 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Thanks for pointing out that the movie is new, I am viewing it.
Example:
"So, you have to ask yourself the question: what matters?"
In a discussion, as far as I understand what matters, each member of the discussion offers their viewpoint on the topic.
If the topic is the movie, and not Joe's Law, then "what matters" in this part of this discussion, from my viewpoint, are questions raised in the movie, and other things in the movie.
Example:
Nature versus nurture was raised in the movie.
I've thought about that, or something similar, and I have arrived at a more basic dichotomy whereby two main forces are at play and those forces are:
1. Entropy
2. Ectropy
I found Extropy one day not long ago, while Entropy was already a part of my vocabulary and Entropy had been a part of my vocabulary for some time, Entropy had made its way to my vocabulary early on.
Ectropy is one of those terms that appears to be against the law, such as Legal Crime is against the law, and CAFR is against the law, terms that once spoken discussion ends.
What matters, as far as life is concerned, is Ectropy, it seems to me.
I will watch more of the movie, which I find very interesting, and comment as the stream of data flows past my personal viewing space, inspiring me to offer my part of an imaginary discussion.
Discussion is against the law.
Note: The forum spell checker doesn't recognize ectropy as a word.
"It's all in the genes": an explanation for the way things are that does not threaten the way things are. Why should someone feel unhappy or engage in antisocial behavior when that person is living in the freest and most prosperous nation on earth? it can't be the system!
As far as I can tell the movie producer/writer/creator/publisher/etc. uses the above quote as an example of rationalization or "apology" for maintaining "the system" whereby the system in question amounts to the system by which group A overpowers group B, which is what I call legal crime.
The System is either something specific or The System is ambiguous.
If The System is specifically identifiable as the system by which group A overpowers group B, then an accurate measure can be made by which power transfers from B to A, and I think this specific example accomplishes that accurate measure.
The group that overpowers the other group is the group that creates these lies, propagates these lies, and the lesser power group believes, and parrots, those lies - as that example in quotes above.
An apology for punishment, a rationale for punishment, an excuse for institutionalized punishment, and an obvious case of power being transferred, in real time, from the targeted group (those who will be punished), and the targeting group (those who punish), and the true test of this fact is to seek evidence that confirms the reality of group A having immunity from punishment while group B has no such immunity.
Take any supposed "reason" for administering punishment to anyone and see if the same "reason" applies to the creator and propagator of that supposed reason.
Example:
The serial killer must be put to death.
Each president of U.S.A. Inc. LLC, at least as far back as WWII is guilty of the crime of mass murder, serial killing, and how many of them have been put to death by the supposed "rational" system of punishment?
How about failure to repay money borrowed from the government? What is the punishment dealt out to banks that are "too big to fail"; group A? What is the punishment dealt out, by foreclosure, to group B?
Reality check:
In a society which is predicated on competition, and really very often the ruthless exploitation of one human being by another, the profiteering of other people's problems, and very often the creation of problems for the purpose of profiteering. The ruling ideology will very often justify that behavior by appeals to some fundamental and unalterable human nature.
So the myth in our society is that people are competitive by nature, and that they are individualistic, and that they are selfish. The real reality is quite the opposite. We have certain human needs. The only way that you can talk about human nature concretely is by recognizing that there are certain human needs.
Competition is.
To say that society is or is not predicated on competition is to offer a competitive viewpoint on society. Why, really, really, really, why, do people blame competition for anything bad, evil, wrong, destructive, less by any measure than what competition does.
Competition forces quality up.
Competition forces cost (price) down.
Society A is a very low quality society; whereby each person in the society has to pay a very high cost to society, merely to survive as an individual, and by some measure Society A exists as a social power.
Society B is a very high quality society; whereby each person in the society has to pay a very low cost to society, survival is as costless as breathing clean air, and by some measure Society B exists as a social power.
If the measure of power in Society A is much greater than the measure of power in Society B, then which society survives, and which society does not survive?
A competitive example of a society that measures up as a very competitive society is one where the people learn to be empathetic, cooperative, aggregate, non-violent, and capable of equitable exchange, reciprocity, leading to economic exponential power production, surplus wealth, stores of life preserving power, by accessing division of labor, specialization, and economies of scale. Such a society is much more powerful than a society whereby each individual plans on, and then follows through with the plan, to injure each other person.
The accurate measure of the accurate discrimination between good human behavior and bad human behavior isn't as such:
A. Competition
B. Non-competition
Competition is.
The accurate measure of the accurate discrimination between good human behavior and bad human behavior is as such:
A. Crime (willful premeditated injury of innocent people by criminal people)
B. Not A
Back to the quote:
In a society which is predicated on competition, and really very often the ruthless exploitation of one human being by another, the profiteering of other people's problems, and very often the creation of problems for the purpose of profiteering. The ruling ideology will very often justify that behavior by appeals to some fundamental and unalterable human nature.
