Can an unarmed population prevent a tyranny? If you think so, tell me how.

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
reply to post by InverseLookingGlass

 

You are correct. But do we communicate freely? You and many young people now communicate in forums like this. This is democracy in action IMO. But the majority of people are still blinded by the "News" on TV. Even if they go online to check their facebook, that does not enable them to look beyond the indoctrination. Also, education is government sponsored. Textbooks deemphasize the negative aspects of the government (not just in the US either).

So we can communicate freely - our unfreely obtained opinions or views.

Another problem with the communication of the Internet is that news is often reduced to hearsay. Yes anyone can share information, but how do you know it's accurate? In a certain sense, we're back to square one when there wasn't a media with reputable reporting.

Of course MSNBC, Fox, etc aren't any better since thanks to capitalism they have been bought out and become propaganda machines for various private interests.

Originally posted by BobbyTarass

 

Why would you need to have weapons ?
It's not like it really helps you to defend yourself against an agressor who will always has the upper hand because of the element of surprise and ! find hard to believe that the government would need to engage in a full scale war against its own people,

Why do they need weapons in Syria? But either way, I do not believe it would go nearly as far as in Syria. Once a few people were killed everybody would go back to their job and fear for their families, as would I probably. But you never know how you would react in a situation you have never been in. Some people claim they do but they fool themselves.

considering the fact that they already have a nice system set up where people work for them so they can earn more than a lifetime worth of money. Why would they chance that ? What would they gain from it ? They already have all the power and wealth in the world.

I don't claim to know the answer but I suggest 3 possible answers:
1) Greed knows no bounds. People who have a lot usually want more.
2) "Crowd effect". If you have ever been with fans after a soccer stadium match you know that a crowd of emotional people will do things they would individually not do.
3) The government is an organization and can be looked at as an organism, being alive seperately from its individual employees. Like animals, it becomes stronger, more immune to outside attacks and with its own needs and survival strategies. It often becomes obese (Soviet Union) eventually causing it to collapse.

And again, if the so called "surrending monkeys" managed to overthrow an oppressive and violent ruler with sticks and stones, why would the corner of the world need guns to pull it off ?

Once the government is in the "obese" stage it will be easy. Now it is still strong. It carefully examines ALL possible threats from inside and outside and continuously improves its self-protection. That is where a good part of our taxes go (before they build roads).

The problem is that this simply isn't Afghanistan or Iraq, or even 1776 anymore. Even with the weight of the nation behind you, there's one thing that modern armies do very, very well and that's organise. Against an unorganised, untrained and huge force such as "The American Patriots" it simply wouldn't be plausible for the Patriots to win.

Between satillite coverage, the strongest Navy and strongest Airforce in the world alone any rebellion, even if it consisted of 150,000,000 able bodied men (Which I doubt the US actually has anyway). It would be systematically butchered. The West abhores from civillian casualties in these "Hearts & Minds" wars in the Middle East, but you wouldn't see that here.

In a war propogated by some giant uncaring and tyrannical entity such as the apparent Illuminati-backed United States Government it wouldn't happen. CAS fighter/bombers, biological and chemical agents, laser guided missiles launched from the shore, drone strikes, AC-130's, Apache helicopter gunships and a contingent of some of the most accurate, well armoured, electronically advanced ground vehicles ever developed. Any rebellion met with military force, no matter how big it was, would cease to function and be brought to its knees in less than a week.

1776 was possible because the population was small, the British cared more about fighting France and Spain in Europe and the people were able to survive from the land and warfare at the time meant numbers vs numbers was a pretty straight fight. Today, guerilla war isn't possible thanks to IR satilite imaging, nor would it achieve anything meaningful anyway as bases could be kept on high alert and personelle/supplies transported by air, and a little dab of smallpox or God-knows-what they have ready in a lab here and there will decimate any numerical advantage you would hope to hold.

The idea that the US army, or even a small contingent of it, or even the armies of the United Nations couldn't foil some paramilitary target shooters who own largely small arms and know next to nothing about logistics and have no access to the supplies necessary for an extended campaign is absurd, and as such, the idea that you need guns to keep the government or foreign invaders away is antiquated.

