Saturday, December 15, 2012
Thursday, December 13, 2012
The Universal Body
If we were to imagine the human, environmental and cosmological world as a gigantic body, we can begin breaking down the parts of the body into its respective pieces in order to better understand its function and form.
To begin with an incomplete listing of the parts that we have, we begin with the individual cell, which is the singular person within society. Each person has social, psychological, environmental and physical needs that have to be met if they're going to be as healthy and successful as possible. We can think of these in terms of axes of well being, similar to what is used in psychiatric diagnosis.
The economy is like the circulatory system that supplies the cells with the goods, services and money that is needed for them to be well. It is important that only clean goods and services get added into the bloodstream of the economy, or else it will poison the cells and kill off the presently existing society in question. Goods, services and money also needs to flow throughout the system in a reasonably equitable manner, or else parts of the body will be without goods and services, thus increasing the likelihood of infection (rebellion and unrest), in addition to bloating the other parts that are receiving more of the blood that the other parts (bad for their physical and psychological health).
The government is like the brain of society that operates all parts of the body. It must serve the rest of the body in order to preserve the body in question, else, it will become open to infection, and the rest of the body will likely begin attacking it to remove its members from office (either through elections or through overthrow). Therefore, the brain must be aware of the body and the environment (through the sense organs and mechanisms internally and externally) and must be appropriately responsive to the needs and wishes of the rest of the body, as well as effective at responding to the needs and wishes of the body/environment if its members want to stay in office. The idea is to do as much good for all, while doing as little harm as is possible for all.
The brain (government) controls the heart, which pumps blood (goods, services and money) throughout the society, preventing it from bunching up in specific areas. It also produces the legal framework for the society, which acts as the muscular and skeletal system of the body that is human society. It also makes the ultimate decisions about how the body interacts with the environment that is around it for the body's sake, as well as makes choices about how to interact with other societies under other governments.
Eventually, it would be ideal to have one government for all of humanity, but that is a long way off, and we have many kinks to work out before that.
All of this is done, for the sake of the individual cells which compose the body. Without them, there is no body of society in which the brain can govern, and without the brain to govern the body, there is no effective functioning within the body on the tangible and empirically demonstrable level.
This is an incomplete picture of my analogy of the world as being like a body.
It's been posted to my official blog which is copyrighted material.
Please take note of this, before sharing.
Thank you!
And, good luck.
Think about it.
To begin with an incomplete listing of the parts that we have, we begin with the individual cell, which is the singular person within society. Each person has social, psychological, environmental and physical needs that have to be met if they're going to be as healthy and successful as possible. We can think of these in terms of axes of well being, similar to what is used in psychiatric diagnosis.
The economy is like the circulatory system that supplies the cells with the goods, services and money that is needed for them to be well. It is important that only clean goods and services get added into the bloodstream of the economy, or else it will poison the cells and kill off the presently existing society in question. Goods, services and money also needs to flow throughout the system in a reasonably equitable manner, or else parts of the body will be without goods and services, thus increasing the likelihood of infection (rebellion and unrest), in addition to bloating the other parts that are receiving more of the blood that the other parts (bad for their physical and psychological health).
The government is like the brain of society that operates all parts of the body. It must serve the rest of the body in order to preserve the body in question, else, it will become open to infection, and the rest of the body will likely begin attacking it to remove its members from office (either through elections or through overthrow). Therefore, the brain must be aware of the body and the environment (through the sense organs and mechanisms internally and externally) and must be appropriately responsive to the needs and wishes of the rest of the body, as well as effective at responding to the needs and wishes of the body/environment if its members want to stay in office. The idea is to do as much good for all, while doing as little harm as is possible for all.
The brain (government) controls the heart, which pumps blood (goods, services and money) throughout the society, preventing it from bunching up in specific areas. It also produces the legal framework for the society, which acts as the muscular and skeletal system of the body that is human society. It also makes the ultimate decisions about how the body interacts with the environment that is around it for the body's sake, as well as makes choices about how to interact with other societies under other governments.
Eventually, it would be ideal to have one government for all of humanity, but that is a long way off, and we have many kinks to work out before that.
All of this is done, for the sake of the individual cells which compose the body. Without them, there is no body of society in which the brain can govern, and without the brain to govern the body, there is no effective functioning within the body on the tangible and empirically demonstrable level.
This is an incomplete picture of my analogy of the world as being like a body.
It's been posted to my official blog which is copyrighted material.
Please take note of this, before sharing.
Thank you!
And, good luck.
Think about it.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Cheesy, But Accurate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6ZsXrzF8Cc&feature=share
It's cheesy, but, once again, we get the emotional message with an accurate kernel at the core of it.
Most of the human species isn't blind or stupid or self-deluding/delusional ideologues. And that's how they fail in the long run, historically.
If I were in charge, I would have bailed out the people and companies who lost money, not the financial institutions themselves. If you had bailed out the people and the businesses themselves, rather than giving the money to the financial institutions, the recession would have been avoided anyway because only the bankers (who fucked up in the first place) would have been left with nothing, while the rest of the economy would have functioned normally with some new banks being started in the places of the old ones that crashed.
It's what I call percolate up economics.
And it requires that money flow throughout a system of economies, in order that everyone remains functional and well to do in the grand scheme of things.
Unlimited growth is only an academic concept purported by those who have unmoored themselves from the realities of being a sentient organism, and have instead, made themselves into this odd, parasite of a psyche that has forgotten its status as a biological organism firstly, and a dynamic human personality secondly.
Money is just an abstraction.
And it's high time that we all evolved as a species memetically, in order to realize that fact about our world that is relevant to our tangible existence and our psychological health, instead of thinking about what is only relevant in terms of a sheet of paper.
Think about it.
Cause it's your life that's on the line.
And it's only in your brain that it works otherwise.
Think about it.
It's cheesy, but, once again, we get the emotional message with an accurate kernel at the core of it.
Most of the human species isn't blind or stupid or self-deluding/delusional ideologues. And that's how they fail in the long run, historically.
If I were in charge, I would have bailed out the people and companies who lost money, not the financial institutions themselves. If you had bailed out the people and the businesses themselves, rather than giving the money to the financial institutions, the recession would have been avoided anyway because only the bankers (who fucked up in the first place) would have been left with nothing, while the rest of the economy would have functioned normally with some new banks being started in the places of the old ones that crashed.
It's what I call percolate up economics.
And it requires that money flow throughout a system of economies, in order that everyone remains functional and well to do in the grand scheme of things.
Unlimited growth is only an academic concept purported by those who have unmoored themselves from the realities of being a sentient organism, and have instead, made themselves into this odd, parasite of a psyche that has forgotten its status as a biological organism firstly, and a dynamic human personality secondly.
