DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Geopolitics
*****************************************************
#Post#: 18--------------------------------------------------
The Anti-Democratic Elite Fix Was IN From The Very Start of the
USA
By: AGelbert Date: October 10, 2013, 5:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Luther Martin: Representative for Maryland and dissenting
Anti-Federalist. Was shocked at the attempt by the elite to
overthrow the existing government in secret in 1787, and swore
to tell the people what Washington, Madison and Hamilton were up
to. The rich were terrified of the people screwed by Hamilton's
bank bailouts and after Shay's Rebellion almost saw Philidelphia
captured by angry citizens, they were ready to install a police
state.
Martin warned we were ill-advised to install a President King
who would plot against the people in concert with the Senate: He
said we were crazy to put men into a chamber for six year terms
instead of the current one-year terms; men who would no longer
be paid by their states and move away from their constituents to
a corrupt political city, and who could not be recalled for any
reason by their state for misbehavior. He said we were going to
lose our freedom under the reintroduction of a hated standing
army and that we would suffer under the despotism of a Supreme
Court with no citizen jury.
He stormed out and refused to sign the Constitution without a
Bill of Rights, and broke the convention's signed oath of
secrecy that Mad-Man Madison made everyone sign before being
admitted. Martin went straight to the press and warned the
people not to ratify this powerful central government with a
crazy central bank and insane electoral college scheme designed
to strip citizens of any meaningful representation.
Before this abomination was ratified, there were 2,000
representatives for the people: One rep existed for about 300
citizens. The Constitution made it one rep per MINIMUM 30,000 to
60,000 [I]but CONVENIENTLY DID NOT STATE A MAXIMUM POPULATION
PER REP![/i]
That apparently wasn't good enough for the oligarchs as our
population grew so shortly after 1913 a cork was put on the
maximum number of representatives. Please note that ALL new
voting groups from women to minorities to Native Americans got
the "right" to vote AFTER the cork was put on the maximum number
of reps .
NOTE: The 14th Amendment right to vote for African Americans
after the Civil War became a cruel farce by 1876. The elitist
Supreme Court twisted the 14th Amendment to give Corporations
personhood as a cruel and cynical vicious slap to the original
intent of the 14th Amendment. Even as blacks where being
disenfranchised, the courts were busy giving corporations extra
privileges along with the license to break the law with impunity
called limited liability.
Now, in most states, there is only one rep for 740,000 citizens,
and virtually ZERO chance of you ever talking to one. >:( :P
Source: the Actual Anti-Federalist writings...
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Complete_Anti-Federalist
#Post#: 60--------------------------------------------------
The Folly of Empire
By: AGelbert Date: October 14, 2013, 6:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The Folly of Empire
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/129fs238648.gif
By Chris Hedges
The final days of empire give ample employment and power to the
feckless, the insane and the idiotic. These politicians and
court propagandists, hired to be the public faces on the sinking
ship, mask the real work of the crew, which is systematically
robbing the passengers as the vessel goes down. The mandarins of
power stand in the wheelhouse barking ridiculous orders and
seeing how fast they can gun the engines. They fight like
children over the ship’s wheel as the vessel heads full speed
into a giant ice field. They wander the decks giving pompous
speeches. They shout that the SS America is the greatest ship
ever built. They insist that it has the most advanced technology
and embodies the highest virtues. And then, with abrupt and
unexpected fury, down we will go into the frigid waters.
The last days of empire are carnivals of folly. We are in the
midst of our own, plunging forward as our leaders court willful
economic and environmental self-destruction. Sumer and Rome went
down like this. So did the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires.
Men and women of stunning mediocrity and depravity led the
monarchies of Europe and Russia on the eve of World War I. And
America has, in its own decline, offered up its share of
weaklings, dolts and morons to steer it to destruction. A nation
that was still rooted in reality would never glorify charlatans
such as Sen. Ted Cruz, House Speaker John Boehner and former
Speaker Newt Gingrich as they pollute the airwaves. If we had
any idea what was really happening to us we would have turned in
fury against Barack Obama, whose signature legacy will be utter
capitulation to the demands of Wall Street, the fossil fuel
industry, the military-industrial complex and the security and
surveillance state. We would have rallied behind those few, such
as Ralph Nader, who denounced a monetary system based on
gambling and the endless printing of money and condemned the
willful wrecking of the ecosystem. We would have mutinied. We
would have turned the ship back.
The populations of dying empires are passive because they are
lotus-eaters. There is a narcotic-like reverie among those
barreling toward oblivion. [color=red]They retreat into the
sexual, the tawdry and the inane, retreats that are momentarily
pleasurable but ensure self-destruction. [/color] They naively
trust it will all work out. As a species, Margaret Atwood
observes in her dystopian novel “Oryx and Crake,” “we’re doomed
by hope.” And absurd promises of hope and glory are endlessly
served up by the entertainment industry, the political and
economic elite, the class of courtiers who pose as journalists,
self-help gurus like Oprah and religious belief systems that
assure followers that God will always protect them. It is
collective self-delusion, a retreat into magical thinking.
