real democracy

human values are created by social system, war, crime, politic & poverty are essentially money related so those who contribute are not getting paid, why they would do it? their reward is the fruit of society as a whole, they contribute because it is at their best interest to do so. just as everyone can contribute. self-interest become integrated as social interest, they become 1. you want to help yourself, you must help society explicitly. everything is for the greater good. frankly i believe our survival as a species is absolutely contingent upon this world view.

moreover, the participants and contributor would not be fixed, they are constantly evolving based on who wants to participate, who can contribute in any given feel. abstractly speaking this actually would be a true democracy, wouldn't it? arbitrary voting for politician is now replaced by a logical review of given concepts based on social merit with the contributor brought in help, not "im gonna reduce taxes".... and.. "here comes change"...

the degree which a person can contribute is based on their education level, ability to create and problem solving. this is why extended education is critical. in today's society you'll find the public is essentially kept distracted and uninformed, this is how the government maintain control. if you review history, you'll find that power is maintained by ignorance. in non-monetary system, the goal of the education system is to produce the most intelligent, aware human being as possible. why? because everyone then becomes contributor, greatly affecting our collective social evolution for the better and improving the life of all.

intelligence will no longer be a threat to the establishment, for there is no power establishment. there will be no budget restriction or unethical agenda to deter progress also people would have high propensity to become generalist, not specialist. specialization is a limitation, the monetary system promote specialization as a form of labor distribution for income, its kinda built in and its a colossal hindrance. i believe buckminister fuller put it quite well on this issue :

"our failures are a consequence of many factors, but possibly one of the most important is the fact that society operates on the theory that specialization is the key to success, not realizing that specialization precludes comprehensive thinking. this means that the potentially - integrable - techno - economic advantages are not comprehended integratively and therefore are not realized.."

in another words people need to be broadly educated, not refined and isolated. this leads to detached thinking, so who suppose to makes the decision in our society? no one does. decisions are arrived at by the use of the scientific method. actually by asking such question as "who makes the decision" is devious logic, its not who makes the decision, but by what method decisions arrived at :

Scientific Method - the basic steps in the scientific method are : 

State the problem

Gather information

Form a hypothesis

Test the hypothesis

Record and analyze data

State the conclusion

Repeat the work

the question of who makes the decision is a bias attribute that we are trapped-in because of our rationally founded fear of each other groups. which we are continually to pursue power based on monetary gain. using a monetary systems as their tools to continue to maintain control.

Reference :   
  
- where r we going

- http://forum.lowyat.net/

- http://forum.lowyat.net/topic/1550429

The Most Important Matrix Experiment Ever - Facebook

Introduction to the "Letter To The Main Culprit For It All": This is not a joke and this is not spam, "The Most Important Matrix Experiment Ever - Facebook" is the most important invitation that has ever been sent to you. What is 10 minutes of your time in respect to that which you still call life even though you're already dead on the most important fronts, or compared with the future of your children and their descendants? Nothing! Spread this invitation via  forums, blogs, share it with at least one friend on Facebook if you can't somehow do more than that.





Most of us have seen the movie Zeitgeist Addendum. We call it evolution. It started about 30.000 years ago. "Star Trek" is not the future to which we are transported from the time of dinosaurs and mammoths, we are not in the Enterprise and we don't travel through space at the speed of light, instead we snail through our congested and polluted streets; I am not Spock, you're not Sulu, and there is no Kirk. Instead of trying to solve them, you spent 30.000 years avoiding the problems by inventing new names for them. Thirty thousand years of problems have piled up. And here we are today, even though we are technologically capable of settling all the inhabitants of this world to dwell in Paradise; on the way of self-destruction, completely powerless suffering the consequences of Hell which we've built not only for us but unfortunately for the rest of living and nonliving nature of this planet. We are all chronically short of money, but we've never had so much money as we do now, we never created money so easy as we do today - trillions of dollars, euros and other currencies are coming into the existence out of nothing by a simple click of a mouse. My friend, this is not the global financial crisis, this is a global crisis of nonsense and false morality, the biggest robbery in history is ongoing. The problem has never been a problem in itself. The problem has always represented a reaction to the problem. My friend, without further ado, you are our biggest problem. Our problem is not the global financial elite, cunning lawyers, dirty politicians, corrupt syndicalists and all other mobs. Our biggest problem is you, that's right, literally you, with your first and last name.




I want to let you know that from this moment on, through my eyes, you are the main Culprit for all the unnecessary crap that we have been going through for ages. Our monetary system, the way it currently is, is not designed or constructed in a way to allow progress of the human civilization according to everyone's dream - peace and prosperity. Our monetary system has only one purpose - those who do nothing and have nothing, through deception in front of our own eyes with which they are pushing us into a trap of eternal debt, by deceit are stripping us of all potentitial mental and physical abilities that the nature has generously endowed upon us; by controlling every single aspect of life in our social communities, they are stealing our producution capacities and parasitize the fruits of our labor. There is nothing more pracious than life, and they stole our life, and you, yes you, are guilty for all of that.




Money is the primary source of power, money is that which determines what happens with us, and what is going on all around us. Absolute power does not originate from the creation of laws, but rather from the creation of money. Money has a greater influence on everyday life of the world population and each one of us individually than all the executive, judicial, and legislative decisions together. Due to the fact that centralized power is not feasible without centralized money, this symbiotic pair is a major cause of the disease that rots the educational system whose recovery was never even planned, the money is totally privatized and absolutely beyond the reach of our so-called democratic control. The above mentioned symbiotic pair is the most important common characteristic of all revolutions up to today, not even one single revolution in history has ever attempted to change the monetary system!