Money is just an abstraction.
And it's high time that we all evolved as a species memetically, in order to realize that fact about our world that is relevant to our tangible existence and our psychological health, instead of thinking about what is only relevant in terms of a sheet of paper.
Think about it.
Cause it's your life that's on the line.
And it's only in your brain that it works otherwise.
Think about it.
World Politics, 2030
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=295409
I don't know how the US defines their interests and actions when dealing with people overseas. Where do they get the idea that a nuclear Iran would be destabilizing to the region?
Unless of course, they're talking about the Israeli's possibly attacking the Iranians to destroy their nuclear arsenal.
But that would likely trigger a nasty regional war between the Israel and all other Islamic countries that the United States may or may not, be involved in. I don't know if many of our Western allies would necessarily be joining us on this issue. If they knew what would be good for them in the long run, they'd stay out of it.
It could also lead to the involvement of Russia and China in the regional conflict. Would need more information to know which side they'd likely be on (although I have a hunch it would be on Iran's side, to counter balance the United States).
In short, I don't see how it would be anymore unstable than it already is.
However, from the American perspective, I would like to point out that the chief reason how the United States would define it as a destabilized condition would be because of our prioritization and protection of Israel and our chosen enmity with Iran. Remember, the United States had the option to end Iran's nuclear program after we toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003 by taking Iran up on the offer for normalized relations. We could have had peace between Iran and the United States, with the nuclear option taken off the table, were it not for the Republicans and the Bush administration.
If I were the US, I would see if we could get a similar agreement back again in the present, over the objections of the Israelis. Normalized relations with Iran with the condition that they end their nuclear program and open up to inspectors, would probably do a lot to stabilize the region and prevent the war that's slowly growing against Israel from taking hold.
But, let's see if anyone is interested in hearing this kind of argument who is currently in a position of power, authority or consequence.
I don't think the US would be interested in making such an agreement with Iran.
And it wouldn't shock me if we were to pull another serious diplomatic and strategic blunder by continuing to side with Israel unilaterally from the rest of the world and maintaining the aggressive posture against Iran that can so easily be changed on our own side.
I hypothesize that this path will lead us to more peace, at the very least.
And it's only a hypothesis until it is demonstrated to be otherwise.
Think about it.
Cause this could be the lives of millions of people, not to mention, all of those Jews living in Israel at the moment.
And that's the biggest kicker about our support for the Israelis.
It's bad for our side.
And bad for theirs.
On this plane of existence.
And nowhere else, is it actually helping them.
Think about it.
I don't know how the US defines their interests and actions when dealing with people overseas. Where do they get the idea that a nuclear Iran would be destabilizing to the region?
Unless of course, they're talking about the Israeli's possibly attacking the Iranians to destroy their nuclear arsenal.
But that would likely trigger a nasty regional war between the Israel and all other Islamic countries that the United States may or may not, be involved in. I don't know if many of our Western allies would necessarily be joining us on this issue. If they knew what would be good for them in the long run, they'd stay out of it.
It could also lead to the involvement of Russia and China in the regional conflict. Would need more information to know which side they'd likely be on (although I have a hunch it would be on Iran's side, to counter balance the United States).
In short, I don't see how it would be anymore unstable than it already is.
However, from the American perspective, I would like to point out that the chief reason how the United States would define it as a destabilized condition would be because of our prioritization and protection of Israel and our chosen enmity with Iran. Remember, the United States had the option to end Iran's nuclear program after we toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003 by taking Iran up on the offer for normalized relations. We could have had peace between Iran and the United States, with the nuclear option taken off the table, were it not for the Republicans and the Bush administration.
If I were the US, I would see if we could get a similar agreement back again in the present, over the objections of the Israelis. Normalized relations with Iran with the condition that they end their nuclear program and open up to inspectors, would probably do a lot to stabilize the region and prevent the war that's slowly growing against Israel from taking hold.
But, let's see if anyone is interested in hearing this kind of argument who is currently in a position of power, authority or consequence.
I don't think the US would be interested in making such an agreement with Iran.
And it wouldn't shock me if we were to pull another serious diplomatic and strategic blunder by continuing to side with Israel unilaterally from the rest of the world and maintaining the aggressive posture against Iran that can so easily be changed on our own side.
I hypothesize that this path will lead us to more peace, at the very least.
And it's only a hypothesis until it is demonstrated to be otherwise.
Think about it.
Cause this could be the lives of millions of people, not to mention, all of those Jews living in Israel at the moment.
And that's the biggest kicker about our support for the Israelis.
It's bad for our side.
And bad for theirs.
On this plane of existence.
And nowhere else, is it actually helping them.
Think about it.
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Levine Governing Consultants Inc
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-november-28-2012/consultants-without-borders
We may have the politics of it right, but we don't have the governing of it down, even in our own country.
Unless we approach governing from the perspective of science and empirical study about the world as it actually is in a given era and context (social, environmental and cosmological), and then work to achieve the best possible results for everyone while doing the least amount of real and actual harm to anyone (ie, like the practice of medicine), we will always be sunk in sub-optimal conditions of governing and politics, and it will always be our own fault, individually and collectively, as a species, that it will be the case.
Silly brains.
Think about it.
I wish I could be a roaming governing consultant, rather than a political consultant. Notice how just because you win an election, doesn't mean that you'll get to stay in power afterward (depending upon what you do with that position).
Democracy is a complicated thing that goes beyond elections and governing and politics, to what the people themselves want and need to have in their society.
And, it's only thanks to our brains that we become so lousy at doing this kind of stuff, for one reason or another, in spite of what we'd like to believe to the contrary.
Think about it.
We may have the politics of it right, but we don't have the governing of it down, even in our own country.
Unless we approach governing from the perspective of science and empirical study about the world as it actually is in a given era and context (social, environmental and cosmological), and then work to achieve the best possible results for everyone while doing the least amount of real and actual harm to anyone (ie, like the practice of medicine), we will always be sunk in sub-optimal conditions of governing and politics, and it will always be our own fault, individually and collectively, as a species, that it will be the case.
Silly brains.
Think about it.
I wish I could be a roaming governing consultant, rather than a political consultant. Notice how just because you win an election, doesn't mean that you'll get to stay in power afterward (depending upon what you do with that position).
Democracy is a complicated thing that goes beyond elections and governing and politics, to what the people themselves want and need to have in their society.
And, it's only thanks to our brains that we become so lousy at doing this kind of stuff, for one reason or another, in spite of what we'd like to believe to the contrary.
Think about it.