“The American citizen thus lives in a world where fantasy is
more real than reality, where the image has more dignity than
the original,” Daniel J. Boorstin wrote in his book “The Image:
A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America.” “We hardly dare face our
bewilderment, because our ambiguous experience is so pleasantly
iridescent, and the solace of belief in contrived reality is so
thoroughly real. We have become eager accessories in the great
hoaxes of the age. These are the hoaxes we play on ourselves.”
Culture and literacy, in the final stage of decline, are
replaced with noisy diversions and empty clichés. The Roman
statesman Cicero inveighed against their ancient equivalent—the
arena. Cicero, for his honesty, was hunted down and murdered and
his hands and head were cut off. His severed head and his right
hand, which had written the Philippics, were nailed onto the
speaker’s platform in the Forum. The roaring crowds, while the
Roman elite spat on the head, were gleefully told he would never
speak or write again. In the modern age this toxic, mindless
cacophony, our own version of spectacle and gladiator fights, of
bread and circus, is pumped into the airwaves in 24-hour cycles.
Political life has fused into celebrity worship. Education is
primarily vocational. Intellectuals are cast out and despised.
Artists cannot make a living. Few people read books. Thought has
been banished, especially at universities and colleges, where
timid pedants and careerists churn out academic drivel.
“Although tyranny, because it needs no consent, may successfully
rule over foreign peoples,” Hannah Arendt wrote in “The Origins
of Totalitarianism,” “it can stay in power only if it destroys
first of all the national institutions of its own people.” And
ours have been destroyed.
Sensual pleasure and eternal youth are our overriding
obsessions. The Roman emperor Tiberius, at the end, fled to
the island of Capri and turned his seaside palace into a house
of unbridled lust and violence. “Bevies of girls and young men,
whom he had collected from all over the Empire as adepts in
unnatural practices, and known as spintriae, would copulate
before him in groups of three, to excite his waning passions,”
Suetonius wrote in “The Twelve Caesars.” Tiberius trained small
boys, whom he called his minnows, to frolic with him in the
water and perform oral sex. And after watching prolonged
torture, he would have captives thrown into the sea from a cliff
near his palace. Tiberius
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-015.gif<br
/>would be followed by Caligula
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/minzdr.gif
and Nero.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/mog.gif
“At times when the page is turning,” Louis-Ferdinand Céline
wrote in “Castle to Castle,” “when History brings all the nuts
together, opens its Epic Dance Halls! hats and heads in the
whirlwind! Panties overboard!”
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/p8.gifhttp://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs2277341.gif
The anthropologist Joseph Tainter in his book “The Collapse of
Complex Societies” looked at the collapse of civilizations from
the Roman to the Mayan. He concluded that they disintegrated
because they finally could not sustain the bureaucratic
complexities they had created.
Layers of bureaucracy demand more and more exploitation, not
only of the environment but the laboring classes. They become
calcified by systems that are unable to respond to the changing
reality around them. They, like our elite universities and
business schools, churn out systems managers, people who are
taught not to think but to blindly service the system.
These systems managers know only how to perpetuate themselves
and the system they serve, although serving that system means
disemboweling the nation and the planet.
Our elites and bureaucrats exhaust the earth to hold up a system
that worked in the past, failing to see that it no longer works.
Elites, rather than contemplate reform, which would jeopardize
their privilege and power, retreat in the twilight of empire
into walled compounds like the Forbidden City or Versailles.
They invent their own reality. Those on Wall Street and in
corporate boardrooms have replicated this behavior. They insist
that continued reliance on fossil fuel and speculations will
sustain the empire. State resources, as Tainter notes, are at
the end increasingly squandered on extravagant and senseless
projects and imperial adventures. And then it all collapses. :o
Our collapse will take the whole planet with it.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
It is more pleasant, I admit, to stand mesmerized in front of
our electronic hallucinations. It is easier to check out
intellectually. It is more gratifying to imbibe the hedonism and
the sickness of the worship of the self and money. It is more
comforting to chatter about celebrity gossip and ignore or
dismiss what is reality. >:(
HTML http://img1.fantasticfiction.co.uk/images/n37/n188883.jpg
Thomas Mann in “The Magic Mountain” and Joseph Roth in “Hotel
Savoy” brilliantly chronicled this peculiar state of mind. In
Roth’s hotel the first three floors house in luxury the bloated
rich, the amoral politicians, the bankers and the business
owners.
[img width=640
height=780]
HTML http://www.estacaoliberdade.com.br/wordpress-3.5-pt_BR/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Hotel-Savoy_ALTA-199x300.jpg[/img]
The upper floors are crammed with people who struggle to pay
their bills and who are steadily divested of their possessions
until they are destitute and cast out. There is no political
ideology among decayed ruling elites, despite choreographed
debates and elaborate political theater. It is, as it always is
at the end, one vast kleptocracy.
Just before World War II, a friend asked Roth, a Jewish
intellectual who had fled Nazi Germany for Paris, “Why are you
drinking so much?” Roth answered: “Do you think you are going to
escape? You too are going to be wiped out.”
