- —

http://home.swbell.net/revscat/perilsOfObedience.html

http://www.djournal.com/forum/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=5794&posts=237

“Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.”

- —

Since I’ve been in the middle of what Blair T. Longley here characterized as a social storm. As a consequence of these social storms I have learnt to accept that the social democratic health and social beaurocracies are populated by people on a payroll, who have no qualms about destroying a person completely in every possible way: socially, psychologically, and mentally. And that, most probably for no reason at all, other than the basic fact of being inside a social storm together with me; as medical doctors, psychologists, social workers, etc., etc., but also — simply and squarely — “only human.”

Now, … “only human” is a kind of pathological condition which is extremely … scary …

Hmm, for once in my life I no longer know what to say.

“There is, of course, the example of Machiavelli. Look what happened to him for indulging in exposing frank and practical political strategy to the reading public. Mr. Bailey mentions his name only when he needs a synonym for political evil. His own candidacy for world-class unpopularity is based on the declaration that all politicians, not just a few rotten individuals, are deceitful. Furthermore, he asserts, they must be that way to do the job properly. A person who scrupulously operated within the rules of his culture, whatever they happen to be, would not be able to lead.”

”Leaders are not the virtuous people they claim to be; they put politics before statesmanship; they distort facts and oversimplify issues; they promise what no one could deliver; and they are liars,” Mr. Bailey says. Then, in what ought to be the politician’s favorite statement since the invention of ”I was quoted out of context,” he adds: ”Leaders, if they are to be effective, have no choice in the matter.””

- —

F.G. Bailey is, and has always been, my favourite political anthropologist.

- Good evening my name is Derek Leavussum, public relations director for Shell. I want to welcome you all to the 2007 Shell Wildlife Photographer of the Year Award. As you can imagine- I don’t have an easy job, what with all this fuss about melting glaciers, extreme weather and wildlife extinctions. I’d like to thank the Bristol City Council, BBC Wildlife Magazine and the Natural History Museum for making my job all that much easier by allowing us to sponsor your wild lie- I mean wildlife- exhibition.We prefer not to see the melting of the Arctic ice cap as a threat to human civilization. We see it as a business opportunity. After all, there are millions of barrels of oil under there just waiting to be extracted. And we’ll need all the energy we can get since we’ve just abandoned our solar program. When you see the Shell logo, we don’t want you to think about the whale habitat we’re destroying in Siberia and Ireland, human rights violations in Nigeria, and especially not climate change. This may all be true but the fact is that the world needs oil and this is simply the price of progress.

Some say it’s ironic that the world’s second largest oil company is sponsoring a wildlife photography exhibition- but Shell is truly committed to preservation of the polar bear and other wildlife- in photographs if not in the real world. Some say it’s the end of the oil age- but we say it’s just the beginning- we’re thrilled about digging into Canada’s oil sands and with your help we can continue to deceive the public into thinking we’re a responsible corporate citizen. Thank you all for coming tonight and we hope you enjoy viewing these amazing photographs of wildlife that Shell is destroying- I mean conserving.

Also a special thanks to Dawn Primarola and the Labour party for supporting a third runway at Heathrow and ensuring that there remains a healthy demand for our products.

– –

Brilliant.

An irony with intellectual integrity continues to be that many other people seem to be much more successful in the short-term by being professional liars.

Politicians do not find themselves being successful by “laying the facts out, bare naked on the table, in all its cruelty and all its complexity.” On the contrary the most successful politicians tend to be the most skillful liars and sincere sounding hypocrites, who excel at telling people what they want to hear.

Magne: “the general idea that the awareness of all that is wrong with this world of ours, is actually shared by most everyone of us.”

That’s definitely not correct. I need to get rid of that little word: “all” — Nobody knows about all that is wrong with this world, but people ought to have ENOUGH KNOWLEDGE by now, to really understand that we’re in trouble.

I mean this sincerely: we have all been exposed to such a lot of CO2 information over the past few years; now, I cannot believe that people in general are unaware of the problem of polluting the atmosphere with this stuff. And that’s only for starters.

Anyway: it’s possible to feign ignorance, and it is possible to deliberately ignore the information. It is even possible to deny the relevance of the science produced by the IPCC. But to deny the fact that you’ve even heard about such a thing as the enhanced greenhouse effect is utter bullshit. Oh yes. That would be a lie.

- —

The thing with this video (and these lyrics) — is that it helps to establish the general idea that the awareness of all that is wrong with this world of ours, is actually shared by most everyone of us. At least, the fact remains that a bunch of North American hip-hop artists has actually come up with a compelling video like this, and this can be considered as good news about very bad news, so to speak.

If you’re not particularly fond of hip-hop (which is “officially dead”), you can skip the first 4 1/2 minutes of the video, and watch the remainder of it. Some of you may even be amazed by what you are seeing and hearing here.

As for my posting yet another a hip-hop video, I say: “Well, that’s also a form of communication, dude!” — And not to worry.

- —

Blair,

Let me tell you that I’m rather amazed at the way you’re thinking about the world civilization crisis we are dealing with here. You have identified and understood a set of perfectly natural aspects of human living: natural facts of life that the vastest possible majority of people have no more than a subconscious knowledge of, while they deal with and live with it every day.