If these interests exist in the government, then such a rebellion would only give them the excuse on the International stage they need to impose whatever they wanted on the American people, because if they just went ahead with it you can expect to see an International trade embargo which even the US economy couldn't sustain. If rebellion is ever necessary I'd suggest doing it peacefully through non-compliance lest you sign your own death warrants.

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
Such as 9-11 or Katrina on a multi-state scale?

You would need something really big, partly because America is really big! 9/11 was a massive. consciousness-altering event, and the USA is not a tyranny yet. There was no civil war.

So yes, I think something where really huge numbers were left homeless and hungry. You might also need to damage communication lines in some way.

Whistleblowers prosecuted unjustly, Press, mainstream media, controlled by only 4 moguls (according to Dan Rather) who will lose their privileges if they criticize the government, democratic checks with George Soros owning the company that counts the votes.

You could posit these things as the thin end of the wedge, yes. And as such they are to be roundly resisted. I don't agree that the MSM is controlled by four moguls in any meaningful sense though. The internet has changed the paradigms on that one.

]Not necessarily. The public sentiment changed VERY quickly after 9-11. If a President wanted to become dictator would he have his Secret Service "burn Congress"? But even if it happened slowly would that make it better?

No, but even after 9/11 there was no civil war. Or an event that resembled one. My point is that the kind of tyrannical takeover that gun advocates often envisage seems to be a bit like an invasion or an armed attack from within. But tyrannies don't start like that historically. So an armed populace is unlikely to be of much use against one.

And even if it did kick off that way then riflemen are hardly the defensive line that they were in the 1800s.

But that is a question of perception, in a moment of high emotions. After 9-11 who was able to think clearly? Fear of "terrorism" is great enough to allow for the tools to let the government to restrict our travel. (Attorneys for whistleblowers are out on the No-Fly list).

I quite agree, that's my whole point. Distrust people when they say they need to take away some freedom because of 'terrorists'. Stop them from curtailing basic rights because they say it's temporarily necessary.

John Kerry belongs to the same Secret Society as both Bushes, Skull and Bones. He does not disclose anything about it (as did Bush). How can you trust that he will not try to become dictator? IMO, nobody who is not a member of Skulls and Bones can be believed a word he says and should not have public office.

John Kerry is hardly likely to find himself in a position to become a dictator. He tried to become president about a decade ago and roundly failed.

You answers are very thoughful but I believe you are a victim of the two party dichotomy. Both parties are equally controlled by financial or other powers behind them. Why would both Kerry and Bush belong to the same Secret Society if not because they follow the same goal, only use different tactics. Good cop bad cop strategy, both have tactics that two parts of one strategy.

I agree to a certain extent, although I don't believe it's organised. And i don't think Kerry and Bush have the same goal, except to make money and be powerful. One might compare it to the goals of the Mets and the Yankees - both kind of want the same thing, but actually they want it for themselves, not the other!

It boils down to our different readings of the risk of some kind of dictatorship and how that might be achieved. You may well be correct that it's more likely than I surmise. But I think I'm right in saying that the methodology of how it would occur means that gun ownership won't have much bearing on it.

Then what would? I agree but then propose something that would enable the people to prevent a despotic takeover. (sorry for the delayed response)

No worries, it's an interesting debate. I think I answered already though. A constant vigilance about democratic rights and freedom being removed. I know many count gun ownership in that, and I respect their view, but I don't share it.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

It is tyranny when the administration and president ignore the constitution, bypass congress and do whatever they want.

That is the definition of tyranny by American standards.

Given that they aren't doing that, I suppose the point is moot. But I'm not sure you're even correct. A definition of tyranny, even in America, would look rather different to most, I suspect.

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

 

Obama and Bush aren't tyrants!

The nearest any Americans have come to living under tyranny was during the aparteid years - which ended, as I recall, without a civil war?

Indeed, now you even have a 'black' president!!!!

So Bushg was not during what you call "Apartheid years"?

No, I'm pretty sure Bush Sr was only elected as US president in 1989.

The civils rights act was passed in 1964 and the voting act in 1965.

Originally posted by AndyMayhew

 

No, I'm pretty sure Bush Sr was only elected as US president in 1989.