HTML http://www.truthdig.com/report/page2/the_folly_of_empire_20131014
[move][I]
God is not mocked, whatsoever you sow, that you shall
reap.[/I][/move]
#Post#: 61--------------------------------------------------
The madness of capital
By: AGelbert Date: October 14, 2013, 8:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The madness of capital
World leaders remain wedded to economic metrics that say little
about the well-being of humans and the environment.
Last Modified: 13 Oct 2013 14:39
Jason Hickel
Dr Jason Hickel lectures at the London School of Economics and
serves as an adviser to /The Rules. He has contributed political
critique and analysis to various magazines. He is currently
working on a new book titled 'The Development Delusion: Why Aid
Misses the Point about Poverty'.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-141013210417.jpeg
Governments subsidize the fossil fuel industry to the tune of
about $2tn a year, writes Hickel (EPA)
Last month the Associated Press reported that the income gap in
the United States broke a new record in 2012, with the 1 percent
grabbing a greater share of total household wealth than ever
before in history.
This news follows on the heels of the fact that the 1 percent
not only captured all of the income gains during the first two
years of the economic recovery, but also stole a portion of the
already-existing incomes of the bottom 99 percent, causing
median household income to decline despite overall economic
growth.
The American people have not been silent in the face of this
injustice. The fall of 2011 brought the biggest protest movement
that the nation had seen in decades, with countless sit-ins,
rallies, marches, and petitions across the country. How did the
government respond to this unprecedented wave of democratic
expression? First they curtailed our freedom of speech and used
"counterterrorism" units - in collusion with Wall Street banks -
to coordinate military force against us. Then they proceeded to
do exactly the opposite of what we asked.
Our voices have been heard loud and clear. Yet the US elite, and
the political class that serves them, have moved in the past few
years to siphon not less of our nation's collective wealth, but
more.
What is so interesting about this continuing heist is that it
has been so brazen. There has been little attempt to hide behind
the usual justifications. Why? Because no one really believes
them anymore.
We all know that trickle-down economics is a farce.
We know that outrageous CEO salaries are not only unnecessary
but actively wasteful. We know that raising minimum wages does
not cause unemployment.
We know that the bank bailout was an inside job, and, after the
Citizens United ruling, we can all see how our political system
has been captured by corporate interests.
These are now open secrets. The game is rigged, and we know it.
False consciousness
In a well-known passage from Capital, Marx summarises his theory
of false consciousness in the following phrase: "Sie wissen das
nicht, aber sie tun es". In English: "They do not know it, but
they are doing it". His claim here is that ideology relies on a
sort of collective naivete; that people accept a set of
illusions that obscure how the system really works. According to
Marx, capitalism persists because of this false consciousness.
UN: Extremely likely global warming man-made
But our culture today is much more cynical than this. Slavoj
Zizek suggests that a more accurate twist on Marx's words might
read: "They know very well what they are doing, but still, they
are doing it." Zizek means for this to describe the general
population, but it seems to me that it more accurately describes
our economic and political elites. No one has any illusions
about how destructive their pursuit of profit has become. Yet
they show no signs of changing course.
Nowhere is this clearer than in the debate about climate change.
We have known the math for a long time. We know that we have
to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius if we want to
avoid catastrophe. To keep from tipping over this threshold, we
can only emit another 300 gigatons of carbon globally. Yet right
now the world's proven oil and gas reserves contain about 2,700
gigatons. That's how much the 1 percent are presently planning
to burn. If we continue at our present rate of consumption, we
will blow through our allotment in about 15 years.
There are a number of very vocal people who deny the science
behind climate change despite the overwhelming evidence at hand.
Yet far more dangerous, and far more illustrative of the
cynicism of our times, are those leaders and policymakers who
accept the science but nonetheless have no plans to do anything
about it. We've watched climate summit after climate summit spin
by - Copenhagen, Cancun, Durban, Doha - without any binding plan
of action.
In fact, our governments are doing exactly the opposite of what
they should be doing. Instead of investing seriously in
alternative energies, they are subsidizing the global fossil
fuel industry to the tune of nearly $2tn per year. We have been
watching Arctic sea ice melt with astonishing speed, but instead
of recognising this for the disaster that it is, states and
corporations are rushing to extract the fossil fuels that are
becoming accessible as a result.
There is a certain madness to our present age. The 1 percent is
so devoted to serving the imperatives of capital that they are
willing to sacrifice all basic reason.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/p8.gifhttp://www.pic4ever.com/images/126fs2277341.gif
As John Lennon once so famously put it, "our society is being
run by maniacs for maniacal ends".
Gross domestic product mania
Behind the madness of the 1 percent in the face of climate
change lies another open secret that they are unwilling to face:
the contradictions of economic growth. Since the recession
began, we have been bombarded with the message that we need to
rev the global economy back up to at least 3 percent growth in
gross domestic product (GDP) per year. Anything less, and
economists tell us we're in a crisis. But what is this indicator
that has come to occupy such a central place in our operating
system? What does it measure?
To imagine that we can continue on this trajectory indefinitely
is to disavow the most obvious truths about our planet's
material limits.