The issues of death control and debt control are interesting concepts, both of them. — And so are the social, cultural and political facts of nuclear warheads, hydrogen bombs and bazookas. As is the reality of the well known children’s games of “police and thieves” and “cowboy and indian” — games that are all about lawful life, family life, criminal life, fast life, imprisonment and violent death. These are also facets of human nature and cultural/societal might and plight.

You have no qualms about laying the facts out, bare naked on the table, in all its cruelty and all its complexity; and that without making use of an overly academic language. These are things that I have no qualms about admiring. Simplicity, I believe, is the real thing. You’re just being loyal to honesty. As simple as that and as cruel as that, but believe me: honesty matters.

You discuss the way “the monetary systems we operate under now are a huge fraud whereby new money appears to be made out of nothing and returns to nothing,” and conclude that “as long as our monetary systems continue to based on the triumph of huge lies, then nothing we measure using those systems can truly fit into the natural world.”

Every frequent visitor to this blog would agree with you here, without doubt. What is more, if you take a close look at the content and agenda of many of the blogs found on John’s blog roll, you will definitely understand that the problem of environment/ecology versus economy is, by now, a very pressing issue. People of all walks of life seem to be starting to grow weary about this problem. And again: that’s good news about bad news. At this moment in time, we can do nothing more than digest it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_(computer_game)

You know what? The situation as a whole, and especially as concerns scientific and technical advances as well as that of the monetary system, makes me think about the well-known computer game of “Civilization” — the final outcome of the game, is the discovery of a cure for cancer, the construction and building of a star ship that can enable humanity to undertake interstellar travel, mass pollution and mountainous cities that can make a home for 60 or 70 million people each; and after all that, the only thing that is remaining of the game, is the concept of “capitalization” — at which stage nothing more can be invented or built, and therefore everything of value is being turned into golden coins; i.e.: hard cash.

- —

Blair: “I have no practical way to deal with the immediate real problems that there are billions of people who have already been brainwashed to believe in bullshit, and are emotionally attached to that.”

Agreed.

And here we have arrived at the place where I’ve got to search for an alternative area on which to land. As the brutal fact is that people can actually devote their whole personal life to the protection and preservation of political, administrative, and beaurocratic systems that are brutal, cynical and evil, through and through. Artificial systems that have little or nothing to do with social life, and allow for no dignity and no respect, and has no compassion to offer. Artificial systems that can never (or, to the very least, extremely seldom) openly admit to the fact that mistakes have been made; these systems are always right. Never do they lie, and never do they act unfairly, they are the glue of the nation state, to which every single citizen must sit, and be still, like that proverbial fly in the spider’s web does. It sits still until it dies, and that is all there is to it. The message to modern humans, as communicated by all these authoritarian systems, is: “Do what is expected of you, nothing more and nothing less, remain loyal to your employer, retire, whither away and die in the end.”

Just accept it.

As a matter of fact: I believe this sentiment is much more widespread than many of us — the internet idiots — are ready to accept. Now, I’m thinking of the notion that the world is full of people who are ignorant of the problems we are faced with here. I believe that must be false. We have just been through a few years of rather eye-opening forms of press and media coverage on the environmental problems at hand, especially in terms of the reality of global warming, climate change, and the CO2 connection. I believe most people knows about this. It’s only that they have reached a conclusion a long time ago; namely the conclusion that politicians and scientists, leading environmentalists and self-serving bloggers can make any claim they ever want to make, but the idea of a human race that can successfully tackle the problem of climate change, manmade or not, is simply impossible to imagine. The problems at hand are just too immense. “And serious lifestyle changes are out of the question, so there you are! Now, get stuffed.”

- —

Blair: “So far in my life, I have only been barely successful enough to continue to barely be able to work on my system of understanding problems.”

Exactly.

I think there are limits regarding what range of alternative social roles are possible to maintain, however, I agree that within that our concepts of self “depend upon the other.
__________________

I agree that it is practically impossible to imagine what social storms feel like when one is actually inside them. Analogies would be like the difference between thinking about giving birth, versus actually giving birth. Or another example would be imagining being in an earthquake, compared to actually being terrified when the ground that we take so for granted being solid is bouncing us up and down.

Surviving brief social storms can be crucial. In nature, the power of something like a flood goes up by the fourth or fifth power as the river floods more. Social storms can change more things faster than we can imagine.

As with things like a hurricane, the tropical sun gradually heats the ocean, and eventually, that heat rises, and organizes itself into a storm. The same with a tornado on the land, only more intense and focused.

I totally agree that while we can try to imagine and attempt to be prepared for social storms, we can not feel what things like that are like unless we are actually in the middle of them.
____________________

As far as the concept of “death control” goes, I have been researching that for several decades, and I have never found anything published anywhere that I respect.

The problem is that the people who are best at death control are also the best at being dishonest about that. Furthermore, since it is the most taboo social topic, as you know, it tends to be avoided as much as possible by most people.

I have been writing things about artificial selection for several decades, but mostly for my own amusement, not for any reader. I recognize that I am safer to not be known. I tend to deliberately be too obscure. Mostly these days, I use the English language forum on our Web site like my personal diary, and for a few years I have been repeating my thoughts about death control there.