Terrible crime and a terrible devastation is behind us. Not even the most terrible crimes are possible without your cooperation - tacit approval. Global monetary sovereignty is in private hands, everything is in their hands, including the media. And the media is broadcasting mostly fear, wars, conflicts, terrorism, murders, accidents, disasters, earthquakes, pandemics and a whole variety of similar ways of brainwashing with one goal - for you to become indifferent and feel completely helpless. Do you know how pilots react during their murderous raids in which bombs and chemicals cause the massive war crimes, when they start to receive radio info about the results of their actions as a part of peacekeeping missions? Trying to escape from the cruel reality, these pilots turn off their radios. Is there an easier and a more common escape from the harsh reality than the escape into Facebook? In order to avoid mass protests on the streets, they gave us all cheap access to the virtual world - some kind of "Alice in Wonderland", so beat your worry on the joy and pleasure, don't worry be happy - because that's exactly what the global financial elite wanted - and they got it - we are all overloaded by the horror that is daily served to us through radio, television, press and online media; they turned off and almost completely cut off each link connecting us with the outside world.




If money is not backed by material basis and if money is created out of thin air, then why the governments don't create money to pay taxes instead of taking it away from citizens by force; why is too much money being created for 1% of humanity and too little for 99% of humanity? Why are governments allowed to issue debt instruments, but not allowed to issue its own money? If we do not know who the owner of the money is at the moment it is issued, then how can we possibly later know who is whose creditor, and who is whose debtor? Is it possible to repay debts if only the principal is being issued, and not the money needed to pay the interest as well? If We The People are those who produce everything that is on Earth necessary and unnecessary; if We The People are the owners of everything that we produce, then why We The People borrow our own money in the form of worthless slips of papers created out nothing from the private banks?


Tell me one thing, Culprit, did we enter into a community so called "state" in order to be its slaves or for the state to serve us? Tell me, Culprit, did we invent money in order to be its slaves, or in the common interest to have it benefit us all, both as individuals and as entire nations?



Although it patriotically proudly bears the name of the nation, the central bank is directly or indirectly in private ownership. Get one thing Culprit, the owners of the "national" banks are not we - you and I, all "national" central banks worldwide are controlled by only a few people. In the real world, you can't buy anything unless you offer an equivalent value back. You see Culprit, because of that, money has no material base, so that the narrow circle of people can issue it out of nothing in unlimited quantities; how would you otherwise buy the whole world and constantly bribe everything that needs to be corrupted? But this is not the end, it can be even worse Culprit ... It's not about the money, but rather about the control... Listen carefully my naive friend, the more you work and produce, the more evil you do onto yourself, and me, and the whole community because with that, my naive Culprit, you don't produce new values but rather a new debt. The central bank issues money only one way, lending it with interest. The result is such, my naive friend, that our own money is taken away from us the People of the World, without getting anything in return. 1 - you invested effort and working time; 2 - you created a product, 3 - it's not that you've only been robbed of the product; 4 - you've been robbed twice and have become indebted in the amount of the value of the product. At the same moment, the central bank takes from the community and indebts it for the exactly same amount. All the money in circulation is a debt, debt that can not be paid for two simple reasons: debt cannot possibly be paid off by debt; only the principal amount exists in the circulation - money for the payment of interest does not exist. To be able to pay interest on money that is issued as a debt, in this never-ending cyclus, one must always just create more and more new money. Since this newly made money is also created as a debt, even more new money must be created tomorrow in order to pay for the interest on it. In this insane system, the more we produce, the more we are indebted. The more indebted we are, the more and more of our rights and pleasures we give up. More debt requires more "money", but there is no more money without more and more work - because of that we produce a bunch of nonsense which is unnecessary for anyone, and the mountains of garbage that we leave behind us destroys the nature. To work more and more, and forgo more and more, is a process that has its mathematical and physical boundaries. And now, Culprit, we just got to that point!

The least challenging and most effective form of control over the human population is that which the population cannot see due to its ignorance. To whom and how could it ever occur to rebel against slavery when they think they are free? The key to this labyrinth without exits is the illusion of freedom of choice. Any control system which is intended to survive a longer period is hidden behind a false facade of free choice enabled through the right to vote. The right to vote is the official confirmation of a free society - every couple of years, the people can vote to choose their governments and because of this, automatically think that they are free. But in reality, the citizens were sold a lie that democracy means freedom so that a perception of freedom can be created behind which tyranny can freely operate. The same situation always takes place through a trap into which the population naively falls unaware of the fraud - the promise of "a change for the better" by new political candidates. My naive Culprit, there is nothing called the political left, right and center - these are games for children, just like the Tooth Fairy and the Santa Claus - you have no possibility of free choice, you have owners which own you. I am acknowledging to you, Culprit, that this silly world was not possible to build, and as such - the world of stupidity, can not exist without a mandate, and no other signature than yours stands on that mandate - you cannot ever again run away from that. If the private banks create money, not the state; a politics that relies on the promises which are more dependent on the goodwill of banks than you are on Facebook, can't be anything else other than a prostitute always hungry for money.




"The manufactured acceptation" is a propaganda model that is used by the corporate media in order to appear as public opinion. Is not a little weird to you, my friend, that in such a critical moment for all of humanity, there is no trace or voice of some sort of an organized mass protest movement? "Financing of disagreement" is directing funds from those who are the target of a protest movement against those involved in the organization of protest movements. The global financial elite, through an absolute control, not only buys political services, it also holds and oversees the financing of numerous NGO nongovernmental associations and civil society organizaitons in their hands. Global feudal lords were able to break mass movements into frivolous, non-hazardous few communities that are funded from the reason to act alone - all against all - you already know how that works - divide and conquer! Protest movements are supported and generously funded as a complete oppositition of the related mass movements - even though we are all fully aware where their money comes from, NGO leaders continue to assure us that they are independent and autonomous parts of the forces that by receiving the alms of their rulers will  change for the better the Hell that their rulers created. Global thieves finance anti-thieves, what kind of an absurd and contradictory diabolic relationship is that. In such conditions, my dear naive friend, we cannot change anything to make it better, it can only get worse.



