Outlaw lobbyists and electronic voting, charge Diebold with political tampering and start charging fools with treason, re-open a 9/11 investigation and start charging fools with treason (someone will eventually spill the beans and fuck up that one eyed pyramid), rip the PATRIOT act (after using its nifty "enemy combatant" clauses to successfully out the entire group that allowed what happened on that day), stop war in general, stop ignoring the glaring national debt, phase out the Federal Reserve, total net neutrality, did I miss anything? Much better than the incoming opposite; an endless War on Terror, economy crash, terrorist attack (Obviously from IRAQ I mean RAN, and the subsequent overarching overreaction), and the Constitution bound indefinitely by law rather than the other way around. Hello 1984 and Brave New World's redheaded stepchild.
We've had plenty of great people and we still have plenty sitting right here arguing about something they all genuinely care about. The great people of the world's ideas never die, at least they give us a place to start from.
Thomas Jefferson
Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers (adminstrators) too plainly proves a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing us to slavery.
Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God.
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
Merchants have no country. (military-industrialists don't either, an American who doesn't care for fellow Americans and our collective future aren't Americans in my book)
I discharge every person under punishment or prosecution under the Sedition Law, because I considered, and now consider, that law to be a nullity as absolute and palpable as if Congress had ordered us to fall down and worship a golden image. (TERROR is the new sedition [covert conduct, such as speech and organization, that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order)]
Taking a bird's eye view of money to this entire situation offers a whole new perspective. False flag operations have been starting wars since WW1. The FACT that a war could be started for no real reason other than money is absolutely incredulous. Preposterous! Yet, Woodrow Wilson admitted knowing the Lusitania would be sunk with American citizens on board which gave him "many sleepless nights" (A British general reported that the Lusitania had been ordered into a zone reported with u-boats ordered to 70% speed and with her escorts withdrawn.) Unclassified documents in 2005 (40 years later via FOIA, seriously needs to be shortened) show that the Gulf of Tonkin event which provoked the Gulf of Tonkin resolution which quickly became the Vietnam War, was highly questionable and a faulty excuse for a war which cost millions of lives. US ships fired on North Vietnamese, who fired back the 1st day they tried, and on the 2nd assault offered no resistance (probably for fear of starting war).
In 1915, JP Morgan interests found it necessary to buy only 25 of the finest papers in the US and hire friendly editors to easily control the nation's view on the manners of military spending, interventionism, etc. and obviously helped the outcry for Congress to declare war. (which our President regretted knowing beforehand) The media has not gotten any better since then. The 1st edition of The Media Monopoly by Ben Bagdikian in 1983 notes 50 companies controlling 80% of the media. The 2nd edition in 1987 notes 29, and the final 7th edition in 2000, entitled The New Media Monopoly, notes the final 5 or 6; Time Warner, Viacom, Bertelesmann, News Corporation, Disney and General Electric. Ugh.
And now we have a war in Iraq based on the flimsy 'fact' that Saddam had WMDs (and we ended up only finding the weapons we gave him to fight Iran) and we heard some guys from the area attacked us one day (and these same guys we gave billions of dollars in the early 90s, way more than Saddam ever gave them). If you don't see the media-corporation-government connection in allowing this debacle to continue, you're either not looking hard enough or you just don't care. I told someone I met with similar views that I wouldn't want to bring a child into the world because of how fucked up it is right now and she said that she already had a kid, and that was her reason to try and make the world what it could be. Made sense to me! A tad cliche but do it for the kids. Quantum quirks imply that the collective consciousness influences the future (and the past and the NOW), whether you realize your part (and the media's) in keeping it at war, with people hungry, homeless, and dying or making it better is up to you. But you better make a choice or it's going to be done automatically right under your nose. Shit would be a lot easier for everybody, everywhere, for eternity if we all just learned to GET ALONG. The rate of human advancement would exponentially increase. Stop letting it take so long, please.
7thdirection
10 Comments
perhaps we can brainstorm and come up with ways to get people interested in these very important problems.
recently i saw the movie "An Inconvienent Truth," and at the end of the movie it actually details ways people can help make a difference.
maybe we could target the people that do care and are already interested - get them to be active in getting the word out with their friends and families???
i long for the day that more people will care about whats going on with policymaking rather than who wins the next American Idol.
We definitely need more people to get involved with things that are truly important in this country -- regardless of their political persuasion. LBP -- I agree that there are too many diversions to distract us. We are like the proverbial frog in the pot of water. The heat is turned up, and we are slowly cooking, but don't realize it. People tend to be reactive instead of proactive. It's all about economics (in the purist sense, not talking about the finances of our country). What I mean is that people don't want to waste energy on something that doesn't matter. The key to getting action is to convince people that their actions do matter.