However, most of my political career I have spent on court cases against the government about the laws controlling the funding of political parties in Canada. I won one case against the government by proving they had been lying about the political contribution tax credit. I currently have another live court case about the money for votes formula in the Canadian elections law. We won that at trial, lost at the provincial court of appeal, and we hope now to be able to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Unless we can find an alternative way to fund alternative politics that works enough, then we can not do much.

Even the death control has to be paid for.

The most important issue behind the scenes is always the funding of the political process, and that has been my main interest for a couple decades.

However, learning about the monetary and taxation systems drove me more and more to realize how crucial death control events were to those debt controls.

Like with any other organized crime gang, the government does not have to kill everybody who does not pay debts, but only be able to punish people who do not, and that must include the limit case of killing them, if they resist being punished.

The most important historical facts are that the international banksters have already taken control of the monetary and taxation systems of most of the main governments in the world. It is extremely important to recognize the historical facts that every politician who became a serious threat to those debt engine systems was assassinated. (The only significant exception that I know of was President Andrew Jackson, and he was almost miraculously lucky to have survived the assassination attempts against him.)

Death control issues are the most extraordinary because they are so plainly obvious, if one only opens one’s eyes to look at them, but are simultaneously the most deeply buried under the bullies bullshit.

If I win our current court case, or otherwise gain more funding for my fringe political party, then I may use that to develop our Web site, including more systematically present my radical political philosophy. However, I think that will still be done primarily for my own amusement. I do not think that my ideas are going to change anything significant in the foreseeable future.

I think paradigm shifts regarding artificial selection in general, and death control in particular, are extremely important in theory. However, in practise, I can not imagine them becoming significant enough to change the immediate future.

Indeed, as I said above, I personally continue to be a lot safer when people tend to ignore me and my ideas.
______________________

I agree with the de facto thought experiment about what would happen if aliens with overwhelmingly superior technology landed on Earth and said it was theirs. If they could rob us, and we could not stop them, then the Earth would be theirs.

One can only hope that aliens who survived having advanced science and technology would have to have simultaneously developed higher consciousness and more compassion.

At the present time, we have no idea how human beings are going to actually survive having weapons billions and trillions of times more powerful than any previous generations had. Imagine how we, or other advanced aliens, could possibly survive if we or they had weapons that were quadrillions of quadrillions more powerful than we already have now?

In general, there is no such thing as private property, and there never can be.

The only thing which exists is some system of public violence, and everything else we say about private property is bullshit. Private property has no real existence outside of some system of public violence.

It began with the privatization of God, and then developed into the privatization of the environment.

These things were all systems of huge lies backed up with coercion, running systems of organized robbery and fraud, that had labels from various religions, ideologies, or political economies.

The main problems are that claims to privatize God are awesomely arrogant, while cutting the environment up into little pieces is resulting in a world where the little pieces can not survive as those little chopped up parts of the whole.

These main problems are extremely acute because of the contradictions in the progress in post-modernizing sciences, that are based on understanding the unity of the world, and the unitary mechanisms that make that unity work, (like that matter is extremely concentrated energy, or that all living things on Earth use the same DNA code, etc.), end up channelled through social systems based on false fundamental dichotomies that are based on huge lies, backed up with coercion, to keep systems of organized robbery and fraud going.

The point in history where we are at is that is has become both possible and necessary for human beings to develop systems of artificial selection that are consistent with natural selection.

However, the established systems of artificial selection are based on huge lies about how they exist and work, and the people doing it have developed their ability to hide the truth, and rationalize what they are doing with an extremely well-developed systems of hypocrisy.

One of the bizarre things that I have found is that many people tend to blame Malthus for inventing the Malthusian dilemma, which is like blaming Newton for inventing gravity, when the only thing Newton did was describe how gravity worked.

Chronic political problems are inherent in the nature of life.

All living things can reproduce at an exponential rate, but no environment can sustain that indefinitely. Instead, ecologies evolve whereby energy is conserved in non-linear functions.

Similarly, all animals have to eat, and they use force to eat other organisms. Robbery is the proper English word to describe using force to take things. Human beings eat other things, and in the real world that means we rob the life of other beings to feed ourselves. In civilization, some human beings organize themselves to rob other human beings, who in turn are robbing what they take from their environment.

In the past, various religions, ideologies, and political economies attempted to rationalize or justify these behaviours.

In the overall context, the problems that human beings act as robbers in their environment, and thus groups of human beings operate organized systems of robbery, and the problem that human populations constantly have the potential to reproduce at an unsustainable exponential rate, means that we always had, and always will have, these chronic political problems, that are inherent to the nature of life.

What is new is the progress in science and technology that is making it both possible and necessary to have quantum leaps in the way we understand and resolve these chronic political problems.

At the present time, the vast majority of human beings continue to be brainwashed to believe in various old-fashioned kinds of bullshit from their bullies, and those bullies operate systems that were evolved to be able to discredit and destroy any alternatives to those bullies’ systems.

We are going through the curse of extremely interesting times, as the established systems of huge lies, backed up with lots of coercion, are spiralling and spinning out of control, which is driving the potential for social storms to blow through, and force unprecedented changes to occur.

We should make a greater use of information (which is the operational definition of higher consciousness). I believe that higher consciousness necessary leads to more compassion.

Democracy permits a greater use of information, and more than anything else we need to make a greater use of information regarding death and debt controls, which means we could have more of a democratization of death and death controls.