The civils rights act was passed in 1964 and the voting act in 1965.

I understood your term "Apartheid years" referring to what ended in 2008, not 1964. Do you really consider Nixon and Reagan as post-Apartheid? I don't know enough about South-Africa to have an opinion on that. I agree with your point that prior to 1964 blacks lived under what would qualify as tyranny. I also agree that Obama represents a sense of pride and vindication for black people and minorities throughout the world.

I pointed out in another thread that Democracy is the rule of the majority (at best), imposing laws and economic reality on the minority, or, whatever group of people favored by the government (often the majority simply for practical reasons, or, otherwise those with the majority of power). That has not changed with Obama. He did not prosecute a single person for the economic crisis of 2008 and Bankers are still receiving their exorbitant "bonuses" - even though it cost tax-payers many times more than the Savings and Loan crisis of the 1980's (where many people went to jail).

While blacks have a better life and pride today, the threat of tyranny has not changed. I would argue that it has increased because it is better disguised. Democracy allows for economic enslavement. There is no other way to put it, when you realize that every baby in the US is born with about a $50,000 share in public federal debt.

The fact that we allow this to happen can only have two possible reasons: 1) We the People are unable to do anything about it, or 2) we justify stealing from our children to have a good life.

reply to post by AndyMayhew



Something to keep in mind: People only observe laws that are convenient. You can make all manner of things illegal via laws, but it takes cultural change for those laws to really ahve any effect. And racism was deeply rooted. It is a shame that we would even want to have to quantify "better" in situations such as this, but it is obviously at least somewhat better than 1965.

The culture of racism, however, is alive and well. Obama is a great catalyst, too. Racist white people hate him for obvious reasons. Racist black people see no wrong in his actions. Neither of these are productive. And when mixed with the self congratulatory that are "happy a black man finally is in office", regardless of that mans character, sure don't make for a savory brew.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

 

I don't agree that the MSM is controlled by four moguls in any meaningful sense though. The internet has changed the paradigms on that one.

The internet has awoken many people but the vast majority of people still listen to and believe what the MSM tells them (Rather says "six" here). And this is not random corruption either, it is as organized as anything else in the government.

My point is that the kind of tyrannical takeover that gun advocates often envisage seems to be a bit like an invasion or an armed attack from within. But tyrannies don't start like that historically. So an armed populace is unlikely to be of much use against one.

Please don't put me into one bag with people who envisage something unrealistic. Starting with an incorrect presmise I believe your conclusion is not applicable. I am not a gun advocate.

John Kerry is hardly likely to find himself in a position to become a dictator. He tried to become president about a decade ago and roundly failed.

He will try again - and is now Secretary of State, the guy in charge of foreign policy.

I agree to a certain extent, although I don't believe it's organised.

... because you do not see the evidence. Why do you not see it? Because it is not shown in the media? Why not? Because it is organised.

And i don't think Kerry and Bush have the same goal, except to make money and be powerful.

Then we largely agree, it is mostly about power and money. But Bush and Kerry are just two guys. They did not get elected because they are smarter. But because there is an organization behind them. It is not their party because, again, they are not smarter.

But I think I'm right in saying that the methodology of how it would occur means that gun ownership won't have much bearing on it.

I asked the thread to be about preventing tyranny - by other means than gun ownership. You are saying gun ownership does not make a difference but that does not answer my question. How can we prevent a tyranny?

Now, if you are correct that we cannot prevent tyranny, then I believe gun ownership is a rather neglible issue. Yearly death toll of 50 versus 50 million. (I am not sying this because 50 is low enough but to put tyranny into perspective)

No worries, it's an interesting debate. I think I answered already though. A constant vigilance about democratic rights and freedom being removed.

I quite agree, that's my whole point. Distrust people when they say they need to take away some freedom because of 'terrorists'. Stop them from curtailing basic rights because they say it's temporarily necessary.

Has "constant vigiliance" succeeded in stopping NDAA? When will we get our basic civil rights back?

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
The internet has awoken many people but the vast majority of people still listen to and believe what the MSM tells them (Rather says "six" here). And this is not random corruption either, it is as organized as anything else in the government.