No more infatuation, my friend, after 30,000 years, even though it's the last one, the greatest illusion of all times has finally died as well, hope. Real change can be achieved only when we massively stop cooperating with a system that has enslaved us through a dictatorship that just aims to take our own enslavement to extreme measure. We will never experience real change if we still continue to believe that the only way to a better tomorrow is to thread deeper and deeper into the system in order to change it. We have been attempting that for 30.000 years and as you can see, we did not succeed. Real change will only come then when we get out from this Matrix system, it is the only choice, everything else is just a naive delusion.



We naively accepted this monetary system as if it were something unchangeable. Is it possible that we are not capable of something better?

You know, Culprit, the only possible reaction to self-destruction is right in front of your eyes - Stop Using Their Debt-Money!  


You, who is troubled by unemployment, you tormented by hunger, by constant price increases, parking penalties, you who struggles with health services, public transportation, you tortured by both the local and the national government, you tortured by work hours and work conditions, you troubled by terrorism, you tortured by imperialism and colonialism, you tortured by anything - all of our problems stem from the monetary system whose money we use. Well, let's unite then and remove the cause of all our troubles and suffering, let's stop using their debt-money!



Fulfillment of the promise of a better tomorrow is 30.000 years late, and now, enough is enough. Time has come for us to forget about a better tomorrow and concentrate on a better today, to start creating it now, immediately, not a second later.



Reference : http://www.cromalternativemoney.org/index.php/en/media/news/the-most-important-matrix-experiment-ever-facebook.html

all money + mortgage

"All the money in circulation is a debt, debt that can not be paid for two simple reasons: debt cannot possibly be paid off by debt; only the principal amount exists in the circulation - money for the payment of interest does not exist. To be able to pay interest on money that is issued as a debt, in this never-ending cyclus, one must always just create more and more new money. Since this newly made money is also created as a debt, even more new money must be created tomorrow in order to pay for the interest on it. In this insane system, the more we produce, the more we are indebted. The more indebted we are, the more and more of our rights and pleasures we give up. 

Jct: If they won't lend any money, what? Foreclosure. http://johnturmel.com/biglie.htm goes a bit further. It explains that if everybody owes P+I and everybody got P, as the Zeitgeiset movie shows, P/(P+I) survive. But the remainder I/(P+I) get knocked into foreclosure resulting in Shift B inflation. Economics teaches inflation is Shift A, more money chasing the goods, up on the left. Economics does not teach Shift B down on the right.

Reference : http://johnturmel.com/biglie.htm

Social evolution in an emergent society

Karl Marx was right when he said that "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." Every power establishment eventually undergoes a downfall, of which the lower class takes advantage in order to improve their situation; in the most extreme cases, the action takes the form of a full-fledged revolution and in the not-so-extreme cases, they at least make themselves noticeable enough to make sure they are never again ignored. The history of the civilizations in their path to our pseudo-democracy (modern history) can be defined as a painful 'stagnation-revolution-stagnation' cycle: generally, when revolutionaries take control, they represent the exponent of human liberties, but just in that time frame, just in their own context.

Nowadays, the "everything for the people, nothing by the people" disposition of the enlightened absolutism seems like a bad joke. However, if we take into account the historical web surrounding that one thread, we must admit it was an advancement that resulted in a slightly more enlightened society. This can mislead us to think that if absolutist monarchy had not make such a concession, maybe that very order would have endured for a much longer time, or maybe the shift towards liberalism would not have been so gradual, would it? But could monarchy even afford to not make such a concession? Of course not: cornered by dangerous new ideas, every power establishment ends up trying to adapt to them superficially, disguising the old and known with a shining fur to go by unnoticed, although later the plan backfires; that is precisely how we see enlightened despotism now and we can only conclude that people in the future will laugh at our concept of liberalism and democracy.

From primitive societies to capitalism, all have tried their best in their physical context, not accounting for ups and downs. That is the human propensity, as long as the environment allows it. In other words, it is not just that we 'are' better people or more civilized beings: the technical conditions have allowed us to be so. Were we left tomorrow without our essential facilities (tap water, electricity and transport for goods and people), faster than seems possible the inhabitants of the 'developed nations' would take up a new paradigm: chaos.

So yes, capitalist economy is an advancement, even with its current characterization that owes more to the monetary reforms on the mid-20th Century than to its original ideas. Although a case could be made that it is a perversion of what liberalism 'could have been', the idea of alternative ways will not be further entertained here, as the fact is, the average life of a human being has improved considerably throughout the last two hundred years, since the industrial revolution. We witnessed its effects on mechanization, medicine and methodical education; it is technical know-how, to a certain point carried out by capitalism, which has improved our lives. But capitalism, and indeed the monetary system in general too, can only take us up to a certain point.

Sure enough, we must not forget that while life expectancy in the Americas, Oceania and Europe (and even Asia to an extent) has raised considerably, in Africa the situation is still deplorable. Worse still, it does not show signs of improvement: taking a look at the current data, we will see we double the live expectancy of many South African nations. We double it. Trying to look for discrepancies of that level in other animals will result in a practically useless exercise and that is precisely why it is highly enlightening.

Why does this happen? Why is there still classic slavery in those poor countries and paid slavery in developed or developing countries? A lot has been said about this, so we'd better not get deep into the immediate causes again and focus instead on the general problem: that kind of thing happens because the now-not-so-new capitalist model, once the prototype of the maximum freedom possible for humanity, has been obsolete for almost half a century now, therefrom the decay and need of 'playing dirty' to survive, just as a cornered animal. Even though the new technology is already here, the economic system is not up to date: clean and practically inexhaustible energy sources, more practical methods of agriculture, an almost entirely automated manufacturing sector (and soon the same will go for the services), more energy-efficient and faster means of transport for goods and people, instantaneous global communication, advancements in medicine (more than half of the major medical advancements have happened in the last hundred and fifty years), and the dawn of cybernation and nanotechnology.