Monday, November 19, 2012
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
China's Leap Foreward
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/14/world/asia/chinas-princelings-wield-influence-to-shape-politics.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&partner=rss&emc=rss
If I may make a suggestion to the rising leadership in China....
Perhaps it would be better for you all to consider consulting with the general public as to what needs to be done, rather than try to do what you all think needs to be done in a unharmonious manner?
Harmonize with the people, because it is from them that you receive your ultimate mandate to govern (beyond whatever elections you may or may not have).
Do not tempt the peasants to rise up, like they did against the young Emperor and the Empress Dowager, because that is where you and China will have big problems.
Be open and responsive to the needs of the people, rather than your own ideology and desires, and you will govern until the end of time and beyond, I think, provided you do it politically and tangibly well throughout all crises and all calamities that are going to befall you as you go along throughout time and space.
Think about it.
Cause it's only in your brain that it works one way or the other.
Test for it instead in the world that is around you.
And realize success from it.
Think about it.
Realize success from it.
Think about it.
If I may make a suggestion to the rising leadership in China....
Perhaps it would be better for you all to consider consulting with the general public as to what needs to be done, rather than try to do what you all think needs to be done in a unharmonious manner?
Harmonize with the people, because it is from them that you receive your ultimate mandate to govern (beyond whatever elections you may or may not have).
Do not tempt the peasants to rise up, like they did against the young Emperor and the Empress Dowager, because that is where you and China will have big problems.
Be open and responsive to the needs of the people, rather than your own ideology and desires, and you will govern until the end of time and beyond, I think, provided you do it politically and tangibly well throughout all crises and all calamities that are going to befall you as you go along throughout time and space.
Think about it.
Cause it's only in your brain that it works one way or the other.
Test for it instead in the world that is around you.
And realize success from it.
Think about it.
Realize success from it.
Think about it.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Israel's Problem
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/11/2012111015281390679.html
This is one of the chief reasons how Israel will not be seeing peace in its lifetime.
If it continues to do these tit for tat attacks against the Palestinians, rather than just focus on protecting its own citizens and soldiers, it will only be adding to the hatred and hard feelings that are felt between the two; not reducing them.
It's not like these kinds of attacks have stopped the Palestinian fighters (note: not the general population of the Palestinians) from fighting back. In fact, I think it actually helps fuel their militant wing, because it toughens their resolve to fight on and it helps them recruit new fighters to their cause.
"Mother was killed by an Israeli artillery shell?"
"House was bombed by an Israeli fighter jet?"
"Join Hamas and fight for your homeland and your people."
Why else do people voluntarily go out to fight, kill and die in combat?
Think about it.
Cause Israel will not be seeing peace until it changes its attitudes, actions and perceptions of the world around it.
And it's only in their delusional and deluded brains that it exists otherwise.
Think about it.
This is one of the chief reasons how Israel will not be seeing peace in its lifetime.
If it continues to do these tit for tat attacks against the Palestinians, rather than just focus on protecting its own citizens and soldiers, it will only be adding to the hatred and hard feelings that are felt between the two; not reducing them.
It's not like these kinds of attacks have stopped the Palestinian fighters (note: not the general population of the Palestinians) from fighting back. In fact, I think it actually helps fuel their militant wing, because it toughens their resolve to fight on and it helps them recruit new fighters to their cause.
"Mother was killed by an Israeli artillery shell?"
"House was bombed by an Israeli fighter jet?"
"Join Hamas and fight for your homeland and your people."
Why else do people voluntarily go out to fight, kill and die in combat?
Think about it.
Cause Israel will not be seeing peace until it changes its attitudes, actions and perceptions of the world around it.
And it's only in their delusional and deluded brains that it exists otherwise.
Think about it.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
The Pentagon's Plans
http://www.alternet.org/world/new-weapons-systems-could-give-pentagon-unprecedented-power-over-planet-or-lead-future
The thing about all these fancy defensive capabilities, and all of these instances that the author has listed (the Philippines, Vietnam and Afghanistan), is that we've lost them all, and that all of this technology hasn't stopped the dummy weapons that can be made in a basement from having a profound effect on the situation.
We cannot conquer the world.
The people of the world will not allow it.
And when the people of the world will not allow it, they tend to be mighty angry at those who have tried to do so under any auspices or excuses that may have been thought of.
Therefore, I would not call this kind of forceful power as being any kind of power at all.
Not in the grand scheme of things.
Much better to take over the conscious collective of the world than, rather than try to exert forceful control over the populations of the world.
Must also be insanely careful about the applications of this power.
And I honestly don't believe that the WASPish men who currently run the show are necessarily up to the task of dealing with this.
So, let this sit in your stew for awhile.
And think about it.
True power is not won through military power and military power alone.
There is a distinctive diplomatic edge to dealing with everything.
And you still need to negotiate with the people of the world, even if you choose to not negotiate with the terrorists and other immaturely minded individuals/groups of individuals in the world.
Think about it.
For it is better to build an empire of conscious, rather than an empire of land.
Think about it.
Cause we're going to cause a serious accident if we keep this up.
And I honestly believe that our attention is better aimed away from the planet, rather than back towards the planet on which we all live, together, as one species.
Think about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xE-fFWPLpas
The thing about all these fancy defensive capabilities, and all of these instances that the author has listed (the Philippines, Vietnam and Afghanistan), is that we've lost them all, and that all of this technology hasn't stopped the dummy weapons that can be made in a basement from having a profound effect on the situation.
We cannot conquer the world.
The people of the world will not allow it.
And when the people of the world will not allow it, they tend to be mighty angry at those who have tried to do so under any auspices or excuses that may have been thought of.
Therefore, I would not call this kind of forceful power as being any kind of power at all.
Not in the grand scheme of things.
Much better to take over the conscious collective of the world than, rather than try to exert forceful control over the populations of the world.
Must also be insanely careful about the applications of this power.
And I honestly don't believe that the WASPish men who currently run the show are necessarily up to the task of dealing with this.
So, let this sit in your stew for awhile.
And think about it.
True power is not won through military power and military power alone.
There is a distinctive diplomatic edge to dealing with everything.
And you still need to negotiate with the people of the world, even if you choose to not negotiate with the terrorists and other immaturely minded individuals/groups of individuals in the world.
Think about it.
For it is better to build an empire of conscious, rather than an empire of land.
Think about it.
Cause we're going to cause a serious accident if we keep this up.
And I honestly believe that our attention is better aimed away from the planet, rather than back towards the planet on which we all live, together, as one species.
Think about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xE-fFWPLpas
Monday, October 8, 2012
Afghanistan is F$%#ED
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19868043
I could have told you that without the report.