Targeting people that already care and are already interested is a good start. By bringing these people together, you'll have a much louder voice than you would as individuals. At the same time, you need to get into the brain of the common person. Find out what they care about and what makes them tick. That means extending yourself beyond your usual comfort zone and sphere of influence, and really listening to people -- even if you disagree with them. You'll not cause change until you can make them understand how that change will make their lives personally better. I'm not saying that all people only care about themselves -- but that's where you've got to start.
:)
hehehe
Wealth needs to be seriously redistributed.
Seriously, though -- that's a heavy-handed comment. Care to elaborate and give some specifics on exactly how that might be done and what the consequences (positive and negative) would be?
I've said it before and been shouted down, but that does not make it untrue. The purpose of government is to keep the population under control. Forget your fancy ideas about improving 'the situation' for the people. It's keeping them in order, subdued, controlled and 'where we can see 'em'. And this is true no matter what flavour of government you have.
The one thing that all revolutionists consistently fail to appreciate is this: it is impossible to change things from the outside. In order to make a positive contribution to ANY of the situations listed above, you HAVE to be on the inside. If you don't like your politicians, become one. If you don't like the way the oil industry is run, join it. Constant bleating from outside accomplishes nothing.
It has been suggested that 'people power' can cause change. If enough people shout loudly enough, something will happen. Yes, it may - but it'll be concession, or short-term change. Concession is where you go away thinking you've won a victory (it's a start, you say, but then you give up) but it was only a concession. Short term change means either they'll talk about it until you get bored, or they'll actually change something and change it back again when you're not looking. One of the life paradoxes is that both everything and nothing changes.
As for the redistribution of wealth - now that's an emotive subject. I'm all for wealth redistribution if it's your wealth being redistributed to me, but I'd be less happy if it was my wealth being redistributed to you. The wealth is out there - just go get it if you want it. Anyone can amass wealth. The same friend and I talked about this. We speculated that if the UK government were to give everyone in Britain £1m (£1m X 60m people is about what we spend on 'defence' over not very long) then we'd all be better off. He said it would take about a week for 2% of the population to end up with it all. Those who don't have any money, he said, don't have any because a) they wont work or b) they spend it. Those that do have the wealth, he said, do so because a) they work and b) they don't spend it. Look around you, the better off are the tightest aren't they? QED.
I disagree, and find that most revolutions happen "from the outside", when the majority support eventually totally overpowers the status quo to a point where people are willing to work for their freedoms (and it may even be a minority that really works and sacrifices for it, but the majority supports them in the effort) Although I plan on being involved in politics, at this point there is currently little room for anything but the two party giants (who support the same shit anyways) And as for joining the oil industry, that is not going to change anything. Someone like me who is so adamant about changing to cheaper, renewable energy would not make it very far. People just need to be informed and make their government work for them.
“This truth is well known among our principal men now engaged in forming an imperialism of Capital to govern the world. By dividing the voters through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance. Thus by discreet action we can secure for ourselves what has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished.”
- Sir Denison Miller
This is their system currently in place. Trying to work through the system is not going to work. It has to be dismantled and created from the ground up, by people like us. Only 5% of Americans fought in the Revolutionary War. The work needs to be done by a small group, but we need the majority's support.
“A few who can understand the system (check money and credits) will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favors, that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of the people mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear it's burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.”
- Rothschild Brothers of London
Regarding redistribution of wealth, if everyone were given access to education that helped people achieve their personal goals and college wasn't the required drunken debauchery it is today, we would have a much more efficient economy. Some people don't want or even need to go to college. Kids usually have an idea of what they want to do when they grow up, why not make that reality? After a basic education in elementary school, let the child decide where they want to invest their education. It may be a few years in a vocational school, maybe a few more years for a degree, and the most amount of education being required for doctors, scientists, engineers, etc. Whatever happened to apprenticeships? The current system churns out mindless robot children who don't think they can change anything. Don't forget the ritalin!
Then Jon Stewart reviewed Cheney's later stance, after 9/11, that going into to Iraq would be a simple matter and be over in a few weeks with very few military casualties. Then later, subsequent to a very long and chaotic occupation of Iraq with little result, Stewart asserted that Cheney and the Bush administration have basically framed anyone who questioned their position in Iraq as a traitor, Unamerican, and unpatriotic. Stewart asked Hayes, "If the '92 and '94 Cheney knew that going into Iraq was stupid, and the situation is indeed chaotic and unproductive as he predicted, why is the present day Cheney attacking anyone who would question why we are still there?"
There was a huge cheer in the audience and for once, the comedian-turned-satirical political newscaster Jon Stewart was not joking.
http://www.crooksandliars...alls-out-john-gibson-too/
Hey you know AdGuy always gets the last word! ;)