The Immortal Cabal Ruling Our Planet

The corporation/government/public relationship can be understood from a different perspective as being very mechanistic and natural. When a species no longer does its own foraging, hunting, habitat construction individually then vulnerabilities are created that other species will exploit. Furthermore, the natural mechanism our problem can be viewed through goes into even deeper and simpler mechanistic memes...when energy in a system is no longer managed locally then the power local organisms have over their own life becomes inversely proportional to the amount of power surrendered.

Hence the scientifically simple, yet profound, axiom: "You want something done right, do it yourself."

I brought all this up because of the ideological logjam resulting from the varying approaches people bring to this problem. Is it government? Is it corporations? Is it the Illuminati? These approaches are paralyzing in their depth and complexity, therefore naturally the beleaguered people remain splintered and disempowered.

So to simplify the problem and the solution simultaneously, the understanding of niches in an ecosystem must be evoked. We have created the niche that our enemies, whoever they are, have occupied. We no longer produce what we consume and to the extent that this continues will be the extent that we remain disempowered. We cannot band-aid the broken system with more government because, as someone as already pointed out, regulatory capture is real. Like banking in '08...who would wisely prop up a unsustainable, broken model? And that is what life is in "developed" countries, a broken model where individual governance is surrendered and over-centralized to a few equals a thousand miles away and the means by which our life is sustained has ripples of effect that echo even further distances all the way to the oceans and the rainforests. As long as we are a people who surrender the means by which we sustain ourselves, then the corruption, inefficiency and failure will continue to grow.

Some people in this thread have already noted all this but confess that there is no alternative and they have made peace with it. This position is in strong contrast to the reality of people who are forming voluntary communities where their needs are more in proportion with natural law with respect to energy management. While the problem seems insurmountable, and time will tell if we can save ourselves, the work being done in these communities warms the heart and gives hope. Lastly these communities/individuals are happy, and rely on a minimum of gadgets to maintain this happiness which says a lot about what we assume makes us comfortable.

Tool

"Well now I've got some
Ad-vice for you, little buddy.
Before you point the finger
You should know that
I'm the man,

And if I'm the man,

Then you're the man, and
He's the man as well so you can
Point that f***in' finger up your ***."

a reply to: SlickMcFavorite

for quoting TOOL "Hooker With A Penis"

a reply to: toolgal462



"Don't these talking monkeys know that Eden has enough to go around, plenty in this holy garden, silly monkeys..."

a reply to: SlickMcFavorite

Is that what you see as the solution? Voluntary communities splintering off to define and fill their own needs, starting with energy? Leaving the rest to their fate? Do you not think such voluntary communities might be "dissolved" by outside forces?

And what about the "Abolish Corporate Personhood" movement? Do you think it's misdirected and/or pointless?

a reply to: soficrow

I mentioned intentional communities to illustrate one aspect of an optimistic approach to solving the problem in contrast to "making peace" with an assumed hopeless case. However, I believe any effort to "bring it in" is divine, including the abolishing of corporate personhood as that movement is an effort to reverse some of the power we have capitulated to corporations in the first place.

The power that would remain if this movement achieved success would still be an unscientific dispropotionality of energy that we still maintain through our elective lifestyle and consumption. In my view this will leave the niche open for corruption to continue the tug-o-war. So, looking at life as exhibiting patterns and parallels, I arrived at my position on the required level of government through experience first and the science of ecosystems second. In my view, for efficiency and stability the required level of power and production is more wisely brought closer to the chest and this should be the final goal. Additionally, any resistance to intentional communities from outside sources would probably be the same level of resistance we meet when trying to overturn corporate personhood. But if a well-designed system of permanent culture through increased local connections is the end goal, then all barriers to this will have to eventually fall away as any alternative is unsustainable. I realize through this process there will probably be casualties and I see growing food out of your apartment balcony or abolishing corporate personhood as just as useful to this logical end as is forming intentional communities.

a reply to: SlickMcFavorite

Ah. Nice reply. Thanks for taking the time. [I agree btw.]

S&

originally posted by: kosmicjack
Great thread. Can only add that, if we dare to resist consumption or exist outside the confines of corporations, their puppet governments and consumer culture - we are quickly marginalized and deemed anti-social or even dangerous.

Good point but not just "anti-social and dangerous".... if we try for a more thoughtful and consumer/human friendly society (as opposed to blind purchasing whatever these corps are handing us) we are called socialist and dangerous.

a reply to: soficrow

I'm sorry. ...understanding all the above...
Why don't we tax the rich again?


Think we need to do that, reign in these giant corporations and make them responsible for wages and environmental damage. And we need to over turn Citizens United right now, while we have enough interest and support. Otherwise it's like getting swallowed slowly by a snake. Right now, we don't feel it but we are already in the mouth...

a reply to: kosmicjack

We fight with ideas like free, open-source, sustainable - these are the biggest threat to corporations. I think people are finally realizing this and adopting more of these strategies.

That is the most valid & sound opinion I have ever, EVER, read, such as can be expressed in a single, cogent & straightforward sentence (in terms of: "How do we fight it?")

I will now hold this as my mantra. It bypasses all dogma, doctrine, creed, colour, location - all of it, as a 'solution', is available to all, on some scale.

I've heard the "Don't buy their crap" part before, but that on it's own left me feeling somewhat depleted, as we sadly need their stuff, mostly, if you are one of those (like me, with a disability) without the capability or means to go off-grid. Also, their stuff is sometimes pretty cool & useful, and always was - the only thing that's changed is that some faceless psychopath is selling it instead of Uncle Bob..