When it comes to the monetary system,
the elite of international banksters have set up a privileged system that is doing what everyone else should do too.

It is a dead end to try to stop them.

That is both practically and theoretically impossible. Instead, we should have more and more people understand what the banksters have actually done, and thereby have more people join the banksters in doing that.

The problem is that our current human ecology depends upon most people acting like brain dead sheep that are routinely being fleeced and eventually being set up to be slaughtered, while the
“top carnivores” in that human ecology literal metaphor are more and more doing an extremely bad job of doing what they should be doing to sustain that human ecology.

The social pyramid systems depend upon the compression of ignorance and fear, and those are totally opposite to what the new stretching systems need to do.

We should have a monetary system based on a truth standard, which includes recognizing the truth that lies and coercions controlled civilizations.

This is the sort of paradoxical higher consciousness and compassion that more people need to appreciate in order to make the quantum jump to new age warfare, manifested as more efficient and effective artificial selection systems that are consistent with natural selection.

We need monetary systema where we have a principle of the preservation of information that is related to the principle of the conservation of energy and momentum.

I have no reason to believe any human beings are creating new energy or matter out of nothing, nor sending those to nothing.

I have no reason to believe that any human beings that provide services or goods can do that by either making those services or goods come from nothing, or go to nothing.

However, the monetary systems we operate under now are a huge fraud whereby new money appears to be made out of nothing and returns to nothing.

It is thus impossible to reconcile our fundamentally fraudulent financial accounting systems with the ecology of our environment.

Since matter and energy can not be created out of nothing, nor turned into nothing, our money should not be either.

That is equally true in the special cases of getting rid of goods or services, in the forms of garbage or pollution, or waste heat.

As long as our monetary systems continue to based on the triumph of huge lies, then nothing we measure using those systems can truly fit into the natural world.

More crucially, the creation of human consciousness, which is expressed as the value creating element, in the form of money, depends upon still living in the natural world. (In that context, I continue to believe in a principle of the preservation of information that is consistent with the conservation of energy.)

However, what really controls our political economy now is an electronic fraud, backed up with the threat of weapons of mass destruction.

We have debt engines that must continue to make more and more new money out of nothing, which are used to pay for strip-mining planet Earth.

The real reasons that such huge frauds are able to exist and continue is that they were forms of dishonesty backed up with violence. Furthermore, any real changes to those systems must be within that reality as expressions of new systems of lies and coercions, but new systems which are not so insanely dishonest and so suicidal. What we have now are systems that rob other human beings, and rape the natural world, that are running amok without enough effective feedback to prevent that happening more and more, faster and faster. In theory we need to make the kinds of greater use of information that would provide our political economy with a new quaternary set of controls to regulate the primary, secondary and tertiary systems that have already been built so far. However, the actual quaternary controls that we already have are the death and debt controls that are based on the past triumph of lies and coercions which deliberately lies about themselves to themselves, and resort to violent to keep those lies going, to be able to control the rest of our political economy.

Merely talking about this seems pretty pointless, when the people who are already inside those systems and making them operate are accumulating trillions of dollars worth of recognized social control powers, and accumulating trillions of times more powerful weapons of mass destruction to ensure nobody else can force them to stop satisfying their lusts for power.

Anyway, in that context, I regard my redundant rambling, radical philosophy as being bla, bla, blah that I primarily write for my own amusement.

I have no practical way to deal with the immediate real problems that there are billions of people who have already been brainwashed to believe in bullshit, and are emotionally attached to that.

I have no practical way to deal with the immediate real problems that millions of people are armed with weapons, including mass destruction weapons, which they may use according to their morbid social habits, as ordered to do so by the big bullies.

Most of what I do is endeavour to accept that the perfection of the universe apparently includes both the conservation of energy and the increase of entropy.

Empirically, we live in an exploding universe, and we are lucky to be alive to be surfing the shock waves of that explosion.

I would like to survive the coming social storms, and catalyze the changes necessary to prepare and survive those social storms.

However, I see no reasonable basis to believe that I will be able to do that.

So far in my life, I have only been barely successful enough to continue to barely be able to work on my system of understanding problems.

In that context, I regard working on the kinds of problems discussed in this growth is madness Web site to be a kind of goofy work that barely works.

By and large, most people are busy solving their own short-term problems, and nothing else interests them.

Therefore, what I do is situated at the fringe of the fringe of the fringe …

Blair: “We need more truth and justice in our monetary systems, so that our accounting will not be so crazy and corrupt.”

- —

Well, I gave you an example of “how to tell the lie about a planet that got robbed by a nice race of green-winged space aliens.

John, … I think that was the point of my previous comment. – 8)

http://www.haworthpress.com/store/ArticleAbstract.asp?sid=UGR01UPVGELS9L66WEJ09PM8SFJA0DGB&ID=73921

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4397/is_199711/ai_n15307120

- —

I just googled the term “death control” — I didn’t have much luck there, I’m afraid. So Blair, if you know of any good internet sources for me to look up, please don’t hesitate.

- —

Blair: “I say that sovereignty is based on the power to rob, and that we need the power to rob to solve any of our problems, because most of those problems were caused by past uses of the power to rob.”