Introduced only in the late 1940s by American economists, GDP
measures the total market value of all of the natural resources
and human labour turned into commodities and sold for money. So
if you cut down a forest and sell the timber, GDP goes up. But
GDP includes no cost accounting. It does not measure the cost of
losing the forest as a future resource, as a home for endangered
species, or as a sinkhole for carbon dioxide. In other words,
GDP tells a story that reflects only a very narrow set of
interests.
As long as we continue churning nature and humans into products,
and as long as we do this more each year than the one before,
then, according to the world's most dominant measure of success,
we're doing well.
But, as David Korten has put it, using GDP as the standard of
economic well-being "makes no more sense than taking the rapid
expansion of one's girth as an indicator of improved personal
health". It's a shallow measurement, and it doesn't measure the
right things. Not only does it leave out what is bad, it also
leaves out much of what is good. When you take care of your
elderly parents, when you grow your own food in a community
garden, when you set aside land as a biodiversity preserve -
none of this contributes to GDP.
We know that there is something wrong with the logic of this
arbitrary measure. Yet our entire political system is organised
around it, obsessed with increasing GDP growth each year in
perpetuity. Even at only 3 percent, that means finding more than
$2tn worth of new investments every year. Consider the sheer
scale of the production and consumption that this requires. Each
year we have to add the equivalent of the size of the entire
global economy of 1970 just to be able to say that we're
"progressing".
To imagine that we can continue on this trajectory indefinitely
is to disavow the most obvious truths about our planet's
material limits.
Yet this model holds such sway among policymakers that even the
most supposedly progressive and compassionate factions uphold
it, as we can see in the case of the international development
community. The UN high-level panel for the new Millennium
Development Goals, for instance, has called on the world's
governments to eradicate global poverty by 2030. This is a noble
goal indeed, but the means by which the panel hopes to get there
- namely, through economic growth - relies on some very scary
mathematics.
Assuming the existing ratio between GDP growth and the income
growth of the poorest, eradicating poverty with this strategy
would require that we increase global production and consumption
by more than 12 times. And that's using a poverty line of $1.25
per day, which is really more like a starvation line. A more
realistic poverty line is about $5 per day. But in order to
accomplish even this most basic feat we would need to increase
global production and consumption by 175 times.
Even if this were physically possible, what would the
consequences look like? Economist David Woodward has pointed
out: "There is simply no way this can be achieved without
triggering truly catastrophic climate change - which, apart from
anything else, would obliterate any potential gains from poverty
reduction."
Willful self-delusion
The growth paradigm - the code at the heart of our system that
calls for constant expansion and constant accumulation - is so
riddled with contradictions that it beggars belief. During the
height of modernist optimism in the 1950s we might have
explained devotion to this model as a kind of false
consciousness. But today, given what we have come to know, we
can only describe it as madness - a sort of willful
self-delusion.
The radical position is to imagine that we can carry on as we
are ... Yet, as George Orwell knew so well, 'to see what is in
front of one's nose needs a constant struggle'.
Ultimately, the persistence of this reality - which has been
fabricated by elites - relies on the willingness of populations
to buy into it. We are now seeing signs all over the world that
this consent is straining to breaking point, that people have
grown weary of the mad logic of capital and are eager to push
their imaginations beyond the limits that have been set for
them.
Will this be enough? We must make it so. We need to find each
other. We need to abolish our fear. We need to believe that
something else is possible.
There are sparks of hope out there. A number of countries have
already begun to reject the dominant economic paradigm.
Ecuador's new, path-breaking National Development Plan, for
example, refuses the tired call to rev up growth and exploit
people and nature in favor of an economy based on the principles
of sharing, commons, and bien vivir, or "good living".
In the West, the New Economics Foundation has outlined policies
for a zero-growth economy, something even Keynes knew we would
someday have to achieve. There is also a growing movement to
abolish GDP and replace it with a more realistic indicator, such
as GPI, which allows economists to account for resource
depletion, carbon dioxide emissions, and income distribution
when measuring economic well-being.
Imagine: What if we elected politicians on the basis of their
plans to maximize bien vivir or improve GPI?
This is not a radical position. On the contrary, the radical
position is to imagine that we can carry on as we are. It's a
simple point, really. Yet, as George Orwell knew so well, "to
see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle".
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/gen152.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/snapoutofit.gif
HTML http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/10/madness-capital-20131013104914501596.html
#Post#: 62--------------------------------------------------
Hedges and Scheer on American Fascism
By: AGelbert Date: October 14, 2013, 8:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hedges and Scheer on American Fascism
HTML http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/chris_hedges_and_robert_scheer_discuss_american_fascism_20131011
HTML http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/chris_hedges_and_robert_scheer_discuss_american_fascism_20131011
Listen at the link to The two celebrated journalists discuss the
collapse of vital institutions and the rise of demagogues and
charlatans in post-meltdown America.
People are getting it. The following truthful comment (clear to
most at the DD over a decade ago!) received much approval and no
scorn. That is a sea change from just a few years ago.
[quote]Bernard Martin
Gee, awareness at last! Anyone who didn't sleep thru
history/civics classes and educated in pre-Reagan days surely
has seen this nation sliding into fascism just by merely
referencing the characteristics of classic fascist philosophy
and the socio/cultural changes which have been occurring in this
country.
