth in an insane Capitalist world. Those people do not actually care for money per se, they care for what money gives them. Power.

Capitalism is an insane premise, there can be no argument about that once one thinks it through to an inevitable conclusion. No system can be maintained on perpetual growth as resources are finite. There may be an argument raised if everything ever manufactured could be recycled effectively and re-used indefinitely. It seems unlikely to reach such a point as long as profit is the goal.

Earlier in the thread I pointed out how Capitalism began with the advent of the various Agricultural Revolutions that took place in the world at different times. In actual fact the roots of Capitalism began the moment human beings attached value to a thing. Shells, dyes and stones have all been used as bartering exchange commodites. Some individuals would have certainly capitalised on this. If I can travel three days to the coast and pick up shells from beaches then travel a further five days in the opposite direction to barter for things that previously I had to work quite hard to acquire then it seems an easier (dare I say more profitable?) solution.

Avarice is not a sin, it is just naive. Enlightened humans would not even entertain the idea of Capitalism, it is utter madness leading to every inequality you can think of and ending in disaster*.

* Literally - stars out of alignment.
Synonyms: Catastrophe, cataclysm, apocalypse.

So, quite serious then. :)

Satori
11th February 2021, 22:46
Capitalism will not and cannot "destroy the world." People or other entities, or a combination of both (regardless of the "ism"), or some force of nature, may be able to "destroy the world." But I do not think we need to worry about the world--Spaceship Earth. She will be just fine in the short term and in the long term. Humans as a species is another question and a different conversation.

Ewan
16th February 2021, 22:32
Capitalism will not and cannot "destroy the world." People or other entities, or a combination of both (regardless of the "ism"), or some force of nature, may be able to "destroy the world." But I do not think we need to worry about the world--Spaceship Earth. She will be just fine in the short term and in the long term. Humans as a species is another question and a different conversation.

It wasn't meant literally. Capitalism won't create the Milky Way Mk II. Capitalism followed through to its conclusion would leave the planet largely barren though.

Humans can destroy themselves in any number of ways, Capitalism being one which isn't considered but it certainly is one of those numerous ways.

I'll repeat my earlier statement for good measure. Capitalism is an insane premise - (profitting the few at the expense of EVERYTHING and EVERYONE else).

Satori
16th February 2021, 23:07
Capitalism will not and cannot "destroy the world." People or other entities, or a combination of both (regardless of the "ism"), or some force of nature, may be able to "destroy the world." But I do not think we need to worry about the world--Spaceship Earth. She will be just fine in the short term and in the long term. Humans as a species is another question and a different conversation.

It wasn't meant literally. Capitalism won't create the Milky Way Mk II. Capitalism followed through to its conclusion would leave the planet largely barren though.

Humans can destroy themselves in any number of ways, Capitalism being one which isn't considered but it certainly is one of those numerous ways.

I'll repeat my earlier statement for good measure. Capitalism is an insane premise - (profitting the few at the expense of EVERYTHING and EVERYONE else).

It is my view that, in general, the "ism" is not the problem. The problem is the people/entities operating under and pursuant to a particular "ism." G. Edward Griffin does a good job at addressing this issue. For instance, he has an interesting lecture on the paradox of "the rich socialist" (socialism); people amassing great wealth and power through the control of governments and ruling over the masses. He discusses how it is that a group of people, ostensibly interested in pursuing the greatest good for the greatest number, amass great fortunes and are typically totalitarian in their approach to government and rule over us all.

May I urge you to put "G. Edward Griffin" or "Reality Zone" and "The Myth and Meaning of Monopoly Capitalism" into a search engine and listen to his presentation? It is only about 45 minutes long. Griffin is an outstanding speaker.

It will be well worth your time.

Constance
16th February 2021, 23:11
ddddddddddddddddddddddddd

Strat
17th February 2021, 04:19
What would be yalls alternative to capitalism? I don't mean to be a party pooper here but I appreciate capitalism. I know it's not 'the answer' but I don't know what is and if someone knows then I'd like to hear it.

Ewan
7th March 2021, 20:02
What would be yalls alternative to capitalism? I don't mean to be a party pooper here but I appreciate capitalism. I know it's not 'the answer' but I don't know what is and if someone knows then I'd like to hear it.

