Got Any Ideas?
Enemy of the State
Professor Steven Hoffman, visiting scholar at the University of Buffalo, recently acknowledged this phenomenon in a study "There Must Be a Reason: Osama, Saddam and Inferred Justification." Hoffman concluded, "Our data shows substantial support for a cognitive theory known as 'motivated reasoning,' which suggests that rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or dis-confirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe. In fact, for the most part people completely ignore contrary information." Crimes Against DemocracyOK, let me make it very clear. I am officially an enemy of the state. No need to adjust your scanners and sniffers, sifters, optics and satellites. I admit it. In plain old fashioned language. If you are "The State" I am your enemy. I want you gone. I want you and your money lenders out of business, once and for all.
I wonder why, how, there exists people who aren't like me. Well, this is nothing new, I've always wondered what people were thinking and why they were thinking it. Myself included. Many a times I have looked down, head slowly moving side to side and said, "What the hell was I thinking...". Not a day goes by that I don't pose that question concerning the behavior of others. It seems to happen more and more as I get older and look closely at the world and it's people. If I was king I'd make it a commandment that everyone must attend special classes for, oh let's say, 20 or 30 years before they got to participate in social decision making. I'd make it a law. One of the few, very few, laws we'd have.
One of the classes I'd have taught would be how to deal with people you don't know. Just some basic lessons (ones that weren't taught in any of the "State" schools) in knowing people. Say, for instance, "who we know and who we don't". That would be a good place to start. I keep seeing these comments on articles about politicians and appointees, people are talking about them like they know them. People they've never met. People they were introduced to through the TV. They say things like, "I trust them...". When did this happen? When did people start putting faith in people they'd never met? We tell kids don't talk to strangers, but I see a great many, so called, adults handing over there money, health and future to people they don't know. Never laid eyes on, or thought about, six months before. All of a sudden they know them? They trust them? Kind of kooky.
There is a phenomena at work in the U.S. The people have turned their lives over to complete strangers. Not only that, but no matter what the strangers do, no matter how many times they do it, a large portion of the population remains enamored with them. I think I know what's happening. I don't think these same people would react the same way to the people where they work. I don't think it happens anywhere but with politics and celebrities. I see this similarity going on where people treat politicians as celebrities and they don't treat them as people. They don't treat the cashier at the store in the same way. Those are people. People are what you see all the time. People on the train with you - those are people. Kind of the same thing takes place with Doctors. There are people, and there are Doctors. I even had to capitalize Doctor. Spell check sees them as different too.
They're just people. In fact we're all just people. Know any non-people? Why would someone deserve trust? How does someone you've never met, don't know from Adam, warrant trust? Or respect? What is authority? People? What is a law? People? We need to back up and look at what we're doing and why we're doing it. Is there a good reason to support our government? What is our government? People. Who are they? Where did they come from? A "people" just got elected that we do have a little "public" knowledge of. He's a comedian. We know what he thinks is funny. Do we know what his world vision is? Do we really know what any of the people in our government have in mind? If they got to be the "King of the World" what would they do? What would we be doing? How will we ever know any of these people?
We only know them by what they do. What are they doing? That's a long story and it's being told as we speak - or read. One thing is obvious: what they want has nothing to do with what we want. Not hard to put that to the test - do you have what you want? Is this the world you would make if you were the world maker. Think there are no world makers? What do you think the role of the "State" is? It makes laws and policies that create the societal world in which we exist. Unlike the way it sort of started out, where the State was a collective elected to represent the folks back home, we have a fortress where in lives the ones in charge of defending the interests of those who paved the way to get them into office. It's next to impossible for the best people to get into office. Look closely at how the senate is set up, look at how the electoral college came to be. Who does that system serve? But back to the main question.
No one in there right mind would support our government. No one in there right mind would vote to have a state run nation. Those are strong words. What makes them more palatable is the realism that too many look at the "State" not using there right mind. Most use there right mind when they look at people in the park. Anywhere one sees people they usually see them using there right mind. If we were to look at the government like we look at all the other people we come into contact with we could make clear reasonable judgments. Not all of us. All of us aren't clear headed and reasonable. But we could get a good percentage of the population, in every nation, to see it for what it is. A bad system. A failed system. It's not failing itself. It's failing the nation. The nation isn't the "State" - the nation is the people.