Would it be possible to simply sell the planet to some illusion buyer, and then, after that, start to redistribute all that is to it?

I mean: strictly speaking: the World Bank could be allowed to confiscate all the moneys of this world, for no other reason than it had to be done, as a matter of logic. Or we could tell our children and children’s children that a group of seriously concerned space aliens descended on the White House lawn and fairly and squarely robbed us of this planet. Why? Well, because they depended on the fruits of our soil in order to prepare one or two extremely health-bringing cocktails, and they had come to conclude, after watching us for what seems to be “aeons” — and had finally come to conclude that the fruits of this soil had to be safe-guarded for their own pleasure, and that the extremely arrogant human race was no longer up for the task. So therefore, as a matter of common sense — pure and simple — the space aliens made us an offer that mankind just couldn’t refuse. — As a matter of the aliens’ kindness, they decided to let us all live. But that, provided we humans did all that had to be done in order to clean up the environmental mess of a space station the Earth really is: a relatively small but infinitely beautiful and very fruitful planet that was being poisoned, polluted and desperately overgrown by a very large race of utter planet spoilers; a number of which was rising in an exploding kind of way … and what a pity that was! … and so on … so on … on …

Stupid me. 8)

We are evolving systems of artificial selection that are being selected for by the forces of natural selection.

Natural selection permitted those who were best at being dishonest and violent to build systems of organized robbery and fraud.

– –

- Thank you. This is something that I really have to consider. You’ve positively not an idea what kind of extreme social storms I’ve been through already. I’m traumatized to the bone, and do not think I will ever fully recover.

As it is, I do not even have language skills that is up to the task of describing a social storm. — But you’d better believe that I know exatly what it is you’re referring to.

Did you ever hear of the term “mass-psychosis”?

- —

What reactionary revolutionaries do is recognize and condemn the ways that the world is controlled by dishonesty and violence, but then claim they will provide truth and justice instead.

- —

This gives me the opportunity to provide yet another key concept from my scholarly field of social anthropology:

POSITIONALITY. — In essence, a term that was adopted by feminists in order to account for the gender differences which pervail in societies, and it’s relevance to the concept of knowledge, or the production of knowledge. The general idea is, at the root, very simple (and simplicity is genius): it is the realization that “truth” is a social construct which finds its base in the position of the person who is telling “the truth”; i.e.: the observer or the storyteller.

The concept of “positionality” was, I think, a late 1970s invention of the social sciences, and was quickly picked up by Marxists and other groups who specialize in class systems theory. The idea that any variety of “truth” is associated with the social standing of the subject or person.

So “the truth” is always a social construct which is relative to the position of the person of whom you ask to be truthful.

- —

“You know what?! We have the right to remain stupid!”

I certainly started as a person in favour of what I can “plan A.” (By which mean a world in which evidence and logic, truth and justice, were priorities.)

However, along the way, I stumbled into and was forced to face the facts that the evidence and logical arguments tend to prove that all the big established institutions were made and maintained by the triumph of huge lies.

I find that this makes political problems become extremely paradoxical.

For instance, there is the paradox of enforcement. In order to enforce any rule of law, the enforcers have to be capable of being more dishonest and violent than all other groups that the enforcers enforce the law against.

Most of what I try to do is develop a system of understanding that will allow social science to be more consistent with physics and biology.

That effort does not change much, except the way I use language.

The reality continues to be mostly the same, but the attitudes towards it change significantly.

Magne, from reading your posts, I would surmise that you have already gone a long way towards what I call “plan C.” You are already well aware that governments might not be the “good guys.”

I say that sovereignty is based on the power to rob, and that we need the power to rob to solve any of our problems, because most of those problems were caused by past uses of the power to rob.

The three steps I see:

1. We see that governments are robbers,

(The private property parties are those who controlled the governments to use the power to rob to benefit themselves.)

2. We must rob the robbers back to a better balance.

(The process of robbery is never finished, and the world system is always evolving different ways and rates of real robberies.)

3. We must recognize that we are robbers too, and thus must rob ourselves.

(This third point returns to the paradox that everything we know is a relative illusion, created when we subtract everything from a Whole.)

A book I recommend is Darwin’s Blind Spot by Frank Ryan, where he states:

“Symbiosis is about predation and parasitism and, even in its mutualistic form, it is about tough bargaining and hard compromising, with each partner’s survival depending on the outcome.”

The end goals may be mutual cooperation and peace, however the real means to achieve that are through conflict and balancing the rate or robbery and the forces of war.

Promoting change by exhortations
based on the transcendental poetry of truth, justice, freedom, or democracy, etc., is like attempting to build something from the roof down, instead of from the foundation up.

I am not against good ideals, I am against thinking those ideals can be used as the mechanisms of change.

The world systems have already been built and are running automatically.

The debt engine fractional reserve banking systems are the worst, since they require endless growth, and force everyone inside of a debt engine treadmill that automatically gets worse and worse, faster and faster, since the whole thing is the triumph of huge lies backed up with coercion.

These debt controls were made by the death controls that triumphed in the past.

We are all inside of a fundamentally fraudulent financial accounting system, and everything we do inside that monetary system is axiomatically distorted by that frame of reference.

The banksters are the biggest gangsters.