The Afghan Army and police are not loyal to the Karzai government. I don't even know who the members are loyal to, except they seem to have a tendency to join up with the Taliban or kill NATO/ISAF troops.
And Karzai sits on his little pedestal while paying the warlords off cause they have the real power and authority in Afghanistan.
All thanks to Georgie Boy Bush, continued under B. Rock Obama.
And we wonder how Americans end up sucking/losing on the foreign policy scale, in spite of their resources and potential.
Think about it.
I could have told you that without the report.
The Afghan Army and police are not loyal to the Karzai government. I don't even know who the members are loyal to, except they seem to have a tendency to join up with the Taliban or kill NATO/ISAF troops.
And Karzai sits on his little pedestal while paying the warlords off cause they have the real power and authority in Afghanistan.
All thanks to Georgie Boy Bush, continued under B. Rock Obama.
And we wonder how Americans end up sucking/losing on the foreign policy scale, in spite of their resources and potential.
Think about it.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
An Apology to the People of Pakistan
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2012/10/2012107141138951980.html
Again, I don't apologize for my country.
I apologize for the leadership that chooses to make these kinds of decisions.
And I do trace it all the way back to our original and past policies in the Middle East that have caused the conflict with the Islamic world as a whole, and all of its little subsets.
The ones where we've overthrown leaders.
Have imposed European systems of governance in non-European places.
And set up nasty dictators in the place of just and democratically elected leaders, who govern by the consent of the people and not over it.
But, that's just me.
No hopes of getting hired in this administration.
Think about it.
No hopes at all.
Again, I don't apologize for my country.
I apologize for the leadership that chooses to make these kinds of decisions.
And I do trace it all the way back to our original and past policies in the Middle East that have caused the conflict with the Islamic world as a whole, and all of its little subsets.
The ones where we've overthrown leaders.
Have imposed European systems of governance in non-European places.
And set up nasty dictators in the place of just and democratically elected leaders, who govern by the consent of the people and not over it.
But, that's just me.
No hopes of getting hired in this administration.
Think about it.
No hopes at all.
The Water Wars
http://www.vice.com/read/is-central-asia-on-the-verge-of-a-water-war-
I think our interests in this area are pretty clear. We need to get troops out of Afghanistan and back home without tampering with Pakistan. This is also how we can see maintaining good relations with societies on the ground are important everywhere, because you never know when or if you're going to need their help on an issue.
Unfortunately, the US leaders have been incredibly pig-headed and stumble bum about how they interact with others. Hence how we're only stuck with the unappealing option of using Pakistan to get troops out of Afghanistan.
As far as the larger conflict that could be brewing between China and Russia, I say stay out of it and let them fight if they want. I think that we should also maintain our military's projection power while nursing the troops back to a state of combat readiness in case we should have to come to blows with either one of these super powers while giving aid to support the loser of the conflict.
That is as far as the big powers is concerned.
I would need to do more research on Uzbek, Tajik and Kryrgyz and Kazhak relations, but I would advise offering to send an experienced moderator who's very familiar with the peoples of the region (traveled extensively there, studied it formally, staffed with people from the area, etc) to sort out the conflict. If this should fail, I would recommend waiting for the war to be over and then helping with reconstruction and reconciliation efforts, again, with much research done first on the situation and condition, before we make any specific actions in the area.
This is all to maintain American interest in general and advance the position of the American people by doing what is needed, necessary and appropriate for the other peoples we are working with. One's benefit is another's gain. And, if it's done right, it can yield more powerful and lasting connections than anything we can do right now.
By being useful and helpful to others while looking out for our own self interests in the process, we can yield some amazing things in our world in the empirical, demonstrable and tangible senses of it. And it's only our brains that are the key limitation to our ability to act appropriately with others.
Think about it.
Cause you lose out when you don't.
And it's only in your brain that it works out to be otherwise.
Think about it.
I think our interests in this area are pretty clear. We need to get troops out of Afghanistan and back home without tampering with Pakistan. This is also how we can see maintaining good relations with societies on the ground are important everywhere, because you never know when or if you're going to need their help on an issue.
Unfortunately, the US leaders have been incredibly pig-headed and stumble bum about how they interact with others. Hence how we're only stuck with the unappealing option of using Pakistan to get troops out of Afghanistan.
As far as the larger conflict that could be brewing between China and Russia, I say stay out of it and let them fight if they want. I think that we should also maintain our military's projection power while nursing the troops back to a state of combat readiness in case we should have to come to blows with either one of these super powers while giving aid to support the loser of the conflict.
That is as far as the big powers is concerned.
I would need to do more research on Uzbek, Tajik and Kryrgyz and Kazhak relations, but I would advise offering to send an experienced moderator who's very familiar with the peoples of the region (traveled extensively there, studied it formally, staffed with people from the area, etc) to sort out the conflict. If this should fail, I would recommend waiting for the war to be over and then helping with reconstruction and reconciliation efforts, again, with much research done first on the situation and condition, before we make any specific actions in the area.
This is all to maintain American interest in general and advance the position of the American people by doing what is needed, necessary and appropriate for the other peoples we are working with. One's benefit is another's gain. And, if it's done right, it can yield more powerful and lasting connections than anything we can do right now.
By being useful and helpful to others while looking out for our own self interests in the process, we can yield some amazing things in our world in the empirical, demonstrable and tangible senses of it. And it's only our brains that are the key limitation to our ability to act appropriately with others.
Think about it.
Cause you lose out when you don't.
And it's only in your brain that it works out to be otherwise.
Think about it.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
A Call to Renew Occupy!
Hey!
I've noticed that Occupy has fallen out of the presses lately, and the group seems to be disordered and disorganized, by my reckoning. I've got a proposal that I've been floating about the NYC GA's forum, the LinkedIn page and a small host of other Occupy related sites. I propose that we reorganize the GA's structure to make it act as an organizing body for a host of volunteers. It gathers names and contact information, and then organizes them for specific actions, such as demonstrations and voting.
It no longer acts as a 24/7 protest hub in and of itself, but instead, saves its energy for targeted action at specific moments nationwide.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OLMQQ57DzifR5q83gbBDs8cInHmBqBsD0COIK_B-5Uo/edit
Here's a write up of the full proposal.
Please feel free to comment on this, as it is a work in progress and needs to be adapted to the realities that are on the ground.
Thanks!
And remember, that it can only happen if you make it happen.
Goodnight, and have a pleasant evening.
-Eli
I've noticed that Occupy has fallen out of the presses lately, and the group seems to be disordered and disorganized, by my reckoning. I've got a proposal that I've been floating about the NYC GA's forum, the LinkedIn page and a small host of other Occupy related sites. I propose that we reorganize the GA's structure to make it act as an organizing body for a host of volunteers. It gathers names and contact information, and then organizes them for specific actions, such as demonstrations and voting.