What we euphemistically call free market capitalism is merely
fascism in civilian garb. Corporate oligarchs and government are
one and the same, thus the ever prevalent "revolving door"
between the ruling and business elite and the progressive
exclusion of the average citizen from meaningful civic
involvement.
Also, the proliferation of propaganda and fear mongering
designed to foster the bigotry, hatred, and insecurity of the
more ignorant and insular segments of society serves to keep the
people focused on collective negative traits of their cohorts
rather than those who systematically work to drain the wealth of
the economy for their own purposes.
27 △ ▽ .[/quote]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
#Post#: 122--------------------------------------------------
The Industrial Revolution Created Predatory Capitalism; Our Cons
titution HELPED!
By: AGelbert Date: October 20, 2013, 5:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The Constitution is a pro-slavery document.
Much has been written about the Revolution being, at it's core,
an attempt to immunize the colonies from the "disturbing" (to
Jefferson -he was furious years later when Haiti obtained
independence and violated even the good parts of the
constitution by authorizing to give the French plantation owners
money and weapons to quell the rebellion - , many other
founding fathers and their wealthy friends) move in England at
the time to outlaw slavery.
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://www.cartoonwork.com/compassionate_conservatism_sjpg1323.jpg[/img]
The industrial revolution and how the elite parasitic modus
operandi called "capitalism" benefited massively from mass
production is the main historical influence that led to our
polluted world and the cruel poverty wage structure of today.
The mass production factories created a new type slavery without
the pejorative connotation of being race linked but it was still
slavery.
When enslaving African Americans was no longer cost effective
due to farm machinery, new ways to enslave them and the poor
whites as well as any other ethnic poor had to be invented.
After all, the elite did not like one bit the idea that the
increased efficiency of a laborer could provide that laborer
with more free time and a better life. The 1% had conniption
fits thinking about all those people out there having the time
to sit, think and figure out how TBTB were gaming them.
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-F6mRO-kCiok/TqbpS5jf6gI/AAAAAAAAAEQ/t58xUGQ-uSo/s640/boys-in-factory2.jpg[/img]
No, the elite developed a plan to "keep em' busy". The guilt
trip sermons from pulpits all over America went out after the
Civil War to demonize leisure and glorify "nose to the
grindstone" work as being "God's Will". Few evils in human
behavior exceed that of the act of conning people that trust you
into willingly allowing themselves to be exploited based on the
claim that it's what the are OBLIGATED to do because the person
IN AUTHORITY speaks for GOD. There is a special place in hell
for these elite predatory capitalist water carrying apologists
that wear the cloth. >:(
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://www.sciencephoto.com/image/362577/350wm/V2000034-Aerial_view_of_factories_during_the_19th_century.-SPL.jpg[/img]
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/images/20030037-r%20copy.jpg[/img]
Factory owners displaying their "work ethic"
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif
The elite's "work ethic" includes years of "sabbaticals",
"learning experiences", "naval gazing" and "introspection" that
translate to long stretches of time doing absolutely nothing
productive. I think that's wonderful and should be available to
all of us as a means to a healthier and happier mindset. That's
why the elite do it. For them to then turn around and unleash
their propaganda water carrying lackeys solemnly mouthing the
"don't be lazy, work your fingers to the bone for us" bull****
on the populace is the epitome of duplicity.
It is said the word "saboteur" derives from the Netherlands in
the 15th century when workers would throw their sabots (wooden
shoes) into the wooden gears of the textile looms to break the
cogs, fearing the automated machines would render the human
workers obsolete.
Notice how the word "saboteur" has a negative connotation. This
shows who controls the historical narrative. I believe the Dutch
laborers weren't just concerned about obsolescence; they were
concerned about controlling how much they got paid for their
labor.
Mass production was the beginning of a massive concentration of
wealth by greedy machinery owners that refused to pay equitable
wages.
This is what "Capitalism" is really all about. It is sold as
free market this and that but, in practice, it is nothing but
elite parasitism.
HTML http://www.opednews.com/populum/uploaded/wemeantwell-23439-20130307-234.jpg
When the English gentry wanted to corral the peasants into
working in the factories, as well as use more of their land to
grow sheep for fleece free from peasant interference, they came
up with a pack of thinly justified herding mechanisms (Enclosure
Laws) that stripped the peasants of their ability to live off
the land.
The peasants were not buying the con that working in a factory
was a better deal than living off the land. They had to be
forced.
They knew damned good and well that the factory owners were not
going to pay decent wages or provide adequate working
conditions.
Today, all this disguised tyranny called capitalism is festooned
with gooblygock terms like competitive advantage and arbitrage
along with a plethora of terms from the crooked imaginations of
bored economists but it continues to be about elite parasitism.
In the financial area the vampire proboscis is usury but that is
not the whole story by a long shot. Patent law is another huge
part of RHIP that was NEVER there to protect inventors UNLESS
those inventors were from the upper class.
The bottom line is the control of the populace for the power,
profit and pleasure of the TPBT.