I don't agree, sorry. And it's not a disagreement that's likely to be settled by a discussion here in my experience. I think the government, media and corporations are pretty crooked and venal, but I don't think they are organised in any meaningful way together.

Please don't put me into one bag with people who envisage something unrealistic. Starting with an incorrect presmise I believe your conclusion is not applicable. I am not a gun advocate.

It was an expansive response to a question you asked, but I specifically didn't put you into that bracket.

He will try again - and is now Secretary of State, the guy in charge of foreign policy.

I suppose he might. But there are a hell of a lot of people who would like to be President and they might say different. Also you have no evidence that he has any designs on becoming a dictator. It's a bit of a flight of fancy.

because you do not see the evidence. Why do you not see it? Because it is not shown in the media? Why not? Because it is organised.

So the lack of evidence is evidence? I find that a difficult thing to get to grips with.

Then we largely agree, it is mostly about power and money. But Bush and Kerry are just two guys. They did not get elected because they are smarter. But because there is an organization behind them. It is not their party because, again, they are not smarter.

The experience I have had of politics and business suggests that both are competitive, not overwhelmingly collaborative.

I asked the thread to be about preventing tyranny - by other means than gun ownership. You are saying gun ownership does not make a difference but that does not answer my question. How can we prevent a tyranny?

With respect, I've already answered you twice!

Now, if you are correct that we cannot prevent tyranny, then I believe gun ownership is a rather neglible issue. Yearly death toll of 50 versus 50 million. (I am not sying this because 50 is low enough but to put tyranny into perspective)

You've lost me, sorry.

Has "constant vigiliance" succeeded in stopping NDAA?

No! Because Americans have not been vigilant or resistant enough. this is exactly the sort of thing that has to be fought, that's my point. But if you're implying that resistance to this kind of thing can only be achieved by owning weaponry then I think that's nonsense.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

 

I don't agree, sorry. And it's not a disagreement that's likely to be settled by a discussion here in my experience. I think the government, media and corporations are pretty crooked and venal, but I don't think they are organised in any meaningful way together.

Yes, that's fair enough. But for the sake of everybody else, listen to the Dan Rather video, I think he knows.

I specifically didn't put you into that bracket.

No problem.

But if you're implying that resistance to this kind of thing can only be achieved by owning weaponry then I think that's nonsense.

You don't seem to believe me but I tell you again, I am not a gun advocate. I never owned a gun.

But there are a hell of a lot of people who would like to be President and they might say different. Also you have no evidence that he has any designs on becoming a dictator. It's a bit of a flight of fancy.

If it were competitve, I would expect ups and downs. But I see politics going only in one direction (more control for the government, less freedom for the people), both D/R. I agree that people who dont't see that will think that everything is alright.

People cannot make good hiring decisions (of Presidents and Congressmembers). We vote according to personality and charisma. We do NOT vote according to the power structure that supports the candidate because often that is secret (see Bush and Kerry).

So the lack of evidence is evidence? I find that a difficult thing to get to grips with.

Yes, it can be. Say, you give your teenage son (or employee) $50 and he loses it. The next time again. And again. You don't have evidence but you suspect. So you research and find some pieces that explain what he may have used the money for but there is no proof.

The government is supposed to be accountable to the people but often does not provide answers. Why? Just like the hypothetical son, either they are stupid or they are cheating. Either way, if you continue to let them handle your money it will continue to disappear.

it is mostly about power and money. But Bush and Kerry are just two guys. They did not get elected because they are smarter. But because there is an organization behind them. It is not their party because, again, they are not smarter.

The experience I have had of politics and business suggests that both are competitive, not overwhelmingly collaborative.

Initially yes, but you need to include the time factor. At some point competitors will get to know each other, what they can "get away with", and then start to collaborate for the betterment of both. This is not the exception, it is the rule, for obvious reasons. Government officials are the same way. The only difference is that they are not putting their own money on the line.

Has "constant vigiliance" succeeded in stopping NDAA?

No! Because Americans have not been vigilant or resistant enough. this is exactly the sort of thing that has to be fought, that's my point.