As President Madison said

“History records that the money changers have used
every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and
violent means possible to maintain
their control over governments
by controlling the money
and its issuance.”

— James Madison (1751-1836)

To summarize, everything I say is based on the fundamental concepts of subtraction and robbery.

Everything human beings know is subtracted from a Whole that we can not experience. Everything we know is a relative illusion. Everything we know is some degree of a lie.

The scientific method is an attempt to be critical of how we know something, and the degree of confidence we have in knowing that.

The important point is that everything we know is always going to be subtracted by the Whole that we can not know, and thus everything we know is going to be a relative lie. Therefore, all new systems of understanding are going to be new systems of lies.

The goal is to diminish the dishonesty, but it is itself too dishonest to assert that we will base our understanding on the truth, instead of on some relative lies.

Similarly, the fundamental force is robbery, and human beings act as robbers in their environment, and civilizations are, and must be, systems of organized robbery.

What we can do is change the relative rates of real robbery to evolve more sustainable ecologies of robbery. Indeed, that is what the evolution of life has been doing for billions of years.

Intelligence is the internalization of natural selection. It may take more shocks from natural selection to apply the selection pressures to select for even more intelligent people who will care more about the long-term consequences of their actions.

I regard social storms as being similar to natural storms. People are already part of nature, and their artificial world will always be.

We are evolving systems of artificial selection that are being selected for by the forces of natural selection.

Natural selection permitted those who were best at being dishonest and violent to build systems of organized robbery and fraud.

The global political economy has already done that. Engaging that reality, to try to change it to become able to adapt and enjoy more long-term survival, has to face the facts that we already have an organized system of robbery, and that the future hopes are for changing the real rates of robbery to become a better balanced ecology of those forces of robbery.

We need more truth and justice in our monetary systems, so that our accounting will not be so crazy and corrupt.

Right now, we have a tiny minority who are able to make new money out of nothing but the borrower’s promise to pay, and that system demands that more and more new money be made out of nothing, or else these systems will collapse into chaos.

The way to understand what the banksters, and the government run by the private property parties, do is to perceive they are similar to organized crime gangs.

They run debt controls backed up with death controls.

Any genuine solutions have to face these fundamental social facts.

We need different death controls, to make it possible to have different debt controls.

Those are the keystone or lynch pin considerations to any system of alternatives.

Most people concerned with ecological and environmental problems tend to operate in the lower levels of the systems of alternatives. They look at alternative energy, or alternative agriculture, and so on …

However, the crucial alternatives are alternative death and debt controls. The central point is that we already have well-established systems of both of those, and changing those systems is vital to being able to change everything else to become more sustainable.

I advocate scientific revolution which is primarily a paradigm shift to perceive what already exists, and to then talk about it with a different use of language.

Governments already care more about death and taxes than anything else. Governments already pay more attention to maintaining their systems of death control and debt control, than anything else.

What happens in paradigm shifts is that the overall reality stays the same, but our way of seeing it changes radically.

For instance, everything that people describe as “birth control” is actually a form of “death control.”

That is what is necessary to understand the kind of new age warfare that is needed to fulfil the ancient purposes of warfare, after we have post-modernizing sciences that have built weapons that are billions and trillions of times too power to use for any rational purpose.

Warfare is already the oldest and best developed of social sciences.

Social engineering did work to do what it was really designed to do.

The global fascist plutocracy is astonishingly successful at sucking up the wealth and pumping it to the top of the social pyramid.

The image I use is that we need to use the established social pyramids as the scaffolding to build a global arch, or social system shaped like a global sphere, on and around.

I share the goals of Plan A, however, I face the facts about the reality about Plan B. My kind of Plan C is an indication of how we need new systems of lies and coercions to provide a new government.

I say new lies, because everything we know is necessarily a relative illusion.

I say new coercions, because everything human beings do is based on real forces, and those real forces are mainly expressed in the form of robberies.

With new systems of lies and coercions, we can be consistent with the reality of how the existing established systems actually are operated.

With new systems of lies and coercions, we can work towards the goals of plan A in a realistic way that accepts the reality of plan B.

More than anything else, we need to change the death controls.

Any attempt to change our political economy has to change our debt controls. We can not mellow out as long as we are trapped inside the debt engine treadmills.

We can not make rational decisions as long as our financial accounting systems are already fundamentally fraudulent.

The debt controls control the direction of economic development. All of the lower level alternatives, such as alternative energy and agriculture, etc., require changing the debt controls.

However, we can not change the debt controls without changing the death controls, since the established debt controls were built by old death control systems.

I think it all fits together in a neat package that the most important things are also the things that are the most denied and suppressed.

Of course, population control is the most important feature of all our our ecological, environmental problems. Of course, population control is really death control, and is as taboo as a social topic can be.

The paradox is that the most important social truth is surely going to be the most buried under the bullshit of bullies that are doing the controlling.

Since death control depended upon dishonesty, we are the most dishonest about our death control.

Reality is not far away from truth.

However, the dominant social stories are extremely far away from reality, and getting farther.

Going through a scientific revolution in political science is merely to go through a perceptual paradigm shift.

The reality continues to be the same as before … we merely can see and talk about it in a radically different way.

Seeing and talking about our problems in radically different ways makes it possible to eventually resolve those problems in radically different ways.

