A Dictator Is The Solution.

reply to post by Germanicus

I agree with you that the 90's were more prosperous than today. The bankers had more restrictions on what they could and couldn't do with money. It's the international banks that are the problem. Everyone can see what they have done to the US and the EU.
Do we honesty think that a dictator would be immune to the power of money these banks weld? All governments have corruption in them on one level or another, it's the nature of mankind. However, a dictator such as Jim Jung Il lived like a divine king while his people starved. His son is not any better.
(Sorry I am hung up on NK, but it is the most contemporary example of an evil dictator which comes to mind.)
I see how you can justify a dictator in a time a crisis (don't agree) and having a two year review. Good luck with removing that dictator, especially a military dictator, if they do not intend to relinquish the reigns of power. You can not vote out a tyrant from power; the only was is...revolution.

So the only countries without a Rothschild-owned central bank would be:

Sudan
Libya
Cuba
North Korea
Iran

(not so long ago Iraq and Afghanistan was on that list)

Seems we need 'em dictators. Is(/was) Castro and Gaddafi really so bad?

reply to post by beezzer


My alternative is decentralization of power. If the focus of every person in a local community is to live profitably and help their community by being a moral and productive individual, then the community will thrive. If the communities that make up a county sized or so area act in the same way, working to help the area thrive by being moral and productive communities, things will be good. The communities in the area will act as a political unit just as the community consisting of it's inhabitants constitute a political unit. It is kind of like the chain of command in the military, where each person in the chain of command has around 6-8 direct subordinates who have 6-8 direct subordinates and so on. Here, instead of it being commands going down the chain it will be democratic political decisions going UP the chain of decision. Ideally this fractal type organization will allow a community's decision on an issue to be represented at the next level up where the representatives will vote as their constituency decided. Then that level of organization will transfer it's decision to their representatives in the next level of organization and so on until it reaches the highest level of organization. This level would ideally be like the supreme court, chosen for their grasp of law and their outstanding character. Most decisions would not reach this far, only decisions and disputes of the gravest import.

I know that with the sate of the world today that this is mostly a pipe dream, I bet that even if we achieved it it would eventually degenerate, sadly. However, if it is okay for Germanicus to yearn for world dictatorship, I can yearn for a bottom up community based freedom respecting organization of mankind.

reply to post by Germanicus


Capitalistic democracy is NOT a farce.

If we had people in congress who WANTED democracy (a representative republic) then it would work. But we have people who are now in power that would usurpt the Constitution and the entire process

how is the dicatator chosen ? how is he/she removed if ineffective ?

therein lies the rub, and explains why it is just as flawed a system as any other

Originally posted by LarryLove
reply to post by beezzer

 

Interestingly, austerity measures have forced people to re-evaluate their lives. A credit based system of living was never going to last and although the financial shock of 2008 catapulted the word austerity into twenty-first century vernacular, people are now forced to evaluate and change aspects of their life whereas before they perhaps would not.

People who rely on government for their livelyhood or support are in for a shock. There is a bottom to the "well".

Those that don't have to rely on government will survive.

im assuming that it will at least be noticed.

Eminent Domain

u u think anyone alive has even the faintest,image of the true meaning and effect of Eminent Domain.

if u do i suggest,,
reading the war between,,Britan and ,,well,,it was a European Conquest thing,,involved some Colonies,,and Eminent Domain.

u can't be serious,?
,u want too include Eminent Domain in your rants,,leave me out.

Eminent Domain,
,i put too u ,
,does anyone respect the power of Eminent Domain.?
the Root of
Power and Authority of Eminent Domain.

Good luck playing with GOD.

reply to post by ThreeSistersofLoveandLigh


Yes the OP is Obviously right i could'nt agree more.............

Stalin - Responsible for 20,000,000 Deaths
Hitler - 7.5,000,000
Leopold II of Belgium (Congo) 8,000,000
Polpot - 2.5,000,000 Deaths
Mao Zedong - 20,000,000
Jean Kambanda (Rwanda) - 1.2,000,000
Kim Jong-il (N.Korea) - 1.3,000,000
Kim Il Sung (North Korea) 1.2,000,000
Isaias Afewerki (Eritrea) 800,000
Omar Al-Bashir (Sudan) - 450,000
Ismail Enver (Turkey) 2,000,000
Menghistu (Ethiopia) 1.5,000,000
Jonas Savimbi (Angola) 400,000
Yakubu Gowon (Biafra) 1,000,000
Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan) - 900,000
Mullah Omar - (Afghanistan) - 400,000
Idi Amin (Uganda) - 300,000
Yahya Khan (Pakistan) 300,000
Charles Taylor (Liberia) 220,000
Ho Chi Min (Vietnam) 200,000
Michel Micombero (Burundi) 150,000
Slobodan Milosevic (Yugoslavia) - 100,000
Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire) - 250,000
Than Shwe - (Burma) - 350.000

This is why its generally acepted that dictatorship is not a legitimate for of government.
Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Germanicus

 

Capitalistic democracy is NOT a farce.