Hi Strat, that would be a whole new topic I feel, I do have several thoughts on that but nothing that could be construed as a blueprint for a better future. My intention was simply to demonstrate how capitalism cannot function indefinitely without collapse, which, personally, I believe should be apparent to all if enough consideration is given to the mechanisms and beliefs behind the concept.




It is my view that, in general, the "ism" is not the problem. The problem is the people/entities operating under and pursuant to a particular "ism." G. Edward Griffin does a good job at addressing this issue. For instance, he has an interesting lecture on the paradox of "the rich socialist" (socialism); people amassing great wealth and power through the control of governments and ruling over the masses. He discusses how it is that a group of people, ostensibly interested in pursuing the greatest good for the greatest number, amass great fortunes and are typically totalitarian in their approach to government and rule over us all.

May I urge you to put "G. Edward Griffin" or "Reality Zone" and "The Myth and Meaning of Monopoly Capitalism" into a search engine and listen to his presentation? It is only about 45 minutes long. Griffin is an outstanding speaker.

It will be well worth your time.

Thank you Satori for reminding me of Griffin's lectures, it had been so long I'd almost forgotten them. (I would also apologies for such a late response but my father (94 years) is in end of life stages and I have been otherwise occupied.)

Griffin speaks with absolute accuracy in the talk you mention, but he does not go deep enough. I do not know if that means he simply hadn't continued his line of reasoning or he was fearful of going further. The crux of his presentation is perhaps the worst of the corruption that can become entwined with this particular "ism". If you water those thoughts down, making them perhaps innocuous, do they not still fit many of our current economic practices that are regarded as normal? I note also that you made no response to my statement that Capitalism followed through to its conclusion would leave the planet largely barren - is that not true in your opinion?

[END QUOTE REPONSES]

General response to all. I did inform Bill I was loathe to start this thread beacause I knew what a burden it would become to me personally. Presenting an idea so alien to many was never going to be easy, it requires a dissolution of some core beliefs that the vast majority do not even realise they hold to be true. The thread is clearly not generating much interest, (fine by me :happythumbsup: ), but I will endeavour to reply to any future responses as and when I am available.

PS: Constance. :kiss:
We are totally on the same page.


I've come to the conclusion that if we are to be sovereign beings, living a heaven on earth, money has no place in our lives. :thumbsup:

Ernie Nemeth
7th March 2021, 22:13
It is hard to imagine another way.

The reason is always the same. Pick any topic. It does not matter what topic that might be. It comes down to the same thing every time.

We value this material world and our short time in this place. The shackles of fear and pain and the biological overlay to propagate force us to value our continuance, both individually and more importantly collectively. We are hard wired in this regard.

'Life' is hard. And there is no guarantee for any of us. Is it true? Or is it false? Since we are here we can only arrive at the obvious conclusion.

There is a reason why the finite can never arrive at infinity - it is the same reason why all 'life' is finite.


*****

It is 'fun' to play in the mud. But eventually is irritates the cracks and crevices, the folds and creases, of our physical forms and it becomes imperative to bathe. No one remains clean in this world forever. Eventually the fun wears thin.

The moment we are free of these mortal coils is the moment we realize we are other than this body and we are more than this puny 'life'. It is often fun for a time but for most it becomes a burden and death a welcome relief.


*****

There are two strategies: immediate selfish gratification or selfless service. The first is our world. The second is God's. If sophistication and technology is the means to the first, then what of the second?

In our world it is obvious where technological prowess is prominent because it is stark and intrusive; and rigid.

The second goes unseen.
And when we do see the second we often miss its significance and wonder.
Why would a group of devotees imagine their prayers uphold the world.
What good comes of living in a cave forever staring at a shadow on the wall?


We love these bodies of dirt and dust, of water and mud. We wish to possess it, forever to cling to its fragile form. To clean it and preen it and satisfy its desires. And still it putrefies, decays, and ceases to function. Our obsession always disappoints. All possessions always disappoint. It is never enough and it never will be. No matter how clever the ploy, no matter how complicated the effort, the body will always eventually return to the dust from which it was made.



*****

This is the premise, the conclusion, the wisdom...we never want to admit.

To possess anything is futile; It is impossible to possess. It is antithetic to the human experience. And yet it is the basic, most fundamental tenet of the modern world.