The current political-economic model is already attempting to reconcile with it all and will keep trying to do so with what's to come, but it will eventually fail. It won't even be able to justify its very basis: the human employment in the production process, and therefore the concept of product 'value' mostly defined by the human time and work required in manufacturing. The mechanization of the industrial age substituted twenty men for just one driving a machine and the automation of the computer age is already substituting employees of all sectors for a few technicians -and no, those jobs will not come back. If the eight-hour day was achieved with mechanization, what will then be achieved in the next day's labour-shrinking revolution, taking automation into account? Even with the extremely consumerist practices of capitalism and its low efficiency when trying to synchronize production systems to avoid redundancy, the difference would be astronomical -but currently, the power establishment doesn't give up in that respect. Still, what will happen when more efficient technics are also applied? Exactly, the concept of employment and wages as the basis for economy will end up being obsolete. The monetary system –be it capitalism, communism or even anarchism in the form of barter transaction- will not be able to justify the necessity of paying for food and energy either, when its ability to make them in abundance is already beyond question. This way, scarcity -the third aspect taken into account to calculate 'value' in this system- decreases more and more alongside human time and work, until product value according to their own economic theory dangerously approximates to zero.

Hence, changes will happen. Either a painful revolution breaks out or capitalism will gradually adapt to these bio-social pressures until it destroys itself, just as enlightened absolutism did: conceding a place in the system for the new ideas. There will be a time when this junction will be important, decisive, but for the purpose of this text the difference is insignificant, as capitalism will collapse no matter what alongside every monetary system and they will collapse under their own weight, thanks to the same practices that one day brought about a new prototype of human liberties.

The possibility of us killing each other before we follow the natural path described here will not be brought up either beyond this very annotation, not because it is an absurd proposition, but because it requieres no further explanation: it is highly probable that cultural change will not be so fast as to outmatch the energy problem or the tensions among nuclear-armed nations. But even if that happened, the current system would fall -the difference is that, in stark contrast with the upcoming projection, it wouldn't be replaced by other social paradigm. There would not be a society to speak of in the first place.

Having said that, how can you avoid the continuation of the 'stagnation-revolution-stagnation' cycle in the culture that emerges from the new technics? How do you create a society that evolves accepting the little mutations, instead of standing up to them to eventually explode and succumb to the next logical step? How do you make it so that the very basis of society, with its culture and economy, stops the human trend of shifting the socio-economic model by dominating the ruling system? In short, how can we avoid an established system and arrive at an emergent system?

The answer is not particularly complex, but it is not easy to understand either if all these concepts aren't already in your head somehow, changing your mind without you even noticing. The point is to organize these new technics in a way that those pioneers in the forefront of social evolution cannot (and don't want to) be leaders, but doers. Instead of leading the system in an overarching way, they do stuff to improve specific characteristics within it. Therefore, to avoid the stagnation of ideas at a social level, to avoid an established system, you simply cannot have a government as we know it; each and every individual governs or leads society by means of their input in technics and culture.

From technological and medical contributions to artistic and recreational ones, society arranges itself by 'the little things', as opposed to most modern theories of power. But at the same time, thanks to electronic communication and fast transportation, there is a possibility to connect society as a whole: even the product of the most insignificant participation is available to everyone in a decentralized but totally united network of computer systems and physical transport, instead of being left limited to a region or expand with exasperating and sometimes lethal slowness, as it happened in primitive societies and is still proposed in politics by certain kinds of anarchism and in social movements by off-grid ecovillages.

That is how you create an emergent society. Following the natural course of technology, communication among human beings is eased until a global interconnection is achieved, with which every individual knows perfectly that their contribution will help themselves, their family and everyone else and that the input of the rest of the world will follow the same path, uninterrupted by any government that would be unnecessary in this historical context. Not having an overarching power, in this system the only constant is change. The 'stagnation-revolution-stagnation' cycle and the struggle between new and old ideas simply ceases to work and is naturally replaced by another paradigm: the social evolution in an emergent society.

Reference : http://www.ciudadanosmundo.com/p/social-evolution-in-emergent-society.html

monetary system flaw discussion list

Perpetual consumption -A constant, cyclical rate of consumption must be maintained in order for businesses to continue selling goods, and for consumers to continue purchasing goods. -This is confounded by our use of fractional reserve banking and monetary creation, which further requires physical expansion of the money supply in order to keep servicing the continually expanding debt. Regardless of fraction reserve banking, the monetary system requires a constant rate of consumption as business and workers require income to survive. -This system of perpetual growth and consumption is within a closed system known as the Earth, the resources bestowed unto this planet took millions of years to develop, therefore are finite. A infinite growth economy within a finite resource system is guaranteed to collapse, as at some point that infinite growth paradigm will collide with the physical limits of our planet.

Labor for Income -Machine automation is a very real trend, that over the last few decades has completely transformed our abilities to produce goods. The real issue is that companies will seek to automate as much as they can for profit's sake, but this displaces the workforce, creating a large population whose skills have been made obsolete my mechanization. -This reduces purchasing power for the population, and as automation increases, so will the gap between wealthy classes and poor classes. -Eventually this trend will cripple the economy as the poor classes will have less and less opportunity to obtain money, which diminishes the businesses opportunity to sell goods and make money, essentially ending capitalism and its labor for income paradigm.

Profit motive (this pertains to many of the OP examples) -The profit motive reinforces socially detrimental behaviors. It also creates a need for self preservation in the context of business. If a new technology arrives that makes a company obsolete, that company and all of those people involved would lose their livelihood. Consider the oil conglomerate and the owning of car battery patents. -The same could be said for the healthcare industry, it is more profitable for the corporations and pharmaceautical companies to 'treat' and 'service' health problems rather than fix them for good. If we actually could cure and prevent all diseases, millions of people would lose their job. -Resources no longer are regarded as essential materials for life, but rather opportunities for profit. If companies continually dump waste into a river and spoil a local water supply, that company can now make money by servicing the need for clean water. -It is profitable for companies to seek the poorest, most destitute workers possible and pay as little as possible (sweatshops) -It is profitable to influence political powers to side with corporate interests (corporate lobbying)

reference : http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=5&id=295502#295709

An Unsustainable System Anti-Capitalism in Five Minutes

By ROBERT JENSEN

We know that capitalism is not just the most sensible way to organize an economy but is now the only possible way to organize an economy. We know that dissenters to this conventional wisdom can, and should, be ignored. There's no longer even any need to persecute such heretics; they are obviously irrelevant.