If we had people in congress who WANTED democracy (a representative republic) then it would work. But we have people who are now in power that would usurpt the Constitution and the entire process

Yeah,but it needs some tweaking. The donations are the biggest problem. People do not donate for nothing. I think all politial donations should stop. The money in politics ruins it.

I also think that they are paid too much. They say that if you pay peanuts you bet monkeys ( wouldnt they want bananas? You would think you would get elephants), but I think the money attracts the wrong kinds of people. I think it should be almost volunteer. If there was no money at all in politics you would attract people that had the right motivation. Personal gain is why these people get into politics. They also realize they can make more cash than being a lawyer. A bunch of filthy lawyers. No wonder it does not work.

No money is the solution I think. Or as little as possible.

reply to post by Mkoll


I never said anyone was stupid. I did say "exhibiting stupidity", maybe it is just semantics in verbiage, but if you took it a me saying you were "stupid" to oppose the OP's POV, well then maybe you aren't seeing the correlation.

Every post here against dictatorship revolves around the fact that said dictator was corrupted by power, that said dictator will do away with anyone that does not follow his rules, or believes and supports his vision being the ultimate authority in how the world should be run.


Society has been conditioned to expect the worst from people, to believe that we are ultimately all corruptible.

The only difference between the words "dictator" and "Messiah" is the belief in the ability to corrupt one over the other.

The rule is the same, no matter how you look at it, and I suspect that the implementation of said rule will be the same.

If a dictator does it we will call it genocide.
If "The Messiah" does it, we will call it "the cleansing of the unrighteous".

The inability to draw the parallels is (IMHO) an exhibition of stupidity.

reply to post by Germanicus


u know i was just thinking
maybe u and Von Rompkey,,can go have a chat.
I'm sure he would agree with everything your saying.
Maybe a little backing,,who knows.
futute looks so bright.

Von Rompkey,,oh ya forgot his official title,,u know romkey the UN guy,,

what were those titles,,refresh me.
anyone??????

Well, this thread is the perfect example of just how brainwashed people are into thinking and believing that there is no viable or justified alternative to the current political system.

I don't necessarily agree with the OP's desire for a Dictatorship but I think his OP and subsequent reasoning has some merit and raises valid and pertinent questions about the effectiveness of the current systems and how society has ensured that any serious consideration or debate of National Socialism is discouraged.

Of course there is a need and indeed a responsibility to recognise that National Socialism in Germany was responsible for The Holocaust etc.
But it is also true that there were some amazing improvements to both the standard of living and quality of life for the majority of Germans.
But at what cost?

We all know the horrendous cost that millions paid.
And that is a guilt that the German people still bear today.

But are there elements of National Socialism that can be adopted and adapted for the benefit of all?

And why should such discussion be immediately discredited and discouraged?
Are we all so convinced that the current political systems that we have are so perfect they don't require any reform?

Dictators?
I think all dictators believe that they are doing right, it's just that they seem so convinced that they are right that they brook no disagreement and they brutally repress any dissension etc.

Is it possible to have a benevolent dictator?
I don't know and to be fair I've never really considered it - and to be fair that in itself suggests that it is worthy of some open and honest consideration before being dismissed outright.

Originally posted by auraelium
reply to post by ThreeSistersofLoveandLigh

 

Yes the OP is Obviously right i could'nt agree more.............

Stalin - Responsible for 20,000,000 Deaths
Hitler - 7.5,000,000
Leopold II of Belgium (Congo) 8,000,000
Polpot - 2.5,000,000 Deaths
Mao Zedong - 20,000,000
Jean Kambanda (Rwanda) - 1.2,000,000
Kim Jong-il (N.Korea) - 1.3,000,000
Kim Il Sung (North Korea) 1.2,000,000
Isaias Afewerki (Eritrea) 800,000
Omar Al-Bashir (Sudan) - 450,000
Ismail Enver (Turkey) 2,000,000
Menghistu (Ethiopia) 1.5,000,000
Jonas Savimbi (Angola) 400,000
Yakubu Gowon (Biafra) 1,000,000
Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan) - 900,000
Mullah Omar - (Afghanistan) - 400,000
Idi Amin (Uganda) - 300,000
Yahya Khan (Pakistan) 300,000
Charles Taylor (Liberia) 220,000
Ho Chi Min (Vietnam) 200,000
Michel Micombero (Burundi) 150,000
Slobodan Milosevic (Yugoslavia) - 100,000
Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire) - 250,000
Than Shwe - (Burma) - 350.000

This is why its generally acepted that dictatorship is not a legitimate for of government.

