Wake up to what? What "truth"? You people already know the fucking truth. You're so worked up over NSA, even though Facebook has been doing same thing NSA has been doing for years and they do it a lot better. The truth is the rich look at you like cattle. No one is coming to get you, they are already there with Facebook and Google and EBay and Apple and whatever else on the internet. That's the "truth" and you know this but refuse to listen.
deathtokoalas
this is pretty much spot on.
i just want to add a comment about how badly bush' words have been abused by the conspiracy goofs. bush was articulating a vision of american dominance that largely operates by co-opting global governing bodies, and it's a vision that's turned out to be prophetic - but not in the way it's generally used. there was some commentary at the time that realized this, but it's mostly been buried.
"i'll buy the torture cos you pay for the rent".
al nailed it...
ganiniii
the NWO "plan" (don't want you to call me a delusional conspiracy theorist) - when I say plan I refer to the idea that the whole world should live together in peace and ruled with the same sort of freedom and juridical laws and cultural resemblence - exists at least since the 80's. It was developed by retarded geeks that have weird sex habbits and work for the UN.
deathtokoalas
see, this is what i'm pointing out is incorrect. this is literature that stems from the middle part of the 20th century, where you had a lot of crazy people on the right-wing fringe (organizing in groups like the john birch society, which was co-founded by the koch brothers' father) arguing that "nwo" was some kind of code for "communist world government".
but, that's not the way that bush used the term. bush was co-opting and redefining the term in an attempt to get out in front of the inevitable wilsonian reaction that would have come from the collapse of the soviet union. to bush, the new world order meant unopposed american imperialism - and a set of ridiculous neo-con and liberal interventionist arguments to uphold that american imperialism.
when you heard people argue in favour of invading iraq to "spread democracy", that's the new world order bush wanted put in motion. and it did get put in motion. it's the world we live in today.
of course, it's nonsense. but...
put another way, the collapse of the soviet union meant there was no longer anybody capable of reigning in american hegemony - if the soviets ever could, and they couldn't really. the new world order that bush spoke of was the process of taking advantage of that new reality.
the primary nwo document became the project for the new american century, where a set of neo-cons and liberal interventionists came together to devise a plan to reduce russia back down to the principality of moscow.
a lot of the conflicts we see today around the world are a consequence of this new world order working itself out.
of course, there's a lot of propaganda that obscures this. but, the idea that there's a secret clique running the world from the un doesn't square very well with the votes that you see there.
including the one that declared the war in iraq an illegal war.
the reality is that the power elite in the united states ritually curses the day that the institution was created and does just about everything that it legally (and illegally) can to avoid and subvert it.
ganiniii
wouldn't you say that what you just said is a bit conspiracionist?
deathtokoalas
no. in fact, it's very academic.
Egle Vilciauskaite
dude you should have lived in USSR to realy know how bad it was
deathtokoalas
i think it's an open question as to whether life in the "free world" is any better. that is, i'm not questioning whether things were bad in the soviet union - they clearly were. but, i'm wondering out loud whether things were really better in the west (for the average worker) in any kind of really meaningful way, or if it's really just a lot of propaganda. it wasn't that long ago that going on strike would get you shot. alas, i was personally eight years old when the berlin wall fell. i have no first hand experience and no way to get it.
regardless, that's not really the point. the cold war wasn't really a conflict over ideology. it's pretty established at this point that that was just propaganda. the conflict between washington and moscow carried on pretty naturally from the anglo-russian conflict that began in the napoleonic era, and it didn't end with the coup in moscow. it was a conflict between the two dominant imperial powers to decide who got to control resources for the benefit of their respective elites. once you get your head around that, the idea that the collapse of the soviet union simply provided washington with an opportunity to tighten the noose begins to make perfect sense.
again, it's not like i'm making this stuff up. the bastards have not been remotely shy about saying it themselves, either. i mean, when mitt romney said russia was america's greatest enemy he got laughed out of the room. but the reality is that what he said was pretty much accurate - it's just that you're not supposed to talk about it during elections.