But my point is that it cannot be done through the process of democracy. NDAA is proof. The sheer size, power, and the consistency of the rate of increase of the federal government are proof. And not just the US but European countries as well. I recognize that my logic requires to extrapolate from what we have seen so far. If we do not extrapolate it is like driving towards a cliff and saying, the earth has been flat for many miles.

If the government is supposed to be accountable but we cannot fire it, then it is not accountable. If there is no accountability and people steal, then replacing the people will only lead to other people stealing.

With respect, I've already answered you twice!

I must have missed it. I only found where you say "vigilance" but I pointed out that it does not work. Are you still convinced that it does? Stating that people have to be vigilant without stating what you think will make them vigilant I find to be insufficient.

Originally posted by timetothink
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

It is tyranny when the administration and president ignore the constitution, bypass congress and do whatever they want.

Given that they aren't doing that, I suppose the point is moot.

The video of Rachel Maddows shows that they do ignore the constitution.

Originally posted by MrSpad
When in places like Libyia and Syria they did start shooting populartions who were not armed they saw both the rebellion of their militaries and also quick intervetion from outside parties who armed, trained and supported the one time unarmed population.

The US is not a tyranny therefore we should not worry?

Lets wait, and when we do have a tyranny, then we will do what is necessary? How can we do it THEN?

Lets not worry because if they shoot civilians then soldiers will defect? And maybe Libya will come and intervene to save the US?

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman

Yes, that's fair enough. But for the sake of everybody else, listen to the Dan Rather video, I think he knows.

And I agree with him. But he's talking about agglomeration caused by competitive capitalist practices in news media. Not collaboration.

If it were competitve, I would expect ups and downs. But I see politics going only in one direction (more control for the government, less freedom for the people), both D/R. I agree that people who dont't see that will think that everything is alright.

But I don't think everything is alright. I just disagree that there is someone pulling the strings behind the scenes. And if you think about it that's even less alright. Because if there was you could find them and stop them, but if there isn't, and this is just people doing stuff to people, with nobody in outright control... well, then we're really in a mess.

People cannot make good hiring decisions (of Presidents and Congressmembers). We vote according to personality and charisma. We do NOT vote according to the power structure that supports the candidate because often that is secret (see Bush and Kerry).

I agree with the former but I see no evidence for the latter. And your assertion that the lack of evidence is evidence doesn't persuade me, sorry.

Yes, it can be. Say, you give your teenage son (or employee) $50 and he loses it. The next time again. And again. You don't have evidence but you suspect. So you research and find some pieces that explain what he may have used the money for but there is no proof.

That's not lack of evidence. It's circumstantial evidence.

Initially yes, but you need to include the time factor. At some point competitors will get to know each other, what they can "get away with", and then start to collaborate for the betterment of both. This is not the exception, it is the rule, for obvious reasons. Government officials are the same way. The only difference is that they are not putting their own money on the line.

But I think Bush deeply wanted to be president and deeply wanted Kerry not to be. They are not in any sense collaborating and as you seem to admit there is no evidence for someone higher up doing so.

Why do you think campaigns spend so much money? Isn't it a bit of a waste if they could just declare the winner at the start and go home? All those guys working behind the scenes for Obama and Romney, poring over data, designing electioneering systems - are they all in on it? Or all deluded?

But my point is that it cannot be done through the process of democracy. NDAA is proof. The sheer size, power, and the consistency of the rate of increase of the federal government are proof. And not just the US but European countries as well. I recognize that my logic requires to extrapolate from what we have seen so far. If we do not extrapolate it is like driving towards a cliff and saying, the earth has been flat for many miles.

I disagree. But if it can't be done with democracy what do you suggest? It seems to me you're kind of driving towards the cliff and just shrugging your shoulders, treating it as inevitable that we're going over!

I might be wrong though - what is your strategy?

If the government is supposed to be accountable but we cannot fire it, then it is not accountable. If there is no accountability and people steal, then replacing the people will only lead to other people stealing.

Some sort of root and branch readjustment of US politics may be in order. But again, the ball is in your court!

I must have missed it. I only found where you say "vigilance" but I pointed out that it does not work. Are you still convinced that it does? Stating that people have to be vigilant without stating what you think will make them vigilant I find to be insufficient.