To possess is to protect.
To protect is to defend.
To defend is to deprive.
To deprive is to despise.
To despise is to hate.
To hate is to kill.
To kill is to war.
To war is to possess.

It is a never ending chain reaction of despair. A circle that continues in a cycle. It is a poor facsimile, a comical charade, this attempt to mimic the eternal. But it is mistaken.



*****

Now imagine what selfless service, implemented on a world-wide scale, would accomplish...Imagine what love could do - what it cannot do is all those pointless words above.


Imagine the spiralling heights to which LOVE could take us!


that has never been tried before

come on, let's try
:heart:

Let's build an economy on selfless, boundless, eternal love.
!!!for that is what we are!!!
:attention:

Mashika
7th March 2021, 22:40
For the longest time, perhaps some 15 years now, I've had a thought in the back of my mind to write a book called....

How Capitalism Will Destroy The World

I've obviously thought about this a great deal over the years but have never even begun to type a word, just many, many thoughts upon the subject. My reticence for writing is simply that I have zero qualifications to write such a book and even if I did a sterling job of research, collating and presentation it would be dismissed by the majority of 'listened to' experts because it would be too disturbing to contemplate in its entirety. It would literally require a worldwide overhaul of thinking, something that could actually be accomplished in just one generation as a particular chapter of the book would have outlined - but would never succeed as our current GC's would never allow such a thing to happen.

So what's the point in even writing it. Humanity, as a whole, has no interest in being saved. Sad but true. I believe the planet, as is, is a baptism of fire to promote spiritual growth, and the small pay-off, (percentage-wise of rapid awakening,) is worth the cost. What reason/cause for (spiritual) growth if we live in comfort and bliss wanting for nothing?

Why did I post this here, in The Depopulation Plan thread? The last chapter of the book would have been a description how the future would actually look in a capitalist free world. In that chapter I explained that the human population would almost certainly stabilise at around 8 billion, fluctuating between 7.5 and 8.5 over the decades with 96% of beings very content with life.

That is not why we are here, in 3-dimensional form, it is not where we belong. Bliss cannot be found in circumstances, only in the mind, and mind is not to be confined to such a 3-dimensional existence.

I'm not sure, ultimately, how that helps humanities real intention of awakening, so the book will never be written.



My reticence for writing is simply that I have zero qualifications to write such a book and even if I did a sterling job of research, collating and presentation it would be dismissed by the majority of 'listened to' experts because it would be too disturbing to contemplate in its entirety

Probably best reason to start writing it

Mashika
7th March 2021, 22:48
I'd say everyone on this forum reaps the benefits of Capitalism; tinkering on your technological device, brought to you from a creative and entrepreneurial human mind, for a start.
Any system (or "ISM") created by humans, has the potentiality to better serve or not. Is the glass half empty or half full? If supply and demand becomes a formula that better serves the Earth (and therefore all creatures)...then great.

At this point in time there is a growing demand for organic foods, cruelty-free products, cleaner energy (not coal, but solar and wind), farmers' markets, recycling waste products, preserving forests, rivers and oceans; sanitation plants for cleaner air, water...
It is humans that make choices and create positive change; free will is needed to be able to do this.
So if you wanted to write a book, maybe a more honest title would be,
How Humans Will Destroy the World.

In the USSR, there was a video call system like way back in the 70's or so, even before computers. I know this because my grand father told me all about it :)

NASA used similar tech, but it was not really available to normal people i think, yet in the USSR you could just walk into a room and make your video call

You went into a booth and place a coin or something like that, then it would use TV channels to create the connection between two people on different parts of Russia, and they would talk while watching their faces on a tv screen. This had nothing to do with Capitalism, yet it was beyond anything else other countries had at that time


"How humans will destroy the world they created for themselves" is a better one

TomKat
8th March 2021, 00:01
Well, capitalism without capital is called a market economy. It's capital that corrupts the market. Or rather, people with capital.

Nasu
12th March 2021, 03:10
Hi Ewan

Reading through this thread makes me think two things, firstly that in it's entirety it is a very good argument for you writing the book and secondly, you've already started, just keep going. What better way to present a concept in the round than via the use of opposing avatars with opposing views, Plato's stuff springs to mind. If it flopps it says something about society. If it succeeds it says something else about society.