How do we know all this? Because we are told so, relentlessly -- typically by those who have the most to gain from such a claim, most notably those in the business world and their functionaries and apologists in the schools, universities, mass media, and mainstream politics. Capitalism is not a choice, but rather simply is, like a state of nature. Maybe not like a state of nature, but the state of nature. To contest capitalism these days is like arguing against the air that we breathe. Arguing against capitalism, we're told, is simply crazy.

We are told, over and over, that capitalism is not just the system we have, but the only system we can ever have. Yet for many, something nags at us about such a claim. Could this really be the only option? We're told we shouldn't even think about such things. But we can't help thinking -- is this really the "end of history," in the sense that big thinkers have used that phrase to signal the final victory of global capitalism? If this is the end of history in that sense, we wonder, can the actual end of the planet far behind?

We wonder, we fret, and these thoughts nag at us -- for good reason. Capitalism -- or, more accurately, the predatory corporate capitalism that defines and dominates our lives -- will be our death if we don't escape it. Crucial to progressive politics is finding the language to articulate that reality, not in outdated dogma that alienates but in plain language that resonates with people. We should be searching for ways to explain to co-workers in water-cooler conversations -- radical politics in five minutes or less -- why we must abandon predatory corporate capitalism. If we don't, we may well be facing the end times, and such an end will bring rupture not rapture.

Here's my shot at the language for this argument.

Capitalism is admittedly an incredibly productive system that has created a flood of goods unlike anything the world has ever seen. It also is a system that is fundamentally (1) inhuman, (2) anti-democratic, and (3) unsustainable. Capitalism has given those of us in the First World lots of stuff (most of it of marginal or questionable value) in exchange for our souls, our hope for progressive politics, and the possibility of a decent future for children.

In short, either we change or we die -- spiritually, politically, literally.


1. Capitalism is inhuman

There is a theory behind contemporary capitalism. We're told that because we are greedy, self-interested animals, an economic system must reward greedy, self-interested behavior if we are to thrive economically.

Are we greedy and self-interested? Of course. At least I am, sometimes. But we also just as obviously are capable of compassion and selflessness. We certainly can act competitively and aggressively, but we also have the capacity for solidarity and cooperation. In short, human nature is wide-ranging. Our actions are certainly rooted in our nature, but all we really know about that nature is that it is widely variable. In situations where compassion and solidarity are the norm, we tend to act that way. In situations where competitiveness and aggression are rewarded, most people tend toward such behavior.

Why is it that we must choose an economic system that undermines the most decent aspects of our nature and strengthens the most inhuman? Because, we're told, that's just the way people are. What evidence is there of that? Look around, we're told, at how people behave. Everywhere we look, we see greed and the pursuit of self-interest. So, the proof that these greedy, self-interested aspects of our nature are dominant is that, when forced into a system that rewards greed and self-interested behavior, people often act that way. Doesn't that seem just a bit circular?


2. Capitalism is anti-democratic

This one is easy. Capitalism is a wealth-concentrating system. If you concentrate wealth in a society, you concentrate power. Is there any historical example to the contrary?

For all the trappings of formal democracy in the contemporary United States, everyone understands that the wealthy dictates the basic outlines of the public policies that are acceptable to the vast majority of elected officials. People can and do resist, and an occasional politician joins the fight, but such resistance takes extraordinary effort. Those who resist win victories, some of them inspiring, but to date concentrated wealth continues to dominate. Is this any way to run a democracy?

If we understand democracy as a system that gives ordinary people a meaningful way to participate in the formation of public policy, rather than just a role in ratifying decisions made by the powerful, then it's clear that capitalism and democracy are mutually exclusive.

Let's make this concrete. In our system, we believe that regular elections with the one-person/one-vote rule, along with protections for freedom of speech and association, guarantee political equality. When I go to the polls, I have one vote. When Bill Gates goes the polls, he has one vote. Bill and I both can speak freely and associate with others for political purposes. Therefore, as equal citizens in our fine democracy, Bill and I have equal opportunities for political power. Right?


3. Capitalism is unsustainable

This one is even easier. Capitalism is a system based on the idea of unlimited growth. The last time I checked, this is a finite planet. There are only two ways out of this one. Perhaps we will be hopping to a new planet soon. Or perhaps, because we need to figure out ways to cope with these physical limits, we will invent ever-more complex technologies to transcend those limits.

Both those positions are equally delusional. Delusions may bring temporary comfort, but they don't solve problems. They tend, in fact, to cause more problems. Those problems seem to be piling up.

Capitalism is not, of course, the only unsustainable system that humans have devised, but it is the most obviously unsustainable system, and it's the one in which we are stuck. It's the one that we are told is inevitable and natural, like the air.


A tale of two acronyms: TGIF and TINA

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's famous response to a question about challenges to capitalism was TINA -- There Is No Alternative. If there is no alternative, anyone who questions capitalism is crazy.

Here's another, more common, acronym about life under a predatory corporate capitalism: TGIF -- Thank God It's Friday. It's a phrase that communicates a sad reality for many working in this economy -- the jobs we do are not rewarding, not enjoyable, and fundamentally not worth doing. We do them to survive. Then on Friday we go out and get drunk to forget about that reality, hoping we can find something during the weekend that makes it possible on Monday to, in the words of one songwriter, "get up and do it again."

Remember, an economic system doesn't just produce goods. It produces people as well. Our experience of work shapes us. Our experience of consuming those goods shapes us. Increasingly, we are a nation of unhappy people consuming miles of aisles of cheap consumer goods, hoping to dull the pain of unfulfilling work. Is this who we want to be?