I think we need to off-set the trap of 'purchase to live', with a very healthy dose of 'crowd-collective open-sourcing' & 'sharing of philosophy expounding the value of cooperation & benevolence'.

Eventually we might, by process of osmosis, effect a change in the ordering & practice of corporations. We don't attack outright, we simply do it better, until someone else realises the value of the better way - and there we have it - silent revolution, nobody dies..

What I find frustrating, however, is that although some people will acknowledge a lot of this, too many people think it's all about money. I tend to disagree. Money is about power but if money didn't exist, they would just find another route to get to the power.

Anyway, everything is about power and control, IMO. I don't think it's some kind of religious cult or anything like that. It is as simple as a collective that desires to own and rule everything. Sure. Most of them are very wealthy but that's beside the point. They don't need more money. At some point, money becomes worthless unless you use it for something bigger than money.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

Aristotle Onassis (a man blessed with a name that left him in the excellent position of having his every drunken dumbass word sound like it was issued with all due care, in a thoughtful way, by an archetypal Greek philosopher..) said that:

"After a while, money & power don't matter any more - all that counts is the game".

He was a very rich, powerful shipping magnate, whose bio reads like a ten year old child playing monopoly with real money. He tried to buy Monaco. When that didn't work, he tried to buy Saudi Arabia.

Got to admire that he actually set his sights higher after failing with Monaco. He only failed in buying Saudi Arabia, because the US government realised what he was up to, and blew him out of the water.

He also said:

If women didn't exist, all the money in the world would be useless.

Which goes some way to tarnishing his intellect, if not his superior business stones.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

...unless you use it for something bigger than money.

This part, I think some people are already doing. Power to them, Heaven knows they need it.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

And by people, I mean in terms of the context of the thread - some corporate entities are engaged in silent warfare against other corporate entities.

It is my distinct confidence that 'Massive Dynamic' wasn't an accidental choice of name when it came to writing the script for the popular TV show 'Fringe'.

originally posted by: SlickMcFavorite
a reply to: toolgal462



"Don't these talking monkeys know that Eden has enough to go around, plenty in this holy garden, silly monkeys..."

But they run Eden. They are the gods of Eden.

a reply to: Logarock

I hope I assume correctly that by "they" you mean us/monkeys. If this assumption is correct then my response would be tentative agreement. I believe our form of consciousness, through protracted observation and pattern recognition, has put us in a peculiar position of apparent dominance. Yet, the malleability of our consciousness allows for cultural influence and this can warp our impact from that of a steward to that of a blight in some cases. A blight left unchecked will destroy the ecosystem it relies on for its own survival, and no god should act so foolishly. An individual that doesn't recognize the strong invisible influence of culture might unknowingly use his/her complex consciousness to aid in accelerated destruction of the natural balance as a result of the rapid mismanagement of the means to their own sustenance.

My experience and research has shown that the speed with which our intelligence can destroy the earth's balance could be flipped. A good example is ecological succession...if you want to grow a food forest, from seed to sapling to canopy, you can have it up and running faster than nature would have built the forest by itself. This is a result of intentional planting of nitrogen fixers and selective trimming to deposit nitrogen and other elements more quickly, and at the right time/season, into the soil beneath your main tree crop. This is fast-tracking the organic methods that have already been proven over millions of years not, however, inventing something and dogmatically believing it is holistically beneficial because of some short-term gain we measured.

To summarize: we have godlike powers of destruction or creation in our ability to move resources and harness power, but our brains have a backdoor that give in to fear and foolishness. We sometimes fail to understand that, despite all our guile and uniqueness, we are integrated into and dependent upon the very ecosystem we claim to lord over and this failure could ultimately lead to our own extinction which is very ungodlike.

originally posted by: Loveaduck
a reply to: soficrow

I'm sorry. ...understanding all the above...
Why don't we tax the rich again?


Think we need to do that, reign in these giant corporations and make them responsible for wages and environmental damage. And we need to over turn Citizens United right now, while we have enough interest and support. Otherwise it's like getting swallowed slowly by a snake. Right now, we don't feel it but we are already in the mouth...

....Yes, deny corporations 'personhood,' stop corporate welfare, tax the corporations and the rich. No more excuses, no more loopholes. Gotta be done.

One word, Monarchy.

Enough said....

originally posted by: mSparks43
One word, Monarchy.

Enough said....

Not really. Many people don't know about monarchies, or feudalism, or much about history at all. Maybe you could explain?

a reply to: soficrow

Well, kinda the point, people don't know about them because they are "secret".

Let me put it another way.
When the US got "independence" 239 years ago. How much of the monarchies....
___
Which, by the way, is actually now centred in Brussels
en.wikipedia.org...
___

ownership and wealth do you think they actually handed out?
To this day all the worlds monarchy tied family members are exempt from tax - most importantly inheritance tax.
Think about that for a bit.

a reply to: mSparks43

The monarchies are not and never were anything more than frontmen - like today's presidents, prime ministers and etc. - the powers behind the thrones -bankers- are the real power. The thesis here is that corporations now enjoy a legally-endowed immortality that is far more threatening than any individual or bloodline.

The monarchy-feudalism analogy is revealing because people now serve corporations directly - without middlemen - for example, as in the past, debt is/will be inherited and children are born into servitude.

Studying the analogy shows how and why we are not free. With clear specifics.