heart of darkness
+ganiniii I don't talk about middle class Kids who have got everything middle class Kids dream of. I talk about a time when the middle class will be gone. The Kids of tomorrow will be poor. Some will be lethargic. Lethargic trash. But some will turn into predators. It's these predators who count.
deathtokoalas
yeah, that's working out well in the middle east...
poor people are easily manipulated, because they lack access to education. if your scenario plays out (and i don't think it will; rather, i think the near future is dominated by mechanized production evening out wealth disparities a little, and the point of crisis lies in the ability to generate energy), you'll have an army of dipshits that will be easily converted into tools of imperialism. as the intelligence of the population falls, the tools needed to control them falls along with it. look at the way the saudis create groups like isis to carry out their geostrategic goals in the region. that can't fly here because our people aren't illiterate. but, you take that away and the christian right becomes dominant.
there's of course no such thing as "the illuminati", but if you take it as a code word for the capitalist elite then you need to resign yourself to their continued existence and try and work out ways to exist in freedom that more or less ignore them. i mean, at the end of the day do i care whether or not there's somebody in a yacht docked in miami eating caviar? i don't. what i care about is my life in front of me, whether these people exist or not.
ideas like the temporary autonomous zone develop out of this thinking. not a revolution, exactly; this is probably impossible. the people that financed hitler profited from his destruction.
heart of darkness
+deathtokoalas"i mean, at the end of the day do i care whether or not there's somebody in a yacht docked in miami eating caviar? i don't. what i care about is my life in front of me, whether these people exist or not."
You really mean this? Call the People on top Illuminati, call them top plutocrats, call them top super rich - it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that you and me are slaves to these top parasites (a few hundred families). They believe they OWN us. Suggest you read some stories about slavery in ancient Rome, Egypt or Arabia. That's what we'll end up if we don't fight them. Better be dead than a slave.
deathtokoalas
+heart of darkness
whether they exist or do not exist doesn't really have a substantial effect on my life or the tasks i need to carry out to exist in a complex society. there is work that needs to be done, whether there's a plutocracy or not.
i think it's more important to be wary about these good v evil narratives. that's how the fuckers get us. you might find the odd psychopath that wants to blow up sand niggers, but the average us soldier thinks he's joining the good fight, not protecting a pipeline. it's only through experience that they realize they've been lied to - hence the high suicide rates.
i read a report a while back that suggested that there are entire divisions of "syrian rebels" that were recruited to join the palestinian resistance, were shipped off to the battle lines in covered jeeps and spent weeks or months thinking they were shooting at israeli soldiers rather than the syrian army.
i'd rather focus on what's in front of me than get caught up in these collectivist struggles, struggles that are more often than not tied to some strategic objective by some equally evil bastard. i mean, surely you don't think the russians would topple the government and pull out...
again: the grassroots response in new orleans was actually quite inspiring, especially considering the inept and often downright criminal behaviour of law enforcement.
heart of darkness
So enjoy your robot life. Work, buy, consume, die.
The Russians won't topple the Illuminati (the "government" are just actors, accomplices and stooges as are the media). But the Russians could provide some AK 47s. Actually I think, the Chinese will topple the Illuminati.
deathtokoalas
+heart of darkness
there's no other way to exist in a complex society. the question is not whether we should work and consume, but how we should. and, by denying that, you're really demonstrating the kind of luddite extremism that needs to be eradicated. i mean, if you're going to make me choose between the status quo and some backwards thoreauvian primitivism, i'll pick the status quo, thanks - and have no problem supporting people that want to bomb you. freedom does not mean abolishing progress, it means taking control of it.
as soon as you "topple the illuminati", you become the illuminati. if you want to talk about learning things from history, that's the primary lesson.
it's actually a theme in al's music, going back to twitch. one of the more obvious discussions of this topic is in the track apathy.