We're told TINA in a TGIF world. Doesn't that seem a bit strange? Is there really no alternative to such a world? Of course there is. Anything that is the product of human choices can be chosen differently. We don't need to spell out a new system in all its specifics to realize there always are alternatives. We can encourage the existing institutions that provide a site of resistance (such as labor unions) while we experiment with new forms (such as local cooperatives). But the first step is calling out the system for what it is, without guarantees of what's to come.


Home and abroad

In the First World, we struggle with this alienation and fear. We often don't like the values of the world around us; we often don't like the people we've become; we often are afraid of what's to come of us. But in the First World, most of us eat regularly. That's not the case everywhere. Let's focus not only on the conditions we face within a predatory corporate capitalist system, living in the most affluent country in the history of the world, but also put this in a global context.

Half the world's population lives on less than $2 a day. That's more than 3 billion people. Just over half of the population of sub-Saharan Africa lives on less than $1 a day. That's more than 300 million people.

How about one more statistic: About 500 children in Africa die from poverty-related diseases, and the majority of those deaths could be averted with simple medicines or insecticide-treated nets. That's 500 children -- not every year, or every month or every week. That's not 500 children every day. Poverty-related diseases claim the lives of 500 children an hour in Africa.

When we try to hold onto our humanity, statistics like that can make us crazy. But don't get any crazy ideas about changing this system. Remember TINA: There is no alternative to predatory corporate capitalism.


TGILS: Thank God It's Last Sunday

We have been gathering on Last Sunday precisely to be crazy together. We've come together to give voice to things that we know and feel, even when the dominant culture tells us that to believe and feel such things is crazy. Maybe everyone here is a little crazy. So, let's make sure we're being realistic. It's important to be realistic.

One of the common responses I hear when I critique capitalism is, "Well, that may all be true, but we have to be realistic and do what's possible." By that logic, to be realistic is to accept a system that is inhuman, anti-democratic, and unsustainable. To be realistic we are told we must capitulate to a system that steals our souls, enslaves us to concentrated power, and will someday destroy the planet.

But rejecting and resisting a predatory corporate capitalism is not crazy. It is an eminently sane position. Holding onto our humanity is not crazy. Defending democracy is not crazy. And struggling for a sustainable future is not crazy.

What is truly crazy is falling for the con that an inhuman, anti-democratic, and unsustainable system -- one that leaves half the world's people in abject poverty -- is all that there is, all that there ever can be, all that there ever will be.

If that were true, then soon there will be nothing left, for anyone.

I do not believe it is realistic to accept such a fate. If that's being realistic, I'll take crazy any day of the week, every Sunday of the month.

Reference : http://www.counterpunch.org/jensen04302007.html

- http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/joomla/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=99999&func=view&catid=231&id=297313

where are we going part 1

When the Italian physicist Galileo presented evidence, regarding earth evolved around the sun to his political institution at the time of his region. He was met with deep threat and deep opposition by the local political establishment, because his presentation was very much contrary to their religious text and against traditional identification.

Proof : “The Lord set the earth on its foundations; It can never be moved.”- Psalm 104:5

Then Galileo’s work and studies material is banned and only been released to the public after 76 years from his death. The reality is institutional establishment like religion, institutional establishment with societal influence & power like corporation and government, has tendency to be in denial, dishonesty & corruption, to maintain self-preservation & self perpetuation. The result is the continuous culture lag

Unfortunately, cultural beliefs, beliefs some that we all share traditions are very rarely goes along with the socially progressive nature of science and technology, this is what a culture lag means. To put it simple it is a phenomenon where culture takes time to catch up with technological innovations, and that social problems and conflicts are caused by this lag. These are emotional identification are source of comfort for us, its really difficult for any traditional establishment to really keep moving forward without eventually giving in to the beauty of the advancement of technology and what it can do for us.

Where social progress by incorporating a new socially helpful scientific advancements, is constantly opposed, it is like walking through a brick wall, as the established power orthodoxy continue to perpetuate themselves for their own interest and comforts. To illustrate this phenomenon in a modern context, lets examine one of the oldest establishment orders still in use today, the monetary system. When i mentioned monetary systems, i don't mean native monetary policy, interest rate, fractional reserve policy, central banks or any other components of the systems.

I refer to the absolute foundation of the monetary system, that is being a system for incentives, acquisitions, and medium of exchange. So first, lets ask the most fundamental question, why did we invent money? Contrary to the attitude of the most of the world’s population today money is not a natural resource nor it does represent resources. Money is actually a social convention for managing scarcity, and rewarding creation. If a person grows a food or create a product, that product is given a value :

-              value is based on the how scarce the product is in the region, hence the level of demand vs supply

-              take account into amount of labor spent to produce the product, generally speaking if the product was rare in the market, then value was raised, if the skill-set in the society to

produce that product is limited, the value is raised again.

-              These are the basic of value which you often get from basic economic textbook 101

Lets now consider some of the unspoken negative retro-actions of the system. Mainly the profit mechanism and its relationships to establishment preservation. ...Very simply :

Problems + Scarcity = Profit

Socially negative attributes of society become positively rewarded ventures for industry. The more problems and scarcity there is, the more money there can be made off through providing solutions. The more efficiency created in society, the less opportunity for monetary acquisition. Think about this.. in other words “There is little intrinsic motivation to completely solve any currently profitable problems.” The very nature of monetary enforcement condone the perpetuation of the problems.

For eg : very high possibilities oil company perpetuate the scarcity of available oil resource or limit production in order to raise the price to make more profit, at the same time disregard the social concern.

Same as any other industry, for eg: environment pollution. The more polluted our water reserves become, the more bottled water industry can compensate by offering profitable ‘solutions’, comes along as any other types of “created disaster and damages” there is more money to be make. The psychological ramification of these is sick and profound.

Lets consider the medical industry, which should be one of the most progressive institution established as our health & quality of life depended on it. However we need to realize the reality is that the medical establishment with its millions of employees thrives with the sickness of the populations. More problems solved with curing disease the less money that can be generated. For eg : the cancer, this treatment/machine/drugs/medicine worth trillions of dollar globally, suppose hypothetically curing cancer has been achieved and the method of treatment is simple and easy. Do u realized what will happened to the economy and medical institution? If that particular problem was actually given a viable and cheap solution ... and when you realized that do you really think that the intend is to cure these illness?