So the myth in our society is that people are competitive by nature, and that they are individualistic, and that they are selfish. The real reality is quite the opposite. We have certain human needs. The only way that you can talk about human nature concretely is by recognizing that there are certain human needs.
The ruthless exploitation of one human being by another is the ruthless exploitation of one human being by another - what does that have to do with competition or individuality?
Individuality is.
Each moment is an individual moment. Each atom is an individual atom. Each person, in each moment, thinks an individual thought, and each thought can drive each individual act, by each individual person, each individual second.
Why does that person connect, by way of false association, the facts of competition and individuality, things that are, with crime, things that are either done or not done according to whichever individual person decides to either go ahead with a crime or not?
Crime itself is competition.
A. A society based upon crime (A.K.A. punishment)
B. Not A
Which society is more likely to survive longer?
The connection between legal criminals who propagate institutionalized crime, what I call legal crime, and capitalism, if there is such a thing, in context with Darwinism, is as such:
A.
The survival of the fittest means: kill or be killed.
B.
Do unto others before they can do unto you.
In fact, if I understand Darwinism, the capacity to reproduce empowers a species toward survival, not fitness in a violent or aggressive sense.
To be fit, is to be fit and able to reproduce.
To be fit, in a sense that someone, a single member of the species, is aggressively more powerful, violently more powerful, or deceptively more powerful than a competitor, more powerful than another member of the species, is unfit as a biological adaptation, not an adaptation that is fit for survival of the species. Such an example of one member of the species is an example that isn't likely to reproduce, and a whole society of such people would not be a powerful competitive society for lack of basic resources, since no one would have time to produce anything, since everyone would spend all their time defending against attack, and planning attacks on other people within such a society made up of such a poor example of biological adaptation.
If each person in the society were as powerful as The President, able to steal, torture, and mass murder at will, the human species would have ended a lot sooner.
It is dogma like this dogma, in quotes above, that lead to errors in social organization, whereby power flows to the worst, and most destructive, human individuals.
Blaming evil on competition, and individuality, rather than blaming evil on the actual people who are evil, by their thoughts, and by their actions, each at each moment, is not a very competitive thought or act.
Why think such nonsense?
Why speak such nonsense?
This:
In a society which is predicated on competition, and really very often the ruthless exploitation of one human being by another, the profiteering of other people's problems, and very often the creation of problems for the purpose of profiteering. The ruling ideology will very often justify that behavior by appeals to some fundamental and unalterable human nature.
So the myth in our society is that people are competitive by nature, and that they are individualistic, and that they are selfish. The real reality is quite the opposite. We have certain human needs. The only way that you can talk about human nature concretely is by recognizing that there are certain human needs.
Why connect bad things done by bad people with things that are not bad, such as competition, which is, and individuality, which is, and to suggest that there is a connection, when no such connection exists, is willful, or not?
Why?
I won't get an answer, the video presentation is a one way communication medium, while discussion, as outlawed as it may be, is a 2 way communication medium, a method by which one individual can access another individual and compete and create a higher quality viewpoint (one that is more accurate) at a lower cost (a better perspective that is less filled with inaccurate data).
Example:
Person A:
Hi, it sure is fun running west with my eyes shut, I've been doing that for awhile and it is thrilling. I feel great.
Person B:
Hi, I'll try it. Before you go, though, it may be a good idea to hold off on your fun, I just came from the west, and there is a sheer cliff 100 meters west, so you may want to open your eyes long enough to avoid running off the cliff.
Person A:
What? You are stupid. Nothing you say has any meaning what-so-ever. I'm always right. Get lost.
Person B:
Just because discussion is against the law, doesn't mean that you have to obey.
Reality check 2:
It's a system disorder, and the system disorder seems to be fatal.
If it is a system disorder, as the person claims, then put that system in an empty room, next to an loaded gun, and see if the system commits suicide, and then we, the surviving human beings, can get along without that bad, bad, evil, system.
That is the same false perspective as the false perspective that blames shooting murders on the gun, or stabbing murders on the knife, or strangulation by hand murders on the hand, invisible or not.
Any system either accomplishes or doesn't accomplish its intended purpose determined exclusively by the capability of the system operators to get what they set out to accomplish with that system, or by accident.
Does the person speaking in the movie suggest that the system did it - by accident?
I am beginning to see some very huge errors, by accident, or by willful act, with the underlying message of this movie.
Reality check:
What is Intrinsic Obsolescence?