The creative synthesis of plan C
takes the ideals from plan A and makes them more realistically possible, by going through the real means that plan B already uses.

This thread of posts started with a talk by Paul Ehrlick. Of course, I read his works when I was a yonng man. I had great respect for him back then. However, when I heard him pooh, pooh the idea that the 9/11/2001 events were a false flag operation, that must have been some kind of inside job, then I found myself on the other side of the social polarization around this issue.

That split is symbolic of the other ways that I now have a radically different view of what the population problem is, and how to deal with it.

I continue to agree that unlimited population growth is central to the entire madness of exponential growth, which could end in catastrophic collapse.

Where I differ most is that I regard the possible future genocides as being on a continuum with all of the other superior ways to have better death controls.

All of the better ways to achieve death control are well-known,
such a more education for women, and lower infant mortality, etc..

However, these ideas are being developed inside of the bullies’ bullshit world view, instead of being developed within the reality of the world run by the bullies.

False fundamental dichotomies set up ideals that are not based on reality, and could never be made real. True unitary mechanisms are based on what already really exists. Changes based on true unitary mechanisms are possible, and can be aimed at the ideal goals which are presented by the false fundamental dichotomies.

However, it is backwards to start with the roof, and then build the walls down to the floor.

We do not get to the ideals by building on the ideals. Those ideals are nothing more than transcendental poetry.

We may approach the ideals by changing reality in realistic ways that are guided by our overall ideals.

What reactionary revolutionaries do is recognize and condemn the ways that the world is controlled by dishonesty and violence, but then claim they will provide truth and justice instead.

Over and over again, I see excellent analysis of the political problems followed by bullshit solutions.

The real solutions are always going to have to be new systems of lies and coercions. The real solutions are going to have to change the real death and debt controls.

Plan B is what results when one faces the facts that the world is controlled by lies and coercion, and that governments are the best at doing that.

Plan C is the attempt to accomplish the goals of plan A, after allowing for the reality of Plan B.

…

Most of the people who talk about ecological and environmental problems stay in the realm of various versions of the ideal plan A. Thus, they end up being reactionary revolutionaries promoting impossible ideals that can never work.

- —

Blair,

I hear you, and I believe you’re on to something here. I can only answer for myself, be honest and admit that I’m naïve. I know, very well, that the world systems of politics, economy, and social or cultural control are all based on “lies and coercion, and that governments are the best at doing that.” I know this, I understand this, and in my opinion it is making it impossible to believe in a successful transition from a situation where the natural world is being systematically and methodically destroyed to another situation; one in which “the meaning of life” would be to prevent any further environmental distruction from happening.

As I see it, a “Plan A” political culture is needed in order to achieve any large-scale changes in the direction of preserving the natural world, and not only treat it like a pool of natural resources put in place in order to be exploited. A “Plan A” political culture is needed in order to make way for a higher level of equity and trust, on a local as well as a regional, continental and global level. As I have come to understand it, a higher level of equity and trust within the global population — as well as more local populations — is probably the first and most important prerequisite for success. Because we need to “be in this together.” A sense of togetherness can only be established by and within a political culture in which “truth and justice will prevail.” As it is, right now, we’re not all seated in the same proverbial boat; we’re seated in each our boats, jeering and spitting all sorts of insults at each other, and if this situation that can’t be corrected, all hopes for a greening future will be purely academic.

So here I sit. Stupidly hoping that the political culture of our time and age will “grow up”, “face the facts” and start to “deal with” a long range of manmade natural disasters, not as inconvenient truths but as challenges to the human race which can and must be solved. — And that we’re dealing with something much larger than a more energy-effective lightbulb.

Individual persons and families can only do so much. Change lighbulbs, save some electricity, send some of their thrash for recycling, make use of their bicycle more often than they normally would, travel collectively and slow down on general consumption.

As soon as you reach village, neighbourhood and town levels, there’s not much anyone can do. We are all proving totally unable to voluntarily act in concert. Economic man, with all of his social structures and cultural constructs keep getting in the way. That is why government help, guidance and assistence is required.

So here I am. Nothing other than “a reactionary revolutionary promoting impossible ideals that can never work.” I’m sorry.

Your opening comment — brilliant and eminently quotable! It states what is obvious and indeed, an article of faith to many of us who discuss here at GIM… but that doesn’t take away from it at all. It is nonetheless brilliant… so much so that I’m gonna copy-paste this and quote it at my two Rotary talks next week.

Of course I’m also gonna look for selections from others in our circle, like John and Trinifar… but please accept a rather gratuitous compliment from me this morning.

Warmly,
Krish

What I looked at, and my thoughts about that, are under the “9/11″ thread on my forum at

http://www.marijuanaparty.ca/forum.html

I agree with RJ above regarding:

“the impossibility of WTC’s 1,2 & 7 collapsing in the manner that they did gravitationally”

The official story is the most ridiculous of all the conspiracy theories.

Paul Ehrlick probably, like John Feeney, simply has not had the time to investigate … there is no doubt there is a lot of disinformation, and it takes a lot of effort to wade through it.

In the end, I think it requires a paradigm shift to be willing to consider that our governments are the best organized gangs of criminals.

Most people do not want to go through that shift.

I refer to the resulting situation as becoming

Plans, A, B, and C.