When we hear things about Iran or Afghanistan what is referred to? We think about nations as governmental bodies. We thought about Iraq as Saddam. Why? We were told to. We've started to move away from a world of people into a world of "States". Why? We're told to. We're told everyday what's important. What we should be concerned about. What to fear and how to defend ourselves. More to the point, that we can't defend ourselves, that we will be protected. Are the worlds people - that scary? Set aside the mind bending religions and the extreme political minorities and what's left? The majority of the worlds people. Most of the governments of this world are made up of extreme political minorities. I can't speak as to their religious bent because I would have to see what they do concerning it. I can see what they are doing as far as their world visions. In that I can say with all assurance: they are the minority. They are the extremists. The fanatics of the world. I have no choice but to be their enemy. I stand in there way.
People on the news, people in congress, heads of state, ambassadors, economists, preachers, teachers, presidents, scientists - just people. We should treat them like people. We all need to look at them for what they are - people. If they do something wrong, stupid or shady we should do what we would do with anyone else. Fire them, ignore them, stop talking to them. One thing we can all do to affect our world in a positive reasonable way. We can start getting people we know and putting them in office. In cities and counties and states. They don't have to be perfect - just people we know.
Fascism
Fascism: a regime that exalts nation and race above the individual and that stands for a centralized government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition (Webster's definition)
"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism – ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power."
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
"I call these elements Fascist. You may not like names and labels but technically as well as journalistically and morally they are correct. You may substitute Tories, or Economic Royalists, or Vested Interests, or whatever you like for the flag-waving anti-American Americans whose efforts and objectives parallel those of the Liga Industriale which bought out Mussolini in 1920, and the Thyssen-Krupp-Voegeler-Flick Rhineland industry and banking system which subsidized Hitler when Naziism was about to collapse. Their main object was to end the civil liberties of the nation, destroy the labor unions, end the free press, and make more money at the expense of a slave nation."
George Seldes (1943), Facts and Fascism
"Sure we'll have Fascism here, but it will come as an anti-Fascism movement."
Huey Long
Document on The Club of Rome
Dr.Jacqueline Kasun, The Myth of Overpopulation, professor of economics at Humboldt State University in California (U.S.A.), observes the myth of overpopulation in her 1988 book The War Against Population.
Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, 1968. Population Control.
Population Control & Depopulation, "American Patriot Friends Network"...a network of net workers..." Warning: Reading this material might induce significant anxiety or depression. Individuals with a history of heart problems, or who are being treated for depression, may find it advisable not to read this report. Population Control & Depopulation article
See More Sites Like - echochambers
Ron Paul Revolution
Feds Accuse Student Of "Terror and Espionage" For Talking About Constitution
Global Food - Crisis - Engineered Depopulation via Starvation
Depopulation should be the highest priority of U.S. foreign policy towards the Third World. - Henry KissingerA succinct description of the elite's plan for depopulation via mass starvation, Ian Angus writes Capitalism, Agribusiness and the Food Sovereignty Alternative:
Nowhere in the world, in no act of genocide, in no war, are so many people killed per minute, per hour and per day as those who are killed by hunger and poverty on our planet. - Fidel Castro
The starting point for our analysis must be this: there is no shortage of food in the world today
Contrary to the 18th century warnings of Thomas Malthus and his modern followers, study after study shows that global food production has consistently outstripped population growth, and that there is more than enough food to feed everyone. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, enough food is produced in the world to provide over 2800 calories a day to everyone - substantially more than the minimum required for good health, and about 18% more calories per person than in the 1960s, despite a significant increase in total population
Over the past three decades, transnational agribusiness companies have engineered a massive restructuring of global agriculture. Directly through their own market power and indirectly through governments and the World Bank, IMF and World Trade Organization, they have changed the way food is grown and distributed around the world
The fact that there is already enough food to feed the world shows that the food crisis is not a technical problem - it is a social and political problem.
Why can't the global food industry feed the hungry? The answer can be stated in one sentence. The global food industry is not organized to feed the hungry; it is organized to generate profits for corporate agribusiness.
Please do read the entire article.
Possibly related posts:
Were the doomsayers right after all?
Corn-to-Ethanol: US Agribusiness Magic Path To A World Food Monopoly