Context:
Economic Rule:
"Nothing produced can be allowed to maintain a lifespan longer than what can be endured in order to continue cyclical consumption."
I think that the main problem with the perspective being projected, or propagated, in this movie is the idea that the system is responsible and the thing that enforces the supposed Economic Rule, and that they system enforces Intrinsic Obsolescence, whatever either of those things mean.
I am typing on a computer that I patched together from parts given to me, and parts sold on E-bay. I did not choose parts that will be intrinsically obsolete, I chose parts that are the highest quality parts, at the lowest cost, and I won't throw away these parts, because I can use a less powerful computer near my guitar and amp, some day when I can afford a new computer, and I can even give these parts away to someone who has no computer.
Who, not what, is enforcing cyclical consumption?
If this video movie, this propaganda, does not accurately identify the legal criminals who have the power to add and subtract legal money from the legal money supply, in American that group of people are known as The FED, then this movie will miss-identify the actual cause, and the actual reason for causing, cyclical consumption. The people who cause it are the people who have the license to add and subtract from the money supply, in American, and the reason that they cause it is easy to understand; power flows to them and from the people who create power.
Power, or surplus wealth, is created by people as people cooperate with each other and thereby they, these people who cooperate, learn to specialize and divide labor, so as to make many things together where no single person could ever make one thing alone, such as a car, or even a steel sowing needle, or a computer, or a global news network, and by way of competition the people learn how to act in ways that improve what they do, what they make, as they compare their acts with other acts by other people, and where they compare thoughts they think with thoughts communicated by other people, and in that act of comparing, an obvious better way is made obvious, rather than unknown.
If I want better money, for example, I'll know it when I see it. Where is it?
How much does it cost?
If I want less expensive money, I'll know it when I see it. Where is it?
How much better is it?
If the propaganda piece linked here in this thread doesn't accurately I.D. The FED, finger those people, then this piece misses a primary cause of human suffering and misery, as those specific people continue doing what they have done, specifically doing the enforcement and maintenance of a global business cycle. If these propagandists fail to state the obvious, they confess by that omission something obvious to me. They are covering up the truth, not spreading it.
Reality check:
On the subject of planned obsolescence, it can be known that no such thing can occur unless a monopoly enforcement mechanism is at work, something employed by people who enforce a monopoly.
As soon as a potential user, buyer, consumer, purchaser, owner, or whatever word used to describe the person who doesn't have something and then that person does have the thing, as soon as that person has a choice between product, or thing, A, and thing B, where thing A wears out in 1 year, and thing B wears out years later, then the person will, most likely, obtain the better thing - especially if the better thing costs less.
How can someone explain reality otherwise?
Anyone?
Reality Check again:
The system cannot do anything. People do things. The system cannot allow, or not allow anything. People allow and don't allow things, such as competition, and thereby a person will enforce a monopoly, not a "system".
That method of misdirecting accountability away from actual people and onto irresponsible, actually un-responsible (unaccountable) things is a common tactic used by criminals, legal or otherwise.
Reality check:
On blaming the system (this movie propagandists call it "The Market System") for brainwashing people with advertisements:
Mass media has been taken over by actual people who actually have managed to create and enforce a monopoly on that which masses of people are exposed to, and the result is an obvious result; the quality of propaganda (advertisements, news, information, etc.) goes down and the price of propaganda goes up. To illustrate the truth of this fact all one has to do is perceive the facts as competition is now abundant in the form of The World Wide Web - no longer are the mass media monopolists able to enforce near total monopoly, yet, by at least one measure, access to a Super Bowl commercial minute will still cost a propagandist a whole lot more than access to a forum topic here on this forum. Where does a potential propagandist go to get the license to broadcast onto televisions in America?
Who do I ask for permission to run a television commercial?
Who do I ask for permission to start a forum topic on this forum?
How much does it cost me to run a television commercial?
How much does it cost me to run a forum topic on this forum?
Explain the difference in price, and try not to fix accountability on the system, try to fix accountability on actual people who actually set prices, and account for the reason why someone has the power to set the price at the price they set.
A person who has an enforced monopoly can set a higher price because no competitor offers that same thing at a lower price.
Last Reality check:
I see no point in continuing to point out how dogmatic this propaganda piece is as this viewpoint compounds the error of accounting criminal acts upon a system.
I will explain capitalism instead.
Capitalism is a method of pricing.
If the propagandists have a perspective that is critical of capitalism then the propagandists may find the root cause of the supposed problem within the method of pricing, otherwise the propagandists are barking up the wrong tree.
If the propagandists have a problem with a person freezing to death because a person selling power cut off power for failure to pay for power then the system that has worked in such cases is Trial by Jury.