These are just not true.

You also cant blame a 'dictatorship'. I could argue that Imperialism killed many of those people. Is it North Koreas fault that they have a hard time or is it the cruel 'International Community' that starves them with sanctions and embargos?

Its not so back and white.

Abrahan Lincoln was a mass murderer by your logic.

And there are more dissenting critical views. Lincoln critic Tom DiLorenzo argues in The Real Lincoln that Lincoln was a calculating politician who waged the bloodiest war in American history, not to free the slaves, but to build an empire of corporate welfare. DiLorenzo points out that there were incidents of war-waging on innocent civilians at the very beginning, in 1862-63. The town of Randolph, Tennessee, was burned to the ground because Confederate sharpshooters sniped at Union ships. Not being able to find the sharpshooters for punishment individually, Union troops retaliated by burning down the whole town.

stumbleinn.net...

That is an article from Asia that blasts Lincoln for being a brutal dictator that turned the nation over to the elites.

What would be an alternative to a dictatorship?
I would not suggest a federal government where the power is a strong central entity.

I would propose a confederate government as opposed to a dictatorship. This government is strong on the local level where the poeple have a larger say in leadership choices. This would make a corperate takeover of the government extreamly difficult. The confederate states would then come together in a weak central government to discuss affairs such as forgien matters and trade between the states.

Unfortunately, the idea of this style of government has been tainted in the US as people can not seperated the form of government with the issues of the time (1860's).
This does not mean that this could not be a viable option for a country such as Greece. Just my opinion and just brainstorming.

Originally posted by Germanicus

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Interesting how you leave out the third act of every dictator's reign.

Hitler was a great dictator, until...

Julius Caesar was a great dictator, until...

Josef Stalin...

Mussolini...

Hugo Chavez...

Castro...

UNTIL

What did Caesar do?

And Chavez and Castro are not so bad.

Anyway,I think you missed the point. It also doesnt seem like you read all my post.

Actually I did read your post. If you think Chavez isn't so bad, I suggest you and Sean Penn get a place together in Caracas so you can live the life you want under the rule of such a swell guy.

reply to post by Germanicus


The numbers in N.Korea are those who have died in death camps, they dont include the famines that have ravaged the country, there are an estimated 300,000 living at the moment in NK death camps.

Originally posted by Germanicus

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Germanicus

 

Capitalistic democracy is NOT a farce.

If we had people in congress who WANTED democracy (a representative republic) then it would work. But we have people who are now in power that would usurpt the Constitution and the entire process

Yeah,but it needs some tweaking. The donations are the biggest problem. People do not donate for nothing. I think all politial donations should stop. The money in politics ruins it.

I also think that they are paid too much. They say that if you pay peanuts you bet monkeys ( wouldnt they want bananas? You would think you would get elephants), but I think the money attracts the wrong kinds of people. I think it should be almost volunteer. If there was no money at all in politics you would attract people that had the right motivation. Personal gain is why these people get into politics. They also realize they can make more cash than being a lawyer. A bunch of filthy lawyers. No wonder it does not work.

No money is the solution I think. Or as little as possible.

On this, we agree. No PAC's, no lobbyists. No money, it's a corruptable influence already.

Can't really add anymore to that.

reply to post by ThreeSistersofLoveandLigh


Queen Victoria,,Is it possible to have a benevolent dictator? yes too her Subjects,,
Guengis Khan,,Is it possible to have a benevolent dictator?,,yes to his Mongols.
Ceasar,,,,if u were Roman,,
yes it s possable.
but always with baggage.
except for one,,or a couple, who get Honerable Mention,,
Jesus,,he said,,hang on ill be back,,ya he said it first Arnie lol
BraveHeart,,i belive he was a Wallace.
Germanicus,,,,the KING,,not this guy,,another.Germanicus,,interesting history,,

reply to post by AwakeinNM


Well, castro is one of my heros actually. I think he is a great man. If you love Batista so much,thats up to you. Im glad they got rid of him.

Im glad they destroyed the CIA when the CIA tried The Bay Of Pigs.

Castro is a great man. He even had the Pope bagging out America recently.

Castro beat America.

reply to post by ThreeSistersofLoveandLigh


Saying that I exhibit stupidity implies that I am expressing the quality of stupidity. I am sorry that I don't want to pick up what he laid down as it is. That is what discussion and finding a consensus is for. Saying that I express stupidity by being "wrong" through defying your preconceptions gets in the way of productive discussion.