It no longer acts as a 24/7 protest hub in and of itself, but instead, saves its energy for targeted action at specific moments nationwide.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OLMQQ57DzifR5q83gbBDs8cInHmBqBsD0COIK_B-5Uo/edit
Here's a write up of the full proposal.
Please feel free to comment on this, as it is a work in progress and needs to be adapted to the realities that are on the ground.
Thanks!
And remember, that it can only happen if you make it happen.
Goodnight, and have a pleasant evening.
-Eli
The Press FINALLY Strikes Back
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/25/anderson-cooper-libya-journal-cnn_n_1912177.html?utm_campaign=092512&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-media&utm_content=FullStory
Great.
Of course, the corporate press finds its balls under the Obama administration and not the Bush administration.
Typical.
But oh well.
It sounds like things weren't handled as well as they could have been.
It sounds like more of the typical denial and ignorance that plagues US foreign policy and US foreign policy makers.
And we suffer as a result of their willful ignorance about the times, cultures and contexts that they find themselves in, all for a bunch of poorly chosen priorities that could be avoided if the government actually found their balls to say "no" to the individualized private interests that are plaguing our country, society and democracy at their own, actual expenses.
It's literally maddening to watch the poor choices and self "interests" that we try to fulfill around the world.
But, that is the product of our leaderships' brains and our society's brains as well.
They're changeable.
But THEY'VE got to want to change.
And I don't think that's the case.
Therefore.
Removal is the best option, if they are unwilling or unable to adapt to conditions on the ground.
And that's going to happen whether you like it or not, and whether you believe it or not, if they don't change themselves and their attitudes, perspectives, conceptions and actions.
Seriously, you'd call al-Qaeda to be something other than derived from US policy in the region and toward the people/culture that lives there?
Think about it.
Great.
Of course, the corporate press finds its balls under the Obama administration and not the Bush administration.
Typical.
But oh well.
It sounds like things weren't handled as well as they could have been.
It sounds like more of the typical denial and ignorance that plagues US foreign policy and US foreign policy makers.
And we suffer as a result of their willful ignorance about the times, cultures and contexts that they find themselves in, all for a bunch of poorly chosen priorities that could be avoided if the government actually found their balls to say "no" to the individualized private interests that are plaguing our country, society and democracy at their own, actual expenses.
It's literally maddening to watch the poor choices and self "interests" that we try to fulfill around the world.
But, that is the product of our leaderships' brains and our society's brains as well.
They're changeable.
But THEY'VE got to want to change.
And I don't think that's the case.
Therefore.
Removal is the best option, if they are unwilling or unable to adapt to conditions on the ground.
And that's going to happen whether you like it or not, and whether you believe it or not, if they don't change themselves and their attitudes, perspectives, conceptions and actions.
Seriously, you'd call al-Qaeda to be something other than derived from US policy in the region and toward the people/culture that lives there?
Think about it.
The Real Effects of Drone Attacks
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/25/pakistan-drone-study-stanford_n_1911555.html?utm_hp_ref=daily-brief%3Futm_source%3DDailyBrief&utm_campaign=092512&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily+Brief
Yep.
The elites of our country especially do an incredibly sloppy job at handling foreign affairs and dealing with other people in general who are not of their "own." They seem to think/perceive that they can do anything they'd like, without consequence.
This drone policy, I have thought, is counter-productive, because a) the Taliban are always the first ones who are able to show up and repair damage and compensate for losses (as per the custom of the area) and b) spawning more militants in the international jihad through the loss of civilian life.
It's just aggravating the situation while doing little to stem the tide of the insurgency.
And the proof of that is that we're losing to the insurgency in Afghanistan, both through military attacks from the Taliban, the fact that they have effective and defacto governance over most of Afghanistan (beneath the Karzai regime) and through "green on blue" attacks from the Afghan National Army.
You can't beat an insurgent army militarily, especially not one with a popular base of support within the general population and certainly not one operating in such a remote and difficult to maneuver area such as Afghanistan. It's the lesson that the English never learned from their campaigns with the Irish. And yet the "great" powers still haven't figured it out in the present day.
When people don't want you there, the only way to solve the problem is through genocide or through acquiescing to THEIR needs, desires, wishes and wants.
I don't think we want the former label applied to us. We've done a lousy job defining our interests, goals and priorities in Afghanistan and Iraq for that matter.
And that is how everything is crumbling for us in both countries, in spite of the "gains" that we've made to the contrary.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/09/201292510340480469.html
It's our priorities and perspectives and attitudes that are/were the problem.
And it's the fault of our leaders specifically and the culture(s) that they engender up at the top.
Technically, it's not anyone's personal fault, because that was how they were raised and socialized as adults.
But it is the fault of the leadership when they fail to act effectively in light of their apparent downfalls.
And that's where the responsibility piece kicks in, when push comes to actual shove.
Think about it.
Cause we are going to lose this one according to our present definitions of success.
Most we can do now is make sure that the Afghans can run the Taliban out of Afghanistan.
And, that's about it.
"Victorious warriors win first, and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first, and then seek to win." -Sun Tzu.
The latter is what the American leadership does.
And it's apparent in the ways that they operate and the ways that they behave and the ways that they generally interact with the world.
They don't think things through.
They don't base themselves in facts and solid reasoning.
They don't even seem to concern themselves with lived world evidence and empirical facts that create a highly nuanced and complicated picture of the world that's outside of their brain's perceptions and brain's conceptions.
They just seem to do whatever they want to for whatever whim that comes from their brain at a moment's notice for small minded "gains" that inevitably turn to losses, even after accomplishing them.
And that's how their brains work.
That's how we get the world that we get.
Think about it.
Yep.
The elites of our country especially do an incredibly sloppy job at handling foreign affairs and dealing with other people in general who are not of their "own." They seem to think/perceive that they can do anything they'd like, without consequence.
This drone policy, I have thought, is counter-productive, because a) the Taliban are always the first ones who are able to show up and repair damage and compensate for losses (as per the custom of the area) and b) spawning more militants in the international jihad through the loss of civilian life.
It's just aggravating the situation while doing little to stem the tide of the insurgency.
And the proof of that is that we're losing to the insurgency in Afghanistan, both through military attacks from the Taliban, the fact that they have effective and defacto governance over most of Afghanistan (beneath the Karzai regime) and through "green on blue" attacks from the Afghan National Army.