Where is Trial by Jury?
If Trail by Jury no longer works, then the system that is no longer competing to gain market share as the best quality and lowest cost system of justice is against the law, and some other law, legalized crime for example, has taken away that competitive example of systematic production of justice, or fairness, or equity, or mutual cooperation, or universality, or whatever words label the system by which people manage to minimized the power of crime - rendering crime unprofitable for criminals at the expense of innocent victims.
If the propagandists are going to criticize capitalism, they can't ignore the pricing scheme, because that is capitalism.
Capitalism is a method of fixing prices.
I may be inspired to comment further as I finish this propaganda piece, but I'm going to economize my desire to comment based upon a scale similar to triage in the medical profession, as other things compete for my time and energy.
Ahhh...the propagandists are demonizing money.
Money isn't bad. Guns are not bad. Knives are not bad. Systems are not bad.
Money is a form of connection. Air, or oxygen, is a form of connection. Money can be used by human beings to accomplish things human beings want to accomplish. Oxygen can be used by human beings to accomplish things human beings want to accomplish. If a criminal wants to injure innocent people with money a criminal can figure out how, and then a criminal can execute that method. A criminal can cut off the supply, like cutting off the supply of oxygen, or the criminal can add too much to the supply, like pumping oxygen onto a raging fire. A criminal can even figure out how to govern the decrease and then the increase of the flow of money so as to cause the actual power to purchase to flow from the people who create the power to purchase (surplus) to the criminal or the gang of organized criminals, and these criminals can even figure out how to lie, and cover up their crimes, and how to trick their victims into wasting the meager power left to the victims on such things as the demonization of anything other than the actual criminals who actually cause hell on earth for the innocent victims while the criminals collect all the surplus power to purchase.
I am only half through this movie. I don't think that the propagandists will ever get to the actual problem, it appears that they will continue to focus attention on wild goose chases, or mistake affects for causes, etc.
Reality check (and I'm putting off other things to do):
When these people are speaking about money and when these people are reporting the facts concerning money they are reporting half truths. These people are reporting things that are true but only true when speaking about specific forms of money and in particular the form of money these people are talking about is what I call legal crime money.
You can call the money these people are talking about anything you want, the word on the money is dollar.
The dollar form of money is the money these people are talking about.
The dollar is debt based, sure, but the dollar remains to be a thing that can purchase other things. The dollar unit has a measurable amount of power with which to purchase a measurable quantity of something else.
A starving person can buy food with a dollar. A freezing old man can buy fuel for heat with a dollar. If you want to call the dollar that the freezing old man uses to buy heat a debt based dollar, go ahead, but remember that the freezing old man without a dollar and without heat is likely to freeze, without some other power available to the old man.
When these people talk about interest they are talking about the dollar and the ability of the dollar to buy interest, a power to purchase more dollars. There have been and will continue to be other forms of money whereby the money buys negative interest, and such money is designed to discourage people from storing, holding, or in a derogatory sense: hoarding money - whereby the money produced and sold to the consumer is money that has more power to purchase the first day it is produced and that money has less power the next day after it was produced and that money becomes worthless, on schedule, and at a time it is designed to be unable to purchase anything. Consumers buying such money, by whomever they buy it from, whenever, are consumers that know better, and they know not to keep it, they spend it, and pass it on like a hot potato.
Forming a perspective that is too narrow is a choice. Why do people ignore obvious solutions to obvious problems?
If the money is bad, get good money.
What is the problem?
The problem is, apparently, a case of ignorance.
Those idiots actually say (I'm not going to waste more time quoting verbatim):
Make no mistake...the system...is to blame.
Who do they think created the system?
Who do they think maintains the system?
Who do they think are the actual people who actually have the legal license to own everything?
Do they really think that the money trail stops at innocent people who are also victims of the system as they order torture, as they order mass murder by way of aggressive wars for profit, as they order the dumping of raw poisons into the drinking water supply of their victims, as they order the legal money supply to be cut in half, then doubled, then cut in half, and then doubled to create and maintain the business cycle.
Those people are idiots, or they are employees, but not employees of some vague and nebulous system, they are employees of actual people who actually hired them to read from the script they were given.
Either they are ignorant, or they are themselves criminals, as they add to the cover up, and as they misdirect any power that could have been employed toward avoiding victimization by those very criminals who commit those very specific crimes.
I have viewed little more than half of the propaganda piece and it is hard for me to imagine the authors, producers, writers, or actors in this move coming up with anything worth viewing - but I can certainly be wrong so I will see this through.
My choice.
The system won't make me watch it.
"Strategic Access"?
This thing is becoming humorous.
When I grow up I want to work at McDonald's like my mom.