I didn't only say vigilance, and I don't agree that the political engagement I envisage doesn't work. I think that's a defeatist attitude, and it's one I see a lot amongst conspiracy theorists. TPTB are imagined to be so overwhelmingly powerful that fighting them is pointless. It's a manifesto to do nothing.

The video of Rachel Maddows shows that they do ignore the constitution.

Sometimes. Rarely. But they don't get to do whatever they want.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

 

First, I want to mention that I just watched a report about the influence gun lobbies have on our legislation. This is a problem - but it is equally a problem in health care and other industries, most importantly the "military-industrial complex".

And I agree with the [Dan Rather video]. But he's talking about agglomeration caused by competitive capitalist practices in news media. Not collaboration.

Even in THAT case it would be bad. And there would be a need to do something about it. Why isn't it being done? Because that's not the whole story.

Saying 'there is nothing that can be done' or 'nothing we are willing to do', both mean 'Let's drive toward the cliff and worry about it later'. That is fatalistic on YOUR part, not mine.

I am realistic. This "cliff" being a complete Media Monopoly. To believe this monopoly, or quasi-monopoly would not be abused and corrupted for (financial) benefit of a small group, then you must be idealistic or naive.

And your assertion that the lack of evidence is evidence doesn't persuade me, sorry.
That's not lack of evidence. It's circumstantial evidence.

And that is exactly what we possibly have when we question what the government is doing. There will NEVER be "proof" against the government because it simply avoids providing it. It manufactures an "official story/theory" by appointing its "Commission" to investigate its own (alleged) crimes. The only independent analysis is the so-called conspiracy theory.

Notice, I am not trying to put the government in prison, so the standard of proof is not the same as in court. The government is supposed to work for the people - yet it is keeping secrets from the people. If that is allowed to go on for a long time, then it invites not just corruption but enslavement or 'enserfment'.

But I think Bush deeply wanted to be president and deeply wanted Kerry not to be. They are not in any sense collaborating

What makes you "think" so? He is refusing to tell you his motivation. Naive?

What makes you claim they are not collaborating? Why would they be in that secret society if not to collaborate? Naive?

But if it can't be done with democracy what do you suggest? It seems to me you're kind of driving towards the cliff and just shrugging your shoulders, treating it as inevitable that we're going over!
I might be wrong though - what is your strategy?

Choice. Very simply choice. The form of government should allow for a choice between various governments. That was the concept behind the Constitution originally. It is the reason why most tasks of governing were allocated to States, mostly leaving the federal government nothing - but the task of protecting our "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

Choice between government would make inefficient, corrupt and secretive governments lose tax revenue and influence.

Some sort of root and branch readjustment of US politics may be in order. But again, the ball is in your court!

My thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I don't agree that the political engagement I envisage doesn't work. I think that's a defeatist attitude, and it's one I see a lot amongst conspiracy theorists.

If the vast majority of people are forced to submit to a sole government, then all TPTB (Secret Societies) need to do is to "lobby" a few hundred government officials (who are often also members), who then manipulate population at large through Mainstream Media and government enforced education. Those who play along get promoted, those who speak an inconvenient truth are being ganged up against.

Choice between governments gives power to the millions to reject their government for the benefit of another one. Millions would be a group too large to corrupt through lobbying.

TPTB are imagined to be so overwhelmingly powerful that fighting them is pointless.

Are you dreaming? Where did I say this? Or do you have insider knowledge?

The video of Rachel Maddows shows that they do ignore the constitution.
Sometimes. Rarely. But they don't get to do whatever they want.

Hmmm. Really? What do "they" want? Do you have insider knowledge?

political engagement...

So what is your startegy beyond a slogan?

Originally posted by ThinkingHuman
Even in THAT case it would be bad. And there would be a need to do something about it. Why isn't it being done? Because that's not the whole story.

Saying 'there is nothing that can be done' or 'nothing we are willing to do', both mean 'Let's drive toward the cliff and worry about it later'. That is fatalistic on YOUR part, not mine.

I didn't say either of those things. I vehemently disagree with both assertions.