You can't beat an insurgent army militarily, especially not one with a popular base of support within the general population and certainly not one operating in such a remote and difficult to maneuver area such as Afghanistan. It's the lesson that the English never learned from their campaigns with the Irish. And yet the "great" powers still haven't figured it out in the present day.
When people don't want you there, the only way to solve the problem is through genocide or through acquiescing to THEIR needs, desires, wishes and wants.
I don't think we want the former label applied to us. We've done a lousy job defining our interests, goals and priorities in Afghanistan and Iraq for that matter.
And that is how everything is crumbling for us in both countries, in spite of the "gains" that we've made to the contrary.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/09/201292510340480469.html
It's our priorities and perspectives and attitudes that are/were the problem.
And it's the fault of our leaders specifically and the culture(s) that they engender up at the top.
Technically, it's not anyone's personal fault, because that was how they were raised and socialized as adults.
But it is the fault of the leadership when they fail to act effectively in light of their apparent downfalls.
And that's where the responsibility piece kicks in, when push comes to actual shove.
Think about it.
Cause we are going to lose this one according to our present definitions of success.
Most we can do now is make sure that the Afghans can run the Taliban out of Afghanistan.
And, that's about it.
"Victorious warriors win first, and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first, and then seek to win." -Sun Tzu.
The latter is what the American leadership does.
And it's apparent in the ways that they operate and the ways that they behave and the ways that they generally interact with the world.
They don't think things through.
They don't base themselves in facts and solid reasoning.
They don't even seem to concern themselves with lived world evidence and empirical facts that create a highly nuanced and complicated picture of the world that's outside of their brain's perceptions and brain's conceptions.
They just seem to do whatever they want to for whatever whim that comes from their brain at a moment's notice for small minded "gains" that inevitably turn to losses, even after accomplishing them.
And that's how their brains work.
That's how we get the world that we get.
Think about it.
Monday, September 24, 2012
The Downside of Positive Thinking
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5um8QWWRvo&feature=endscreen&NR=1
Yep.
It's like that "law of attraction bs".
Yes, if you think about something a lot, you'll notice it more in the world around you.
However, it isn't shaping the world around you.
It's just changing the filter that everything passes through.
And sometimes, having a "positive filter" to only see "positive things" isn't a very valuable or useful thing to have around.
In fact, it can be downright negative, as the video points out.
And silly too boot.
Quite honestly, that's the only advantage that, I think, depression affords the individual is that we can actually see the bad where it is. And while that sometimes doesn't help, because the bad isn't really there at times, it still forces you to think about what is going on and what is going wrong in the world, such that you can be vigilant and motivated to do something about what's going on.
It works.
It helps.
And it's valuable, in spite of it sometimes, being miserable to be around at times, thanks to the mirror neurons that light up whenever we receive information from another.
In short, optimists suck.
And they do so on an empirical level.
They don't get what's going on.
They CAN'T understand what's going on.
And they lose out when negative things are coming toward them and they don't get themselves and others the f$%# out of the way!
True, you may get a false alarm in there at times.
But would you rather be dead, out of power, in a crisis than wrong?
I wouldn't.
I'd rather be wrong than dead, thank you very much.
And that's a big deal coming from a person with depression.
I know that the optimists are the ones who are hiring.
But I would let them consider whether or not it's actually good for them to be in the places that require constant attention to the negative; to the problems; to the issues, in order to be empirically successful at it.
Nothing and no one is going to be right 100% of the time.
But I, personally, would rather have an unneeded freak out than a real catastrophe on my hands.
And that's the logic that's lacking in the giddy, "I'm so happy" world of the Golden Retriever people of this world.
And they're the ones in charge.
Think about it.
Yep.
It's like that "law of attraction bs".
Yes, if you think about something a lot, you'll notice it more in the world around you.
However, it isn't shaping the world around you.
It's just changing the filter that everything passes through.
And sometimes, having a "positive filter" to only see "positive things" isn't a very valuable or useful thing to have around.
In fact, it can be downright negative, as the video points out.
And silly too boot.
Quite honestly, that's the only advantage that, I think, depression affords the individual is that we can actually see the bad where it is. And while that sometimes doesn't help, because the bad isn't really there at times, it still forces you to think about what is going on and what is going wrong in the world, such that you can be vigilant and motivated to do something about what's going on.
It works.
It helps.
And it's valuable, in spite of it sometimes, being miserable to be around at times, thanks to the mirror neurons that light up whenever we receive information from another.
In short, optimists suck.
And they do so on an empirical level.
They don't get what's going on.
They CAN'T understand what's going on.
And they lose out when negative things are coming toward them and they don't get themselves and others the f$%# out of the way!
True, you may get a false alarm in there at times.
But would you rather be dead, out of power, in a crisis than wrong?
I wouldn't.
I'd rather be wrong than dead, thank you very much.
And that's a big deal coming from a person with depression.
I know that the optimists are the ones who are hiring.
But I would let them consider whether or not it's actually good for them to be in the places that require constant attention to the negative; to the problems; to the issues, in order to be empirically successful at it.
Nothing and no one is going to be right 100% of the time.
But I, personally, would rather have an unneeded freak out than a real catastrophe on my hands.
And that's the logic that's lacking in the giddy, "I'm so happy" world of the Golden Retriever people of this world.
And they're the ones in charge.
Think about it.
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Computer Game Idea (Copyrighted on this blog)
An explorer computer game where you play a Buddhist monk, teaching you and helping you practice guides to meditation and aspects of Buddhist philosophy
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Democracy in Action in Libya
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19680785
This could be an interesting turn of events.
Who was left with all the power when Qaddafi was overthrown?
The militias.
It's true they have a government with official backing from the international community.
But it very well be that the militias have become the real power brokers in Libya since the fall of Qaddafi.
And it appears that people are not happy about that.
Good for democracy.
In fact, this is democracy in action.
But where it will lead, I don't know.
As it is with most revolutions.
Which is why/how it's best that they be avoided.
Better to acquiesce to the needs of people, rather than try to keep putting a square peg in a round hole.
And carry out the needed revolution in private, rather than in public.
Democrats.
It's your choice, if you win and have control of House, Senate and Presidency.
Keep things as it is.
Or change it up to make it work effectively for everyone, including and not limited to, those elites whom you have taken treats from.
Think about it.
Cause this is the end of the Age of Capitalism, so to speak.
Unresponsive.
Callous.
And driven towards both the destruction of the small self through the destruction of the larger self that is the social and environmental world that you find yourself in.
And it's only in your brain that it's going to be different, I think.
Silly brains.
Think about it.
Silly brains indeed.
This could be an interesting turn of events.
Who was left with all the power when Qaddafi was overthrown?
The militias.