Or it could metastasis into something else entirely, the creator of the game Monopoly a lady called Elizabeth Magie, belonged to a group set against unfair landlords and their capitalistic ways. She made the game to highlight the intrinsically futile way that within the capitalist model in any given market ultimately one or two or three big fish will end up owning everything and everyone, at the total economic and societal destruction of everyone else.

Unfortunately the game was a huge failure in showing the failings of the system but instead was a huge success because so many people loved trying to be the one, two or three big fish. People love an opportunity to play with greed, especially when cloaked in a family game. People also love to build empires, even when the outcome is binary, either total victory or complete defeat. One thing can become another, but nothing or no thing has no chance of changing any thing.

For want of a nail the horse shoe was lost, for want of a horse shoe the horse was lost, for want of a horse the messenger was lost, for want of a message the battle was lost, for want of a battle the war was lost, for want of a war the empire was lost. For want of a nail.

Don't be for want of a nail. Don't be THAT guy. Be the nail you wish to see change the world. So what's the worst that could happen if you wrote the book? Sell the capitalists the book or rope to hang them with?

From what little I can glean from our short digital time together, I would say you are rebellious at heart. Surely creating a best selling book about How Capitalism will Destroy the World is at worst profiting from irony and at best a huge moon at the system as a whole. I say hold up your sporran and pull up your kilt and bend over and show them what you've got to say!

I'll buy your book. They say the first sale is always the hardest.......x....... N

Constance
12th March 2021, 03:52
ddddddddddddddddddddddddd

Constance
13th April 2021, 04:25
fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

Ewan
19th April 2021, 22:40
Constance, someone else who would gain immediate membership to our group of 'People who get it.' ?


Leeds boss Marcelo Bielsa to Sky Sports: "This doesn't surprise me. The most superior teams have managed their superiority through competition. When they no longer need them to win money they discard what they no longer need. This is a very common thing, not only in football. It shouldn't surprise us.

"The fundamental problem is the rich always aspire to be more rich without considering the consequences for the rest. As they gain more power they start demanding more privilege over the rest.

"The most powerful are powerful because of what they bring but the rest are dispensable. What makes competition great is the possibility for one of those weak teams to develop, not the big teams playing each other. But the logic of the world at the moment and in football is not outside this - that the powerful become more rich as a consequence of the weak becoming more poor. If this was is what guides the world at the moment why is there such astonishment. This shouldn't surprise us. It was something that was coming."

99% of you won't know - why should you! In England today, well yesterday, at 23:15 the so called big 6 in the Premier League, (Football, Soccer), announced their intention to form a breakaway group for a European Superleague. Everyone immediately saw it for exactly what it was, a money grab - whilst killing competition. Guess what, 5 of the 6 have American controlling interests and the other is basically owned by an Investment Fund!

Their plan is plain and simple. Ring fence the money and cement their gravy train in perpetuity without fear of ever losing.

Ewan
31st August 2021, 22:35
Copied from here (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?116164-Did-you-notice&p=1449476&viewfull=1#post1449476):

We can't have that nor free energy because that would free people from slavery and the insane economic system would be rendered obsolete. The oil companies need their money too you know. How could the likes of Jeff Bezos buy his seventh hundredth gigantic yacht if the pyramid scheme wasn't there to benefit him? They want slaves to know their place in the system which is based on a scam. People eat up that stuff and consider it as normal, because maybe, just maybe that wealth will trickle down.

"What is the cost of lies? It's not that we'll mistake them for the truth. The real danger is that if we hear enough lies, then we no longer recognize the truth at all."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337993433/figure/fig2/AS:837266326966274@1576631256289/Pyramid-of-capitalist-system.png

Bluegreen
31st August 2021, 22:55
https://yt3.ggpht.com/ytc/AAUvwnhMjXWbphe6HIOX1BDRhU_Ttngb06wJTqHF4XJJ=s48-c-k-c0x00ffffff-no-rj

Why Capitalism is Killing Us (And The Planet)

In this Our Changing Climate video essay, I look at why capitalism is killing us (and the planet) by causing climate change. Specifically, I look at how capitalism's multinationals like ExxonMobil and BP are responsible for increased emissions and ultimately the climate crisis we are living through today. Capitalism's growth-at-all-costs paradigm runs counter to the material realities of the Earth we live on. Paradigm change needed.