Why is "nothing being done"? Because powerful interests have convinced the American people that their goals are somehow compatible with those of the man in the street. You're in a crazy situation where the rights of big pharma, the food industry etc to sell you rubbish has become enshrined as somehow inseparable from the rights of the common man.

And something is being done. But not much of it by people exploring fanciful conspiracy theories.

To believe this monopoly, or quasi-monopoly would not be abused and corrupted for (financial) benefit of a small group, then you must be idealistic or naive.

As I said previously, I think my worldview is rather more frightening than the conspiracist one.

Read Autumn of the Moguls by Michael Wolf. It's an examination of the conglomeration of big media and its effect on the quality of media production. This stuff isn't happening because there's a cabal behind it. It's occurring because capitalism makes it easy and desirable to pool media interests.

And that is exactly what we possibly have when we question what the government is doing... The only independent analysis is the so-called conspiracy theory.

If you really think that then you are misinformed. I know that the US left is etiolated and impoverished, but there are lots of alternative and independent analyses that are much more realistic than conspiracy theories. There is a whole conversation going on about this outside of conspiracy circles, but between the CTers and the capitalists, that debate receives less attention than it should.

What makes you "think" so? He is refusing to tell you his motivation. Naive?

You think that Bush wanted Kerry to be president? I genuinely cannot see why you would think that.

What makes you claim they are not collaborating? Why would they be in that secret society if not to collaborate? Naive?

There's a big difference between being in some stupid frat club and wanting your opposite number to be president. And since you can't provide evidence that they are collaborating then I trust the evidence I can see.

Choice. Very simply choice.

Choice between government would make inefficient, corrupt and secretive governments lose tax revenue and influence.

Okay. That's rather nebulous and hopeful. It's something I absolutely agree with but it's a goal rather than a method.

If the vast majority of people are forced to submit to a sole government, then all TPTB (Secret Societies) need to do is to "lobby" a few hundred government officials (who are often also members), who then manipulate population at large through Mainstream Media

Choice between governments gives power to the millions to reject their government for the benefit of another one. Millions would be a group too large to corrupt through lobbying.

I think it more likely that big business has effectively hijacked your system. There isn't a room where cigar-smoking bad guys plot your downfall. It's just being done by powerful, often competing interests.

That doesn't make it any better. In fact it makes it worse, because it's a lot harder to solve!

Are you dreaming? Where did I say this? Or do you have insider knowledge?

I didn't say you did say it. I said it's a common feature of conspiracy theories.

What do "they" want?

According to the hardcore conspiracists they want no guns, a one world order, total enslavement. Oddly enough they don't seem able to get what they want.

Take guns. We are told constantly by the gun guys that Obama is desperate to take away ALL arms. This is demonstrably nonsense. And if it is what he wants then he's very bad at getting it.

In a more realistic world, I think there are lots of things Obama would like that he can't get.

So what is your startegy beyond a slogan?

If you are really worried about the direction things are taking - and if you're in the US you should be - I would advocate political involvement. Choice is an admirable goal but it will only become a reality when people make it so by involving themselves in government locally and by agitating for change. Sitting back and hoping someone else does it because the bad guys are too powerful is not going to alter anything.

I'm aware that this is not a detailed response, but then a thread like this is not the place for that. I'd be happy to expand in more detail elsewhere though.

reply to post by JDmOKI


Passive resistance.
Trade instead of buy no money means nothing to tax or pay taxes with.
What we have become is a nation of takers and not much in the way of producers.
Learn a skill, learn how to grow things learn what you can eat that is growing already in the wild areas around where you live.



The above is assuming you have a viable skill - not many people after society collapses are going to want paper pushers. Reevaluate what skills your job gives you.

reply to post by VforVendettea


In the state of Texas, there is no such thing as "tax free". If you are sold something by someone "tax free", the state will still come after you expecting you to pay the Use Tax (It is called Sales and Use Tax).