As another example, what if company could have made a car that able to last 80 years without service and also does not require petrol / gas to operate? The aftermarket value of that car would be virtually zero, and since when it is about poor people cannot afford car? Same as 5 sector, i am sure you know we had the technology to create electric cars and it exist more than 50 years ago already. The reason why it cannot been surfaced on the market and society is because gov and corporation need to protect billion dollars car service industry even-though it is obsolete & outdated technology. Same example mentioned previously why?  “more problems solved =  less money to be made.” Social progress to the human well being is always second the to monetary gain.

Also, if people cannot make money of solving social problem, they simply would not be done. For eg : have you ever noticed that the only metaphor we have in our public discourse for solving problem ... is to declare war on it... ? we have war on cancer, war on crime, war on drug, but we never had war on homelessness? Because there is no money in that problem, no money to be made off of the homeless. If you can find a solution to the homeless where the corporation and politicians can make a few millions dollars each, you will see the streets of city begin to clear up pretty damn quick.

When you thinks about these, the word.. corruptions comes to mind, most feel that these are ethical issue. But is it really corrupt for an energy establishment to limit production and create artificial scarcity so that to make more profit? Is it really corrupt for a company to seek indifference self-preservation at the expense of social progress? Actually no, it isn't.. it is simply business as usual. And this is what i am trying to point out..

And you should expect nothing less than this tendency .The profit mechanism create establish order which constitute the survival and wealth of large group of people. The fact is no matter how socially beneficial you advance may be, they would be viewed in hostility if they threaten an established financially driven institution. Meaning social progress can actually be a threat to these establishment, so to put it in a sentence, abundance, sustainability and efficiency are the enemies of the profit. Progressive advancement in science and technology which can solve problem of inefficiency and scarcity once and for all are in effect, making the prior establishment servicing of those issue obsolete.

Therefore in a monetary system, corporation are not just in competition with other corporation, they are in competition with the progress itself. That is why social change is so difficult within a monetary system. In other words, the established monetary system refuses free flowing exchange. .. you cannot have a social convention when money is made of an inefficiency and scarcity then expect a quick incorporation of new advance which can relief those problems.

There are 2 important issue, the first is economic reality that the entire global economic system is based on what i called cyclical consumption. The only way the systems can work is money need circulating

Money must be continuously transferred from 1 party to another in order to sustain so called economic growth. This is done through constant or cyclical consumption by virtually everyone is inside. Jobs are entirely contingent upon demand for production and so forth. If there was no demand for goods and services then there will be no demand for labor and financial circulation would hence stopped.  What this translate into again is that inefficiency equals profit, the entire system demands problem for us to work. This is not only paralyzing as we’ve discussed but also creates outrageous amount of resource waste irrelevancy and extremity.

Another much more broad issue i would like to make is, all society today either we are capitalist, socialist or communist are fundamentally based on money. Money is the enabler possibilities within the system itself. Free market capitalism is now the dominant economic religion of the day, i said religion because when it comes to the cultural perception of these methodology, few today seems to have the ability to even ponder any other option for social operation, they are fully indoctrinated. The free market in practice can be defined as :

“A market in which supply and demand are unregulated except by the country’s competition policy, and rights in physical and intellectual property are upheld”

If you noticed the bold part, in other words there is no such thing as a pure free market. I know most of us know this, but i want to make a point, for nor could there ever be such a thing as pure free market without the system speriodically self destructing beyond repair. Why? Because the basis of free market pursue meaning the self interest based pursuit and strategic acquisition of market share, the gaining strategy can only lead to monopoly and cartels. That is the basis of entire motivation and its funny how economist today would deny that up and down.

For eg : lets say i want to open an electronic store

-              Location is a small town, and at that time there is already 3 other electronic store, so i need to compete with them

-              So i tried my best to improve my own competitive business strategy, reduce operating cost, huge discount, and at the end my business thrived the other 2 of 3 decided to closed the business.

-              Now only left me and another competitor electronic store, so since my profit previously has been so good and i could afford to buy the competitor store in order to reduce possibilities threat for my current business. Its very normal right? Business acquisition happened all the time

-              Assume that competitor agreed to let me purchase, indirectly.. boom! I had the regional business monopoly now.

-              On the other hand, even if i didn't acquire the competitor store, but rather just became friend and partners with them, figure out a way to work together, flourished and in non-competitive way, seems logical right? Well.. guess what.. now i had a cartel. In other words, businesses is based in part of gaining strategy, to win market share to enhance profit, therefore it is natural gravitation to seek dominance in your sector or industry. And at the highest level is monopoly and cartel.

-              It is a natural progression of a “free” market system to become as dominant and powerful as possible.

But it doesn't stops there, im sure most of you understand what is congressional lobbying by corporation considered as absolutely normal, well.. what is financial lobbying? Lobbying is the prostitution of the state to grant further power or position to corporate industry. In other words, if you pay off a few congressman in parliament to support your company agenda then you had further secured your position economically. The same thing goes to campaign contributions, now people says that's corruption. No, its not. Its the “free” market at work, what else do you expect? There is no such thing as an objective government in a monetary systems, it is impossible... the whole society is based on money and income so why are you think anyone’s mind whoever be drawn and respected? We see this bullshite ethic argument all day long and guess what it is never work, it never will work.. influence and hence corruption is a natural byproducts of our systems, it should be expected.

In fact lets take this train of thought even further, throughout history, there's been one empire after another. Each working to secure global land and resource domination.

 

The essential reason for war is for resources, profit, empire power and trade monopolies. Governments are fundamentally no different in function than corporations when it comes to self-interest. The United States invasion of Iraq could be considered a hostile corporate take-over, in a fact for even the most naive individuals today know it has nothing to do with weapon, democracy, freedom, etc etc..  that we are so used to it with the level of corruption that we just look the other way these day. However i want to point what war really have to do is conquering resources, industrial profit and empire expansion fundamentally.