Plan A is what happens when one believes that the government is the good guys, and that with more evidence and logic, truth and justice will prevail.

Plan B is what results
when one faces the facts that the world is controlled by lies and coercion, and that governments are the best at doing that.

Plan C is the attempt to accomplish the goals of plan A, after allowing for the reality of Plan B.

I think that 9/11 was clearly a triumph for plan B. I think that anyone who wants to solve the world’s problems without facing the facts about plan B is a reactionary revolutionary.

Plan B is already controlling the real world.

Plan B built the debt engines of fractional reserve banking.

Plan B is run by fascist warmongers who are adapted to benefit from wars.

In the real world, those who are best at being dishonest and violent ended up prevailing. They run the real plan B, and they have already built a global system of organized robbery and fraud.

In the old days, one could simply accept that fact, and attempt to become better at dishonesty and violence, in order to fit into that reality, and benefit from it.

However, with the progress of post-modernizing science making weapons become billions and trillions of times more powerful, plan B has become totally insane.

However, in the short-term, any attempt to really change anything has to face these social facts that plan B is now almost totally triumphant.

Plan C is the hope for a creative synthesis of solutions that works after accepting the reality of Plan B, along with the desire for the goals of Plan A.

Pure Plan A is bullshit.

Pure Plan B is evil.

Plan B benefits from Plan A being based on impossible ideals.

Realistic ideals should face the social facts about the real plan B.

Since plan B based on huge lies, backed up with coercion, but the coercion can not make those lies become true, plan B automatically gets farther and farther away from reality, and plan B’s greatest danger to itself is failure from too much success.

Our world is spinning out of control because we are controlled by huge lies, that only work to the degree that they can be backed up with violence.

The lies are getting bigger, and the ability to use violence to back those lies up has gone into astronomical magnitudes of omnicidal insanity.

We have never been here before, and we do not know where we are going …

There is a profoundly different attitude towards population control that comes from plan C.

Paul Ehrlick has become a goofy promoter of plan A.

Plan A is silly because it ignores the depth of the real plan B.

Paul Ehrlick’s plan A goals become radically different in how they could be achieved according to any realization in a plan C.

Plan C faces the fact that the world is already directed by real rates of robbery (with death control the most extreme form of that robbery).

Plan C is an attempt to move towards the goals of plan A after facing the facts that plan B is how the real world is running, and facing the real reasons why that is so.

The laws of nature are at work when human nature goes down the path of least resistance.

Organizing resistance to change the path of least resistance ought to recognize the reality of plan B, and respect why plan B is actually controlling the real world.

Most of the people who talk about ecological and environmental problems stay in the realm of various versions of the ideal plan A. Thus, they end up being reactionary revolutionaries promoting impossible ideals that can never work.

Instead, such impossible ideals actually make the opposite happen in the real world.

The real world was designed and built by plan B. Real world systems were made and maintained by lies and coercion serving organized systems of robbery and fraud.

Since that is what exists, that is what we have to try to evolve in order to continue existing.

The real world will be an evolution of plan B, and our real goals should be to find realistic ways to blend more of plan A into a creative synthesis with plan B, to become a better plan C.

Plan A is the thesis that evidence and logic, or truth and justice, should matter.

Plan B is the antithesis that lies and coercion, or dishonesty and violence, actually control the resolution of conflicts.

Plan C is the creative synthesis that endeavours to incorporate more of the goals of plan A through the mechanisms of plan B.

Paul Ehrlick spoke about tending more now in his research to work on cultural evolution.

However, I heard nothing to indicate that he has gone through the necessary paradigm shifts to do that kind of thinking about cultural evolution.

Somebody who believes the official story about 9/11 is too naive to be able to understand our culture.

I think Paul Ehrlick is on a dead-end path regarding his understanding of population control.

His language is too much based on the bullies’ bullshit world view.

There are two things which I think are interconnected and equally important:

one is the destruction of the natural world,

while the second is social polarization.

One of the important dimensions of social polarization manifests itself in the ways that people are able and willing to face the facts that their governments are huge liars, and that those lies are triumphant because those lies were systematically backed up with violence for many generations.

Some people believe the huge lies that their government has been telling them.

Some people begin to disbelieve these huge lies.

Of the people who begin to disbelieve the government, some retreat and regroup at another level of huge lies.

I call those who believe in the huge lies that they were brainwashed to believe the “mainstream.”

I call those who disbelieve the huge lies, but retreat and regroup at another level of huge lies, the “reactionary revolutionaries.”

I say scientific revolution is to face the facts that society is already being controlled by lies and coercions, and that we need new systems of lies and coercions,
to accomplish the necessary social and environmental purposes in more effective and efficient ways that have better chances of longer term survival.

I say that scientific revolution accepts the fundamental social facts that governments are, and must necessarily be, the best organized gangs of criminals, and works with those expressions of natural laws to evolve new systems of organized robbery and fraud that could survive for a longer time.

Plan C requires radically different language than Plan A, because Plan C faces the facts that Plan B is what is real.

Scientific revolution is paradigm shifting, and the frame of reference may thus be turned upside-down, inside-out, and backwards.

Going through the paradigm shift to perceive that “growth is madness” leads one to say that, generally, we should be doing the opposite of everything we are now doing.

That includes the way that we think about our culture and how it may evolve.