It's true they have a government with official backing from the international community.
But it very well be that the militias have become the real power brokers in Libya since the fall of Qaddafi.
And it appears that people are not happy about that.
Good for democracy.
In fact, this is democracy in action.
But where it will lead, I don't know.
As it is with most revolutions.
Which is why/how it's best that they be avoided.
Better to acquiesce to the needs of people, rather than try to keep putting a square peg in a round hole.
And carry out the needed revolution in private, rather than in public.
Democrats.
It's your choice, if you win and have control of House, Senate and Presidency.
Keep things as it is.
Or change it up to make it work effectively for everyone, including and not limited to, those elites whom you have taken treats from.
Think about it.
Cause this is the end of the Age of Capitalism, so to speak.
Unresponsive.
Callous.
And driven towards both the destruction of the small self through the destruction of the larger self that is the social and environmental world that you find yourself in.
And it's only in your brain that it's going to be different, I think.
Silly brains.
Think about it.
Silly brains indeed.
Friday, September 21, 2012
An Ode to Self Interest
It is said that we act in our self interests. However, rarely do we actually know and understand what our self interests are, courtesy of our brains and our brain/sense organs' functions.
Some choose the McDonalds meal, when a nice salad would suit our best interests better.
Some choose to gamble with money recklessly in risky loans that could never be repaid, at the expense of the entire economy and society in which they're able to make their money.
Some choose to destroy the environment in which they live, so they can have a greater amount of abstract currency.
And some choose to govern against the needs and wishes of a majority of the people of their territory, such that they get unelected or kicked out of power by force.
It's all thanks to a remarkable tendency in the human brain to get things wrong and to misperceive the situation, such that the individual and the collective (which is really a grouping of individuals when you look at it), get it wrong and end up at the bottom of the heap, rather than at the top.
We are self interested creatures in that we go towards that which we perceive is in our best interests.
However, we aren't always able to pick our best interests. And, some tend to be able to do it better than others, for their own sakes in the biggest sense of themselves, while others don't do it well for themselves at all.
Think about it.
Some choose the McDonalds meal, when a nice salad would suit our best interests better.
Some choose to gamble with money recklessly in risky loans that could never be repaid, at the expense of the entire economy and society in which they're able to make their money.
Some choose to destroy the environment in which they live, so they can have a greater amount of abstract currency.
And some choose to govern against the needs and wishes of a majority of the people of their territory, such that they get unelected or kicked out of power by force.
It's all thanks to a remarkable tendency in the human brain to get things wrong and to misperceive the situation, such that the individual and the collective (which is really a grouping of individuals when you look at it), get it wrong and end up at the bottom of the heap, rather than at the top.
We are self interested creatures in that we go towards that which we perceive is in our best interests.
However, we aren't always able to pick our best interests. And, some tend to be able to do it better than others, for their own sakes in the biggest sense of themselves, while others don't do it well for themselves at all.
Think about it.
Afghan Governors
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2012/09/2012920184255109884.html
If there's one thing that I, personally, think about the Afghan people, after studying them, is that when they see changes in governance, they'll observe it, take note of it, and do whatever works best for them in spite of it.
Ive heard constantly that they're an incredibly independent people, sociologically and culturally, and that therefore, this change up of governance isn't necessarily going to do much, except give Karzai the illusion that he has more control in Afghanistan that he probably, actually has.
This highlights a couple of things. One, is that culture and perspective of the other are both incredibly important and significant things to understand, accept and work with, and that you work at your own expense when you don't acknowledge or take it effectively into account.
The second, is that Karzai is likely going to have troubles as soon as we're out of there, both from the Taliban and from his own people.
We're going to leave him in the middle of a war zone with nothing but a large, over priced, semi loyal army "behind" him, plus a lot of armed civilians to boot.
It's not going to be pretty over there once we get out of there.
And, unfortunately, the Obama administration is likely going to take the hit for it, even though it was Bush who established our presence and oversaw it for the longest time.
That what I would be guarding against, if I were the Democrats.
But, that's just me.
Think about it.
If there's one thing that I, personally, think about the Afghan people, after studying them, is that when they see changes in governance, they'll observe it, take note of it, and do whatever works best for them in spite of it.
Ive heard constantly that they're an incredibly independent people, sociologically and culturally, and that therefore, this change up of governance isn't necessarily going to do much, except give Karzai the illusion that he has more control in Afghanistan that he probably, actually has.
This highlights a couple of things. One, is that culture and perspective of the other are both incredibly important and significant things to understand, accept and work with, and that you work at your own expense when you don't acknowledge or take it effectively into account.
The second, is that Karzai is likely going to have troubles as soon as we're out of there, both from the Taliban and from his own people.
We're going to leave him in the middle of a war zone with nothing but a large, over priced, semi loyal army "behind" him, plus a lot of armed civilians to boot.
It's not going to be pretty over there once we get out of there.
And, unfortunately, the Obama administration is likely going to take the hit for it, even though it was Bush who established our presence and oversaw it for the longest time.
That what I would be guarding against, if I were the Democrats.
But, that's just me.
Think about it.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
World Economies
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-19658146
You know, I don't think that a slowing economy is necessarily a bad thing, if everybody is doing well.
Quite frankly, I think that by having the wealth be more equitably distributed within the society, you'll get better economic growth.
Rich people tend not to spend wildly. At least, the ones who stay rich don't.
Most people, if you were to give them a million dollars, would be either spent or in the negative by the end of the day, and that, is an economic principle that we can actually test for.
When you enable people to spend, they spend, or save or invest.
They participate in the economy and help make it do better for those who already have.
But it's an investment by the upper class to make it be so, in order to avoid triggering inflation.
When people have money to spend and the prices remain at current market value, they tend to spend.
And that, you can test in the world around us.
So.
Perhaps the solution to India's problem is to shrink the gap between the rich and the poor.
And perhaps, a better focus of economies should be committed to making the world a better place to live in, rather than simply growing themselves in abstract manners that don't really translate into increased value and increased quality of life for the people actually living on Earth.
Just a thought.
Think about it.
Just a thought.
You know, I don't think that a slowing economy is necessarily a bad thing, if everybody is doing well.
Quite frankly, I think that by having the wealth be more equitably distributed within the society, you'll get better economic growth.
Rich people tend not to spend wildly. At least, the ones who stay rich don't.
Most people, if you were to give them a million dollars, would be either spent or in the negative by the end of the day, and that, is an economic principle that we can actually test for.
When you enable people to spend, they spend, or save or invest.
They participate in the economy and help make it do better for those who already have.
But it's an investment by the upper class to make it be so, in order to avoid triggering inflation.