Published 7th May 2021 (13:46)

-qxP2TzYcNw

Ewan
19th September 2021, 14:57
RELATED

Very much worth watching.

Was just saying to my son that the energy companies will absolutely hate this. Which just shows the absolute insanity of our planet and is another example pointing out - as long as capitalism is the goal there can be no hope for a sustainable future.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgUkjbMhF18

ThePythonicCow
5th October 2021, 03:22
.
Throughout recorded human history, power has gone to, been taken by, those organizations that had better internal communication.

Whenever such an organization was formed that (1) controlled and provided some particular, essential, capacity of civilization and (2) had better internal communication than the "deplorables" (to borrow Hillary Clinton's infamous use of that word) who depended on that capacity, then that organization could acquire monopolistic control of that capacity, essentially setting up a "toll booth" and extracting energy, power, wealth, and control from civilization.

The sociopaths and psychopaths amongst us have an eagle eye for such monopolistic opportunities, and strive to rule over them, and by dint of providing something essential, over humanity. Thus food, energy, money, weapons, agriculture, trade, technology, science, healing, religion, politics, finance, mining, transportation, communications itself, and so forth have been monopolized at various times and in various ways.

These monopolies tend to become parasitic, extracting more than they provide. Like most parasites, they seek to "blend in", to wear a velvet glove over their iron fist, as a curtain to hide the would-be tyrant, to appeal to the "greater good", in order that their parasitic drain on humanity goes unnoticed, even as they grow more powerful.

Consider as a counter example the "organic" structures of a healthy human body. Several "systems" provide essential capabilities to our bodies, such as those in the following image:

https://biology.homeomagnet.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/human-organs.jpg

Each of these systems provides essential capabilities, each has an intricate system of internal communication, and none dominates at the expense of the other in a healthy body.

Without this internal "communication" that each subsystem uses to maintain its vibrant health, and with all aspects of our physical, chemical, electrical, mental and spiritual beings preserving their own robust nature, no significant aspect of our beings can "rule" over any other aspect, at its expense. When this harmony breaks down, we consider ourselves to be sick, whether of mind, body or soul.

"Capitalism" is one of these velvet gloves. It is worn by corporations that achieve control over some resource or capability that is essential to our civilization.

=== ===

We are now entering a new phase in our civilization, in which the global Internet provides radically improved communication between humans and their various cooperative endeavors. Such healthy communication has long been available at the family and local community level. (Not always attained, but long available.)

The tyrants and their monopolistic organizations are being exposed, like never before.

=== ===

I personally lived through and worked in one particular industry, the computer system software industry, as it was reshaped by the Internet. In the first few decades of my educational and professional career, from the late 1960's through into the 1990's, such giants as IBM, Oracle and Microsoft dominated. Linux and other "open source" software grew out of the shared labors of programmers, sharing their work, on its own merits. Now most computers, from mobiles to super computers, run open source operating systems, or derivatives thereof. I saw how, in the 1990's in particular, the Internet enabled such a grass roots effort to blossom forth, overwhelming the giants of system software.

It might be rather like mammals overwhelmed dinosaurs, in some earlier time on this planet. The higher mental and communication capabilities of warm blooded mammals enabled what might have started as some small furry critters scurrying about in the underbrush to dominate over far more powerful beasts such as the tyrannosaurus rex and brontosaurus.

=== ===

Big federal governments, big pharma, big ag, central banks, big tech, and some other such globally spanning power houses are now collapsing, under the pressure of ordinary people, in touch with what they personally know and can now share fluently, over the Internet.

=== ===

So in my better moments, I do not focus so much on whether "capitalism", "communism", "federalism", "socialism", "theocracy", or such is the "better velvet glove" for the failing monopolies of our time to wear. Rather I focus on sharing and nurturing such real, honest, healthy developments as I might have the energy, talents, and interest to engage myself with and to openly share with others similarly interested ... just as I did in the last decade or two of my professional career in the "Open Source Software" work.

ThePythonicCow
5th October 2021, 22:24
.
Using a quite different vocabulary, sufficiently so that it risks being even further off-topic for this thread, Jean-Claude and "Quantum Healer" Sherri Divband say, in the first 16 minutes or so, what sounds to me to be just what I was saying, in my previous post just above.