[quote]Enclosure
In English social and economic history, enclosure or
inclosure[1] is the process which ends traditional rights such
as mowing meadows for hay, or grazing livestock on common land
formerly held in the open field system. Once enclosed, these
uses of the land become restricted to the owner, and it ceases
to be common land. In England and Wales the term is also used
for the process that ended the ancient system of arable farming
in open fields. Under enclosure, such land is fenced (enclosed)
and deeded or entitled to one or more owners. The process of
enclosure began to be a widespread feature of the English
agricultural landscape during the 16th century. By the 19th
century, unenclosed commons had become largely restricted to
rough pasture in mountainous areas and to relatively small parts
of the lowlands.
The process of enclosure has sometimes been accompanied by
force, resistance, and bloodshed, and remains among the most
controversial areas of agricultural and economic history in
England. Marxist and neo-Marxist historians argue that rich
landowners used their control of state processes to appropriate
public land for their private benefit.
This created a landless working class that provided the labour
required in the new industries developing in the north of
England. For example: "In agriculture the years between 1760 and
1820 are the years of wholesale enclosure in which, in village
after village, common rights are lost".[2] "Enclosure (when all
the sophistications are allowed for) was a plain enough case of
class robbery".[3]HYPERLINK \l "cite_note-3"[4][/quote]
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure
The following video tells the real story of capitalism's birth
and growth through the power the elite obtained in the
industrial revolution, how the poor were demonized as being
"lazy" for attempting to avoid the horrors of factory work by
staying and living off the land. They had to be forced, along
with their children, to do so.[/I]
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0nM5DU4ADI&feature=player_embedded<br
/>
The only proper economic system that humans should engage in is
the egalitarian socialism that the early Christians engaged in
as shown in the Book of Acts in the New Testament. The Apostles
were the top dogs but they received no special privileges and
had to work as hard as anybody else.
The elite despise egalitarianism so they invented all sorts of
euphemisms for tyranny like capitalism, as well as 20th century
Soviet Communism. It's six of one and half a dozen of the other.
They all end up with a few reptiles in the catbird seat making
life miserable for the rest of us.
That is one of the reasons why, in my articles on Renewables, I
am adamantly opposed to scaling up renewable energy sources into
centralized power generating facilities UNLESS they are
nationalized.
Privatization of centralized power leads to pollution and
illicit profits which are then used to buy the government.
Decentralized renewable power generating facilities provide
stable, secure and long term jobs free from the feast or famine
fun and games so favored by predatory capitalism.
Capitalism REQUIRES an insecure labor force so they can be
fleeced and set to fight against each other for jobs.
Sustainability eliminates all this tyranny and returns the
proper view of human existence that everyone should be entitled
to a decent lifestyle.
The 'cog in the wheels of industry' view of humans and their
labor as commodities is WRONG and has must be rejected by
civilization.'Creatively destroying' human quality of life for
profit is [I]good psychopathic criminal behavior, not good
business.
#Post#: 162--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Anti-Demcratic Elite Fix Was IN From The Very Start of t
he USA
By: AGelbert Date: October 26, 2013, 12:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwaNZgY9PCQ&feature=player_embedded
The Tragedy of the Commons is a (false) ASSUMPTION that EVERYONE
is GREEDY and will exploit nature to the point of exhaustion
even though it will ultimately destroy nature AND bring about
starvation of the "greedballs". It's the old, "EVERYBODY is
going to do it so I might as well do it before they do!"
predatory capitalist RESPONSIBILITY DODGE.
The TRUTH about the ACTUAL COMMONS in England was QUITE
different. When viability, NOT MAXIMUM EXPLIOTATION (as in
modern predatory psychopathic capitalism) is the ruling
principle, the COMMONS works quite well as it did in England for
centuries until the land owners got super greedy with the dawn
of the industrial revolution and DELIBERATELY began to overgraze
the land (that had hitherto been shared by the poor commoners)
with backing by the bought-and-paid for parliament that invented
the land grab called the enclosure laws.
The video explains all this better than I do but the main thing
for you to remember is to yell BULLSHIT the next time you hear
some libertarian or predatory capitalist cry crocodile tears
about the "Tragedy" of the Commons. >:(
#Post#: 163--------------------------------------------------
How the Poor got Poorer - The Bitter Truth
By: AGelbert Date: October 26, 2013, 12:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ur5k9NalS90
#Post#: 170--------------------------------------------------
How the Wealthy Wage War on Democracy Itself
By: AGelbert Date: October 27, 2013, 12:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Published on Thursday, October 24, 2013 by TruthDig.com
How the Wealthy Wage War on Democracy Itself
by Sonali Kolhatkar
If the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling was not
devastating enough for American democracy, a new case could wipe
away any remaining vestige of election integrity. The nation’s
highest court heard oral arguments in McCutcheon vs. Federal
Election Commission this month. If the court rules in favor of
Alabama mining CEO Shaun McCutcheon, rich Americans could make
unlimited amounts of campaign contributions directly to
political candidates and parties. Currently, the federal limit
for individual contributions is $123,000 over two years, a
figure that the majority of Americans don’t even earn as basic
income during that time span.(Image: Shutterstock)
The conservative National Review recently published a critique
of what author Ammon Simon called “the Left’s fear tactics” over
sounding the alarm on this new potential deregulation of money
in elections. Simon begins by making the case that money does
not in fact influence elections, citing several questionable
studies that, according to him, prove “the evidence just doesn’t
lend itself to the ‘legalized corruption’ theme.”