One of the quote from General Major Smedley D.Butler :

“War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.”

These day the profit and monetary system is generating different form of empire,  a corporate empire based on merging economies to trade agreements. Its called globalization. Jim Garrison, president of the State of the World Forum put the phenomenon as following :

“Taken cumulatively, the integration of the world as a whole, particularly in terms of economic globalization and the mythic qualities of “free market” capitalism. Represents a veritable “empire” in its own right.. few have been able to escape the “structural adjustments” and “conditionality’s” of the world bank, the international monetary fund, or the arbitration of the world trade organization. Those international financial institutions that, however inadequate, still determine what economic globalization means.... such is the power of globalization that within our lifetime we are likely to see the integration, even if unevenly, of all national economies in the world into a single global, free market system.”

... hence.. EMPIRE.

To put it gesturely the propensity of this system is to create world’s monopoly. That is natural gravitation of the methodology and philosophy of the free market ideology itself. That is what the psychology sums up. It is based on strategic domination, i think it is time for people to finally wake up, it isn't freedom, but it is based on conquering. The core basis of social functionality in our society is inherently despite. There is no such thing as ethical transaction, ethics and competition are incompatible. For the basis of seeking differential advantage for personal gain is wholly unethical in any civilization, leading perpetually to conflict and exploitation. Dishonesty is the mode of operation at every level either you realize it or not. And frankly how anyone in the right mind could ever rationalize that it balance peaceful, sustainable, and productive world could ever come out with open competition hence open warfare from individual competing against each other for work, to corporations battling each other for market share, to governments competing against each other for global economic dominance.

We live in paralyzing, detachment promoting, self-serving system, which generates parasites and prostitutes. Each one of us due to the very nature of monetary game is forced into position of submission. Either to employee or to client the basic goal is monetary acquisition, not service the social progress.

We leech and exploit, sadly the only co-operation you’ll tend to find these days, or actually ever since the system is created, was when there is common enemy, when a particular group fight against another. Hence one corporation working to fight against another corporation, advantage is dishonesty hope everyone understands that. Moving on, i would like to address cultural leak common attributes in modern society, both institutional ideological which are rarely thought about in a holistic sense.

Laws, rights and paper proclamations

In society today, government attempts to control human behavior by a way of threat. In the form of laws, little regard given to the reasoning behind causes for these so called “criminal acts” or socially offensive acts. If a person arrested for stealing very little regard as given the environment to conditions that generate the interest to steal to begin with the motivation. For eg : Is a mother who steals food to feed her starving family a criminal? No, she is simply doing what she has to do. When we reflect on this reality that we as human being are really nothing more nothing less than animals and operate at the same basic behavior reinforcement (the need for survival)

Any similarities? The fact is, we see that it is illogical and irresponsible to consider any human behavior outside the round of the social condition.

Merva-Fowles Study from University of Utah (1990-1992)

They found that a 1% rise in unemployment :

-              6.7% increase in homicides

-              3.4% increase in violent crimes

-              2.4% increase in property crime

This studies proof that criminal behavior is directly related to social condition and circumstances. It is no surprise majority prisoner’s background come from deprived social economic position. Society is producing behavior, particularly scarcity.. if you pay attention and year after year, number of prisoner risen, along with the numbers of laws in the books, therefore something obviously isn't working, right?

If society is progressively managed with the intend of collective human well-being, then we should be seen constant decrease in crime and prison population & decrease in laws. In fact,  the goal of a productive stabilized society will be the intend to eliminate the need for prison, police & everything we just mentioned together.

This brings us to the concept of security, since 9/11 security measures across the world had gone berserk with irrationality, we are neurotically obsessed with security, the solution to violent behavior is evidently more police, more camera and less freedom and liberty. But if somebody really wants to blew up a bus station/airplane/shopping mall, release toxic gas, street rampage, they would find a way to do it, no force or security would ever stop that. Therefore the logic is wrong. It is impossible and the whole basis of security as we know it, is absolute reverse of the application required to solve these type of problem, true security comes from solving social problems, address the environment, the reason or the distortion of the human being.

World's Economic Disparity from 1800 until 2007

2 of these chart basically shows income and life expectancy disparity world wide. Actually the progress is done through collective data and it happens through multiple yearly chart but what matters here is we’ve seen tremendous growth in economic disparity today. Africa for eg just left in the dust by the western nation.

Lets look at it side by side :

Theres a research been done by University of Nottingham showing strong correlation between crime and income inequality, not absolute income, but income itself is psychological, usually also referred as psycho social stress

For eg: this chart below shows growing disparity of divided into upper and lower class.

So coming back to my original point, when comes to the concept of security i think one the of most important thing which should be considering is reducing the global income gap, in other words i think that the more this inequality in the world grows, the more world conflict that would arise on multiple levels.

Paper Proclamations

Ok now we move on, today we use paper proclamations as to denoted a person so-called rights, and just like laws they are culturally bias, artificial concussion, which attempt to solve re-occurring problems by simply declaring something with words on paper usually.  Rights in fact had been invented to protect ourselves from being negative by-products of the social system itself and once again instead of seeking true solutions to a problem, we invent these patches by way of paper proclamations in an attempt to resolve them. These does not work, it has never worked, there is really no such thing as a unalienable right, outside of the culture which isn't so. We are making these up, therefore liberties need to be inherit in the social systems by design, not eluded to ambiguously on paper.

As a classic example,

-              Thou shalt not steal..

-              Thou shalt not kill.. WHY?!

These are surface notion cope-outs created by man, who didn't have any real information. Who did not understand that we live in a cause and effect reality. Telling people these does virtually nothing as history has proven, morality is an empty idea that has no empirical reference and an intelligent commandment would be something like ... “thou shalt continually reorient thyself & society to reduce reactionary propensities that lead to aberrant consequences such as stealing and murder – the gospel of ..”

The same surface of relevancy applies to any constitution or bill of rights of any countries on this planet.