SqKpE3_g7Sw

Summary of my take on this, trying to tie back to the topic of this thread:



Capitalism has been destroying the world, for as long as any part of the current "global system" chose to label some of their institutions and structures with that word.

Capitalism, like all such institutions and structures, is dying.

Humans are connecting to their own inner awareness, and connecting to other humans directly.

Gemma13
6th October 2021, 01:07
Paul where did your theMooster.net link go. I only spotted it today. Impressed you are putting you out there.

ThePythonicCow
6th October 2021, 04:10
Paul where did your theMooster.net link go. I only spotted it today. Impressed you are putting you out there.

It's still there ? ... https://themooster.net/

Not very active however; I'm currently more active elsewhere, in a small private group and here.

Ewan
28th August 2023, 19:54
A little quote lifted from Wade Frazier's post today, here (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?10672-WADE-FRAZIER-A-Healed-Planet&p=1574314&viewfull=1#post1574314).



Few in the West can even begin to imagine the awesome cost that capitalism has inflicted on humanity and the world, as sociopathy is exalted into some kind of wondrous virtue.

shaberon
30th August 2023, 22:58
I would agree with this outlook rather strongly.

Wade Frazier's posts certainly have a lot to do with capitalist forces shutting down innovation and a more efficient way of obtaining our creature comforts.


How to prevent it takes a few sound principles.

Contain FIRE, that is:


Finance

Insurance

Real Estate


Along with mortgage, and non-productive taxes such as income and real estate.

Such things were done without for millions of years until someone invented them and gave it to us.

So, no, it is not necessary, or the only way.

thepainterdoug
31st August 2023, 02:07
Hi Ewan / I like your questioning here. Im not sure I have much to add but your question reminds me of many other questions i ask myself.
For example, and this is from a heterosexual male//
What if lets say, all women were stunning 5' 10 inch Swedish women. All perfect and beautiful in a symmetry traditional sense. It actually doesnt matter the particulars.
Now what? Whats next? would it produce or create any new level of satisfaction and happiness? Would boredom increase? Would Jealousy decrease? How would this scenario play itself out over time?

Why are we here in the first place? Whys do we exist? The NDE people teach us its to experience. So we need the jealousy, the diversity, the winners and losers, the love, the hate and all.

Capitilism is another of these questions. Why ?? Well why not? it has surfaced and has evolved for lack of a better term as the most fair.
You're big and strong and take the chance to slay the lion, you do and there is food and resources for yourself. So you earned it.
Is the next logical thing to allow a band of others to swoop in and take it? And now you are without again and are back to repeating what you needed to do to get it again?

Regardless of my questioning, I live a life believing we need to change things. I guess its the concept and the desire that is the point. Perhaps it provides us with a dream to attain, something to do and a way to see our own collective oneness.
we are just here to experience and to grow the universe.
All is as it should be, until its not

hey write the book.
" its got to be the goin , not the getting there, thats good" harry chapin/ taxi

Satori
31st August 2023, 03:39
I disagree with the premise of this thread. So do may others, not the least of which is G. Edward Griffin.

It’s not the “ism” that is at the core the determining factor. It’s factors such as the wholesome quality, unwavering honesty, impeachable integrity, and the like, or not, of the people in back of and promoting the “ism” that determines whether an “ism” is a force for good or for evil. Constructive or destructive.

But, if were to point a finger at an “ism”, it would collectivism; in its narrowest to its broadest sense and everything in between.

shaberon
4th September 2023, 01:36
Capitilism is another of these questions. Why ?? Well why not? it has surfaced and has evolved for lack of a better term as the most fair.
You're big and strong and take the chance to slay the lion, you do and there is food and resources for yourself. So you earned it.
Is the next logical thing to allow a band of others to swoop in and take it?



This seems a bit of a hasty conclusion to determine that something has evolved to be the "most fair".

It does not seem to bear out versus discontent with the ".01%" or Capitalist class.

They are pretty far from lion hunters. Has anyone ever seriously practiced this as a form of food supply?

And yes, most hunter societies were so because the successful hunter was a provider, not hoarding for himself.


If it may help, one could perhaps say, "capitalism = collectivism". This means a type of State-ist view that is only interested in the population in a given box, i. e., state boundary. This results in the food surplus simply being passed around, as if we did not want or care about many of the "others" having anything. They are fed to shut up and continue being exploited.