But he then contradictorily laments “the misguided belief that
we can regulate away money’s influence over the political
system.” The conservative admiringly points out that,
“Historically, campaign-finance laws have always been undermined
by innovative workarounds.”
Simon’s argument therefore could be summarized thus: Rich people
should be able to influence democracy simply because they are
rich, but don’t worry, their money doesn’t have any effect. But
if you do try to curb the influence they say they don’t have
they will simply acquire it by other means so just give up
trying.
In an interview about McCutcheon vs. FEC, University of Texas
journalism professor Robert Jensen told me, “The argument that
it’s a violation of my free speech rights if the government
restricts in any way the way I spend my money on campaigns has a
kind of curious logic to it. There’s a kernel of truth to it,
that when we spend money we’re engaging in a form of speech. But
when you don’t take the real world into consideration, you don’t
realize the incredible disparities in wealth will undermine
anything approaching a democratic political sphere. We need to
reframe this not as a ‘free speech’ case but as a ‘big money’
case."
That the rich influence elections with their money is as obvious
to most of us as the fact that rich people game the justice
system by being able to hire the best lawyers, or that rich
people are healthier because they can buy the best food and
health care.
Many examples of big money’s influence on politics abound, one
of which is California’s attempt at labeling genetically
modified organisms last year. While Proposition 37 had the
backing of 60 percent of voters, according to polls taken early
in the election season, the last-minute infusion of huge sums of
money by corporate food conglomerates like Monsanto, PepsiCo and
Hershey’s shifted the balance of voters who were originally in
favor of the proposition.
By the time of the election, the “No on 37” vote had gathered
$45 million to spend on advertising, while the “Yes” campaign
had brought in only about $7.3 million. The result should come
as no surprise. With a 53 to 47 percent margin, California
voters walked away from an opportunity to become the first state
in the nation to label GMOs.
Leading media reformist and Nation magazine correspondent John
Nichols has co-authored a new book with his longtime colleague
Bob McChesney called “Dollarocracy: How the Money and Media
Election Complex Is Destroying America.” In an interview about
the book, Nichols told me, “More than half a billion dollars was
spent on California’s initiatives [in 2012] and so this state
saw ‘Dollarocracy’ on steroids. Money flowed into this state and
it defined elections.”
Another example of the corrupting influence of money in
California’s elections—even before the Citizens United
decision—that had a greater human impact, particularly on poor
communities of color, was the failure of a 2004 ballot measure
to amend the state’s notorious Three Strikes law. Proposition
66, if passed, would have eased some of the harshest sentencing
aspects of the original 1994 law that sentenced third-time
felons to a minimum of 25 years to life, no matter how minor
that third infraction. The law affects black and brown
communities disproportionately. Six months before the election,
polls found that 76 percent of likely voters favored the
amendment, but after then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger spent $2
million of his own money fighting the measure, opinions shifted
and the measure narrowly lost.
Citizens United does not allow corporations and rich individuals
to contribute directly to campaigns—it requires third parties
like political action committees to accept the donations. But if
the Supreme Court rules in favor of deregulation in the latest
case of McCutcheon vs. FEC, even that last, weak barrier will be
cast aside. “The reason why rich people are interested in this,”
said McChesney, “is that those third party groups that they can
now give unlimited amounts to, have to pay a higher rate for the
TV ads than candidates. Candidates are always at the lowest rate
on the rate card. So they [the rich] can get more bang for their
buck if they give directly to the candidate’s campaign.”
Nichols put it into perspective, saying, “even if the court
doesn’t go with McCutcheon, this system is such Swiss cheese
now, that money can flow in. They’re just going to have to pay a
little more. For the super-rich donors, we’re now at the cleanup
stage. They’re like, ‘Oh, this is a little inconvenient to us.
Can we just write the big check without having to go through all
these different routes?’ ”
In other words, said McChesney, “This is basically more open
season for rich people to buy government and to buy democracy.”
One of the most insidious effects of money flooding our
political system is the turnoff factor. As people are exposed to
greater and greater numbers of political ads, they are less
likely to vote at all rather than to change their vote. Nichols
explained in an example, “Let’s say you’re a militant feminist
and you say ‘I’m going to back this candidate.’ The other side
puts on ads that say ‘that candidate has been horrible in all
these ways.’ You don’t switch over to the right-wing candidate.
You stand down. The whole point of the negative ads is to make
people who care, people who actually are interested, step back
and say ‘a pox on all your houses.’ ” Nichols added, “Negative
political ads are a form of voter suppression. They effectively
tell people ‘don’t vote.’ ”
In fact, voter turnout in 2012, which was the first big test of
the Citizens United decision, was less than 60 percent. Fewer
people voted than in the last two presidential elections in 2008
and 2004.