When people have money to spend and the prices remain at current market value, they tend to spend.
And that, you can test in the world around us.
So.
Perhaps the solution to India's problem is to shrink the gap between the rich and the poor.
And perhaps, a better focus of economies should be committed to making the world a better place to live in, rather than simply growing themselves in abstract manners that don't really translate into increased value and increased quality of life for the people actually living on Earth.
Just a thought.
Think about it.
Just a thought.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Q and A with the Islamic World
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/09/2012919115731993126.html
If you're so inclined to actually listen to what's going on in the minds of those who were protesting the video, here is a good place to start.
It's only from listening to others that you get an understanding of what's actually going on in the world around you.
Otherwise, you're just relying on your own limited sense of it, and are missing out on a LOT of what the world has to offer you in terms of solid, empirical and demonstrable evidence.
Take a listen from the imam, as told by al-Jazeera itself.
And, hopefully, you'll glean some understanding about what they're going through.
It's not very scientific, because you'd ideally have these questions answered by a large sample size to get a representative population going.
But, it's a start for those who are really ignorant about Islam and what it means to these folks over there who are behaving strangely according to what we think is appropriate over here in the West.
Bear in mind, Islam had no scientific revolution separate from religion, chiefly because their religion produced the scientific method that we actually are using to this day in secular science.
There was no secular revolt against organized religion in the Islamic world.
Therefore, how do you expect a people to give up and separate their religion from bad comedy, when they have no basis for doing so within their own world?
Think about it.
And, try to bear that in mind when you're looking at the reactions against the video.
It is what it is.
And is nothing more or less than that.
Think about it.
If you're so inclined to actually listen to what's going on in the minds of those who were protesting the video, here is a good place to start.
It's only from listening to others that you get an understanding of what's actually going on in the world around you.
Otherwise, you're just relying on your own limited sense of it, and are missing out on a LOT of what the world has to offer you in terms of solid, empirical and demonstrable evidence.
Take a listen from the imam, as told by al-Jazeera itself.
And, hopefully, you'll glean some understanding about what they're going through.
It's not very scientific, because you'd ideally have these questions answered by a large sample size to get a representative population going.
But, it's a start for those who are really ignorant about Islam and what it means to these folks over there who are behaving strangely according to what we think is appropriate over here in the West.
Bear in mind, Islam had no scientific revolution separate from religion, chiefly because their religion produced the scientific method that we actually are using to this day in secular science.
There was no secular revolt against organized religion in the Islamic world.
Therefore, how do you expect a people to give up and separate their religion from bad comedy, when they have no basis for doing so within their own world?
Think about it.
And, try to bear that in mind when you're looking at the reactions against the video.
It is what it is.
And is nothing more or less than that.
Think about it.
Monday, September 17, 2012
The Latest on Occupy Wall Street
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/protests-near-stock-exchange-on-occupy-wall-st-anniversary/?partner=rss&emc=rss
It's a real shame that this hasn't been creating as much of a media sensation as we would hope.
Unfortunately that is the problem with having a for profit, corporate media in place in the United States.
It's bad when a people in a society can't get themselves and their messages/desires effectively expressed in the world around them.
It's even worse when they represent the opinions of what apparently is a solid majority of Americans, and are not allowed to have their say or their will expressed.
When the majority is deliberately stifled and put down, we have seen throughout history that this generally leads to a backlash against whatever power(s) that be within that society.
You literally can't govern according to your personal "self" interests, beliefs and desires, because that will, eventually, lead to problems for your own personal self and your own personal sake, in spite of what your brain tells you.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dN2nR13khtp1JjIJGOf4VOza66EPA-YtHFLNv4CbXXo/edit
I've got over 20 cases, big and small, that show this correlation.
And I'd highly recommend that the leadership of this country pay attention to these lessons from history, lest they should become like the deposed French aristocrats or the unelected mayoral candidate of New London, representing the established order.
It does eventually break.
It's only in your brain that it doesn't.
And you've got to keep yourself ahead of the curve, if you're not going to play ball according to the natural laws of the world that is around you, and get yourself out of the picture in order to avoid something worse.
Doesn't matter what you do to make the effects of your actions be any different.
Cause it's only in your brain(s) that this change doesn't happen.
And that's how I know, that you and yours (elites) are going to fail.
Or should I say, current elites.
Cause we've changed before.
And we can change again.
And good luck getting back in once you're forcibly kicked out against your will and control.
Cause the world won't accept this kind of nonsense forever.
And you've got to keep yourself ahead of the curve, if you want to stay in these positions.
And adapt/sacrifice accordingly.
I know you're not really thinking about it.
You're just running the program that you've been developed with.
And it's only in your brains that it works otherwise.
So.
Good luck staying in power when the stuff begins to get hot.
Think about it.
Good luck.
It's a real shame that this hasn't been creating as much of a media sensation as we would hope.
Unfortunately that is the problem with having a for profit, corporate media in place in the United States.
It's bad when a people in a society can't get themselves and their messages/desires effectively expressed in the world around them.
It's even worse when they represent the opinions of what apparently is a solid majority of Americans, and are not allowed to have their say or their will expressed.
When the majority is deliberately stifled and put down, we have seen throughout history that this generally leads to a backlash against whatever power(s) that be within that society.
You literally can't govern according to your personal "self" interests, beliefs and desires, because that will, eventually, lead to problems for your own personal self and your own personal sake, in spite of what your brain tells you.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dN2nR13khtp1JjIJGOf4VOza66EPA-YtHFLNv4CbXXo/edit
I've got over 20 cases, big and small, that show this correlation.
And I'd highly recommend that the leadership of this country pay attention to these lessons from history, lest they should become like the deposed French aristocrats or the unelected mayoral candidate of New London, representing the established order.
It does eventually break.
It's only in your brain that it doesn't.
And you've got to keep yourself ahead of the curve, if you're not going to play ball according to the natural laws of the world that is around you, and get yourself out of the picture in order to avoid something worse.
Doesn't matter what you do to make the effects of your actions be any different.
Cause it's only in your brain(s) that this change doesn't happen.
And that's how I know, that you and yours (elites) are going to fail.
Or should I say, current elites.
Cause we've changed before.
And we can change again.
And good luck getting back in once you're forcibly kicked out against your will and control.
Cause the world won't accept this kind of nonsense forever.
And you've got to keep yourself ahead of the curve, if you want to stay in these positions.
And adapt/sacrifice accordingly.
I know you're not really thinking about it.
You're just running the program that you've been developed with.
And it's only in your brains that it works otherwise.
So.
Good luck staying in power when the stuff begins to get hot.
Think about it.
Good luck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)