A good example of this is all the equipment Table de France sold to hotels/restaurants in Texas, all of it "tax free". The state came around a few years later, did audits, and handed out bills for "use tax" to the businesses.

the singing revolution in I think it was Hungary defeated the communists
[if I remember correctly]
the Indians (Ganhdi) gained independance from the brits..etc

Originally posted by Danbones
the singing revolution in I think it was Hungary defeated the communists
[if I remember correctly]
the Indians (Ganhdi) gained independance from the brits..etc

News to you: most colonies gained independence from Britain, East Block had its infusion of money dry up.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

 

... something is being done. But not much of it by people exploring fanciful conspiracy theories.

"something"? But you are refusing to say what it is that is being done - other than "fanciful" things.

To believe this monopoly (of Media), or quasi-monopoly would not be abused and corrupted for (financial) benefit of a small group, then you must be idealistic or naive.

As I said previously, I think my worldview is rather more frightening than the conspiracist one.

And again, you are refusing to say what you "think" makes your worldview so frightening - and what people are able to do about it.

This stuff isn't happening because there's a cabal behind it. It's occurring because capitalism makes it easy and desirable to pool media interests.

And you are refusing to say what people are able to do.

Even in THAT case (that the "agglomeration" or Monopolization of the Media by Multi-National Corporations is purely to feed capitalistic desires) it would be bad. And there would be a need to do something about it. Why isn't it being done? Because that's not the whole story... 'Let's drive toward the cliff and worry about it later'. That is fatalistic on YOUR part, not mine.

I didn't say either of those things. I vehemently disagree with both assertions.

I referred to the proverb to illustrate how unhelpful and fatalistic your view is. You imply (here again) to let people 'drive toward the (proverbial) cliff' by saying that "there is no cabal behind it" but rather because "capitalism makes it desirable". Tell me what should be done about the "agglomeration". Or say you don't know. But you refuse to say.

And that is exactly what we possibly have when we question what the government is doing... The only independent analysis is the so-called conspiracy theory.

If you really think that, then you are misinformed. I know that the US left is etiolated and impoverished, but there are lots of alternative and independent analyses that are much more realistic than conspiracy theories. There is a whole conversation going on about this outside of conspiracy circles, but between the CTers and the capitalists, that debate receives less attention than it should.

So, for example, where did the government allow access to evidence to ALLOW for an independent analysis of 9-11?
What is this "debate" that receives less attention than it should? You simply dismiss "CTers and the capitalists" with NO evidence or explanation whatsoever. That is DISinformation.

You said: "I think Bush deeply wanted to be president and deeply wanted Kerry not to be."
I said: "What makes you 'think' so? He is refusing to tell you his motivation. Naive?"
You said: "You think that Bush wanted Kerry to be president? I genuinely cannot see why you would think that."

You "think" too much. Don't pretend to be using fake sarcasm.

What makes you claim they are not collaborating? Why would they be in that secret society if not to collaborate? Naive?

There's a big difference between being in some stupid frat club and wanting your opposite number to be president.

"stupid frat club"? Did they not exit college years ago? If it is so innocent why not tell "We the People" about it while asking us to elect them? 'It is SECRET but TRUST ME. I would not harm people with a false flag attack.'

And since you can't provide evidence that they are collaborating then I trust the evidence I can see.

THEY REFUSE TO TELL 'WE THE PEOPLE' ABOUT THEIR SECRET ASSOCIATION THEY PLEDGED ALLEGIANCE TO.

Choice. Very simply choice. Choice between government would make inefficient, corrupt and secretive governments lose tax revenue and influence.

Okay. That's rather nebulous and hopeful. It's something I absolutely agree with but it's a goal rather than a method.

What? Capitalism allows us to rent an appartment of our Choice, move to another city of our Choice, marry a person of our Choice. Nebulous? A goal? It is a basic HUMAN RIGHT.

Choice between governments gives power to the millions to reject their government for the benefit of another one. Millions would be a group too large to corrupt through lobbying.

I think it more likely that big business has effectively hijacked your system. There isn't a room where cigar-smoking bad guys plot your downfall. It's just being done by powerful, often competing interests. That doesn't make it any better. In fact it makes it worse, because it's a lot harder to solve! (emphasis added)

You "think" again very fatalistically. Nothing we can do about hijacking (what, airplanes?), right? Of course you are STILL refusing to say what people can do.
(continued...)