Sadly it is not just conservatives on the Supreme Court who want
the dollar to dominate elections. Having done his damage with
the government shutdown over Obamacare, Texas Republican Sen.
Ted Cruz wasted no time in turning his sights to a new target
this month: the nomination of Tom Wheeler as head of the Federal
Communications Commission. Wheeler is no progressive—he is a
former lobbyist and venture capitalist—but Cruz’s opposition to
Wheeler is based on his insistence that any future FCC chair
must refuse to enforce laws requiring disclosure of political ad
funders. Currently, one of the few ways in which ordinary
Americans can judge the veracity of a political ad is by
examining who has funded the ad. Cruz would like to see even
that democratic right taken away from the public.
Not surprisingly, National Review author Simon’s solution to the
corrupting influence of money in politics mirrors what
conservatives like Sen. Cruz and Justice Roberts want. His
“answer is to limit government, not free speech.” And that is
quite convenient because after all, conservative ideological
opposition to “big government” is based on a highly skewed
worldview that ordinary Americans who benefit from government
via so-called entitlements ought to fend for themselves, even if
they are drawing from programs they fund through taxes. Simon
quotes the Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro, whose logic is
stunningly perverse: “Shrink the size of government and its
intrusions in people’s lives and you’ll shrink the amount people
will spend trying to get their piece of the pie.” In other
words, once rich Americans achieve their goal of cutting vital
programs, they won’t need to spend as much on campaigns. And
voilà, our problems with campaign finance regulations will be
irrelevant.
None but the very tiniest fraction of a percent of Americans
have the kind of disposable income that McCutcheon, the Koch
brothers, Sheldon Adelson and their ilk have to pervert
elections. And most ordinary Americans recognize that. As Jensen
pointed out to me, “This is one issue where the public is pretty
clear, that flooding the political system with money in even
more direct ways is not good for democracy.”
A post-election poll in November found that more than 60 percent
of all voters, both Democrat and Republican, are concerned about
the level of money in politics. An incredible 85 percent want
the names of political ad funders disclosed. To that end, a
number of progressive organizations are working to overturn the
Citizens United decision by building a movement to amend the
Constitution. More than a dozen states, including California,
and many cities and municipalities have passed resolutions in
support of such an amendment. The all-important question is
whether a mass movement will emerge strong enough to force a
reversal of campaign deregulation and take on America’s rich in
the battle over elections, and ultimately, democracy.
© 2013 TruthDig.com
Sonali Kolhatkar
[i]Sonali Kolhatkar is Co-Director of the Afghan Women's
Mission, a US-based non-profit that supports women's rights
activists in Afghanistan. Sonali is also co-author of "Bleeding
Afghanistan: Washington, Warlords, and the Propaganda of
Silence." She is the host and producer of Uprising, a nationally
syndicated radio program with the Pacifica Network.[/I]
HTML http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/10/24-7
#Post#: 171--------------------------------------------------
Russell Brand is a Consummate Truth Teller
By: AGelbert Date: October 27, 2013, 1:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YR4CseY9pk&feature=player_embedded
Published on Thursday, October 24, 2013 by Common Dreams
Russell Brand: 'Revolution Is Coming... I Ain't Got a Flicker of
Doubt'
British comedian goes off on failed paradigm, talking
egalitarianism, consciousness, and filthiness of profit with the
BBC
- Jon Queally, staff writer
HTML http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/10/24-6
#Post#: 1435--------------------------------------------------
Re: The Anti-Demcratic Elite Fix Was IN From The Very Start of t
he USA
By: AGelbert Date: June 21, 2014, 5:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
CULTURE AND CAT VIDEOS [img width=100
height=080]
HTML http://www.chicagonow.com/steve-dales-pet-world/files/2011/09/Happy-cat.jpg[/img]
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx56Kvpaqho&feature=player_embedded
Agelbert NOTE: Television didn't just make us observers and
consumers of "culture" instead of creators and contributors, it
was a cleverly used tool to force feed lies and myths to the
populace that were (and ARE >:() far more effective than radio
and newspapers in the predatory service of corporate profit over
planet.
We were lulled to sleep by entertainment laced with propaganda
while our democracy was co-opted and the biosphere was getting
trashed for profit over planet.
The internet can CHANGE ALL THAT! Become ACTIVE, not passive.
Post and give your opinion.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-045.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/176.gif
Support those you agree
with and debate those you don't agree with using facts
HTML http://www.websmileys.com/sm/violent/sterb029.gifin
order to
[color=blue][size=14pt][i]provide a more perfect union with rich
cultural diversity.
There are many opinions but just one truth on any specific
subject matter. Our culture is enhanced by truth and reasoned
debate; it is degraded by propaganda and profit over planet.
Don't remain silent.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-028.gif<br
/> Be a contributor to the culture. Otherwise the Orwellian
propaganda masters will be the ones that OWN your thoughts and
those of your children. :([/size][/i][/color]
By the way, is there a U-tube video of that movie called "The
Naked City" (New York in 1947 before television destroyed the
culture)? I'd like to see it if anybody can find it. ;D
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page