In the non-capitalist hunter society you related and depended on others and had this sense of duty and belonging, which makes a culture.

There is not really a single fitting word for what we, or at least I, am trying to get at, perhaps Establishment. But then one would be accused of trying to destroy civilization. But no, it refers to a specifically-crafted form of government and a benefitted or privileged class thereof. Of course we know there are those who disagree with it. But this is not a satisfactory explanation. It is in the position, for example, of explaining to some of those African generals why they should not have moved forward recently.

Stems from the tradition of Whitewashing the Boer War (https://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/uncategorized/white-washing-the-boer-war/):


The Boer War exemplified everything horrible about humanity, about imperialism, about the British Empire, about Canada, about Halifax, and about the boys and men who fought it. It was shameless slaughter conducted by vile people for despicable reasons.


https://i0.wp.com/www.halifaxexaminer.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/canadian-propaganda.jpg?w=569&ssl=1




That would be Capitalism.

shaberon
13th September 2023, 20:59
Going to add a bit to the previous post.

Above, you have the Boer War, the first use of mass media to psychologize a population in support for a Capitalists' war that they otherwise had no interest in.

So, consider the timing. Due to the Industrial Revolution, the 1880s were actually rather prosperous and expansive. This was mis-managed into oblivion, by forces which had not clearly assembled, and emerge as the Capitalists.


In England, one could perhaps say the first five years or so of what would become the Fabian Society were benign or even progressive. This rapidly changes when it, too, becomes a hand of vested interests who then opened the London School of Economics:


Founded in 1895 by Fabian Society members Sidney Webb, Beatrice Webb, Graham Wallas, and George Bernard Shaw...



In the U. S., Thomas Jefferson had clearly warned us about going neck deep in mortgages so we would be homeless in a land where blood was spilled to prevent this. Nevertheless, over the 1800s, Mortgage (https://academic.oup.com/chicago-scholarship-online/book/21468/chapter-abstract/181256856?redirectedFrom=fulltext) ate Independence:


In early nineteenth-century America, “landed independence”—a way of life characterized by freehold ownership, command over household labor, and control over agricultural resources—helped farmers to become proprietors rather than members of the expanding class of dependent wage laborers. Freeholders resorted to “mixed farming” to meet their families’ baseline subsistence needs and sell their “marketable surplus” for a profit. At mid-century, American farming evolved into a commercially oriented endeavor with built-in hedges against the vicissitudes of an expanding market system. The ideal of landed independence was filled out by old-age security provided to farmers by their accumulation of landed wealth. Land ownership offered a uniquely autonomous form of commercial life. After 1870, “mortgage-backed securities” emerged in the American market. Capital flowed westward while staples such as corn and wheat flowed eastward. Western farmers turned to the mortgage market both by choice and out of necessity.



So that is quite similar to what happened in Germany. As railroads improved the flow of goods, farm businesses changed into something that had to "enter the market". You had to produce a higher volume of goods more cheaply. And because the numbers just don't work, farms and railroad businesses both failed massively.


One consequence is found in this report (https://resources.saylor.org/wwwresources/archived/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/HIST312-10.1.2-Panic-of-1893.pdf):


The decline of the gold reserves stored in the U.S. Treasury fell to a dangerously low level, forcing
President Cleveland to borrow $65 million in gold from Wall-Street banker JP Morgan in order to support the gold
standard.


For perhaps the first time, and of course not known to the average citizen, this becomes part of an international chain as shown from a more detailed report (https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-depression-of-1893/):


Debt payments and low prices restricted agrarian purchasing power and demand for goods and services. Significantly, both output and consumption of farm equipment began to fall as early as 1891, marking a decline in agricultural investment. Moreover, foreclosure of farm mortgages reduced the ability of mortgage companies, banks, and other lenders to convert their earning assets into cash because the willingness of investors to buy mortgage paper was reduced by the declining expectation that they would yield a positive return.


In addition to monetary stringency, the collapse of extensive speculations in Australian, South African, and Argentine properties; and a sharp break in securities prices marked the advent of severe contraction. The great banking house of Baring and Brothers, caught with excessive holdings of Argentine securities in a falling market, shocked the financial world by suspending business on November 20, 1890.

Panic in the United Kingdom and falling trade in Europe brought serious repercussions in the United States. The immediate result was near panic in New York City, the nation’s financial center, as British investors sold their American stocks to obtain funds.


Seen from Chicago (https://florencekelley.northwestern.edu/historical/panic/):

As would be repeated a century later, the financial crisis was precipitated by an unexpected event, when Baring Brothers, a financial house in London, defaulted on 21 million English pounds of debt which had been collateralized by its heavy investment in Argentina. To cover the default the Bank of England borrowed from the Bank of France which borrowed from the Bank of Imperial Russia, and in November of 1890 there were numerous bank failures and run on currency in Europe.

The financial crash of 1893 would have come sooner to America had there not been a bumper crop of wheat in the face of European famine, and thus gold temporarily poured into the coffers of United States banks. Then there was a political revolution in Brazil, followed by a banking crisis in Australia. And the economic depression in France and Germany depressed the price of silver. This further increased the immigration to the United States, and to Chicago.




Whatever the British were doing in Argentina and Africa suddenly had a big impact on the United States, mainly due to further British financial enterprises.


As this begins to utterly shape what we are doing, ISGP has added some earlier details on Managed Democracy (https://www.isgp-studies.com/managed-democracy-us), which only has partial nineteenth-century representation; President Grant was also a founding partner of the Peabody Education Fund, i. e. the operation of J. P. Morgan's father.

After him, things are fairly quiet or unnoticeable, since prosperity was robust enough for politics not to be such a scathing issue. This turns like a page with Jennings Bryan against McKinley in 1896 which was a clear win for financial forces of Cleveland.


Even from a more normative favorable (https://coolidgefoundation.org/resources/william-mckinley/) view of this president:


It was at this time that the business interests of America took a decided stand in relation to public affairs under the leadership of Marcus A. Hanna. He organized the campaign which nominated McKinley at the first ballot, on a platform which declared for protection and the gold standard.

Taking up again the work of Hamilton and Clay, because commercial problems necessarily had been laid aside for the solution of the more fundamental problems of freedom, McKinley re-established their principles, and under his leadership the government readopted their policies.


Or, similarly to the Boer War posters, with this rhetoric, one finds Cleveland and McKinley (https://www.jstor.org/stable/27552726) as founders of the modern Political Party President.

In other words, those both suddenly became "normal" in the 1890s.

You could probably say, once installed, you can track its revolutionizing sins such as the Entente, the Federal Reserve, and the World Wars, but none of those had started anything, because they were simply its work in progress.

The outcome of the 1896 election was consolidation and more extensive control by financial forces.

In their own words, it was a reprise of Hamilton, who at first pressed for "consolidated government" in the interests of Wall Street, and there happened to be enough popular resistance that the country would not totally go for it. You see the success of Andrew Jackson in that regard. Then many states rebelled against legal and financial entrapment. That outcome was a National Bank holding Treasury Notes which has remained ever since. But this more powerful epoch is like corporations seizing upon the term "person" from the 1871 Organic Act. This did not create a de jure second government. It created a de facto shadow government of mostly unelected financiers.

This is before medical tyranny, or indoctrinated education, or other subsidiaries, it is almost entirely the subjugation of Agriculture by Finance. It has come true most places in the world, except, for example, Russia.

The point of the title "Managed Democracy" means that Capitalist factions use both the "left and right" and even criticisms and attacks against themselves. You may be offered the relieving outlet of a "failed rebellion", while others are herded into professional death squads.

The ISGP site will also show at this time that the main "faction of merging" between British and American industrialists was The Pilgrims' Society.

This backbone clearly loves to use Zionism as a cover and fall guy, which is the strategy from Oliver Cromwell.

Mankind has the capacity with only horses and hand tools to establish a civilization based on agricultural surplus. We have found a way to artificially ruin that. Even though the second consequence of the Boer War was that the military found that industrialized English city kids failed the physical fitness requirement at a high rate. This became the catalyst for all sorts of new improvements.


Something that had never been present rapidly coalesced in the 1890s. It has its local antecedents, but suddenly an industrialized, international operation. This has fairly continuously sat in power with hardly any interruption.

It may not take all of humanity or ultimately destroy the whole world, but it does describe the western system, or Liberal Democracy, etc.