heart of darkness
+deathtokoalas"you're really demonstrating the kind of luddite extremism that needs to be eradicated"
lol. "eradicated". stopped reading after that one. How do we call this when an extremist calls other people extremist? rofl
Hambone Jones
Now that's the truth if I ever heard it. I always get a laugh out of the idea that the US government has a "secret" agenda that they operate under in a diabolical plot to dominate the world and its' people. But the truth is there is no secret whatsoever, the US government basically works its' "evil" deeds right before our eyes and they're well aware nobody is gonna do a single fuckin' thing about any of it. The reasoning being in order for the people to really, really revolt successfully, they'd have to sacrifice the comfort and convenience of their everyday lives. Americans could never be bothered to do such a thing. No government means no housing to live under, no oil and gas for your automobile, no food to eat, and no jobs to pay for any of the aforementioned necessities of our lives. No nothing. It's the hard, sad truth of human existence; we're stuck in a vicious circle where whatever the powers that be say, goes. Liberating ourselves from that vicious circle only leads to the imminent demise of our species. What else can we possibly do but be prisoners to our own lifestyles? It disgusts me to say it, but we're better off being slaves to the system. These current generations of people couldn't handle living in the anarchist caveman-like "utopia" that many of them assume they could live in. It's one of those things that unfortunately looks better on paper than it actually is. God, I really can't stand admitting that. I really can't. But like you said man, "truth". It's inevitable.
If the people wanna fight that, I say all the best of luck to them, I mean that sincerely. I just hope they can live with the end result which would be a charred, desolate wasteland run on a barter system, where everyday could be your last due to the extremely unsafe, lawless living conditions.
deathtokoalas
i rather think that no government means nobody to force me to pay rent, nobody to charge me for public transportation (when it's too far to bicycle), nobody to put me in jail for "stealing" food and nobody to force me to go to work to pay for any of that bullshit in the first place.
Hambone Jones
Yes you would get all those things, but don't you realize the cost of that freedom? You'd live in an apocalyptic wasteland where day by day you fight tooth and nail to survive. Roving packs of murdering, raping, starving monsters who formerly were good people would rule the land and take from you what you claim is yours because there's no longer a structure in place to force laws on them to protect you from anything as such. There's a reason life isn't like that in Western culture because we're lucky enough to be given a right as human beings to live safely. Far too many of us don't realize this. You don't have anymore rights in this world I'm hypothetically speaking of. Just face it, you wouldn't want to live in that world. Or better yet, you couldn't. You wouldn't have the energy to live that kind of life on a daily basis. Hunting and gathering repeatedly, everyday, bartering for food and supplies with what little you have, and sometimes even going as far as to use your body to get what you want. What about cleaning your own drinking water, which you'd probably only be lucky to have once it rains. I guarantee you'd kill for those things as well. You'd have to. Could you live like that? Look at everything you have, step away from the computer for a second and take a good look at however many, or few things you have. I'm assuming you do appreciate those things, I'd hope. If you don't, you would once they're gone. You would once everything from heating/air conditioning to in-door plumbing and running water are a thing of the past. Grocery stores and food outlet chains are extinct and now you truly, truly work for that food, if you're lucky enough to come across any. Can you hunt or farm for yourself? Could you construct a shelter good enough to protect you from harsh summers and winters once your current home is decimated by an unforgiving world where no more services exist to fix any and all housing issues? There's a reason you pay to have these things. If everything was free; it would've disappeared long ago because human beings would've used it all up like the selfish, greedy latent savages that they are. You must not realize how dependent you are on this way of life. Like I said before, I hate having to admit it, but there's a reason the government exists. No matter what, you need the government to control people. They're animals. Their morals would disappear instantaneously if there were no social guidelines to govern them. What we need is a government that doesn't abuse its' power, not a government that doesn't exist. People take for granted the society and order we have put in place because they're so distracted by trivial bullshit like having to pay for public transportation. You wouldn't even have transportation in the world you're possibly envisioning to be better than this one. Wake up; this is it. We don't live in a perfect world and we never will, but this is a close as it gets.
deathtokoalas
lol. no. i don't think anything like that would happen at all. that sounds like a hollywood film designed to uphold the status quo through a series of scare tactics. or maybe a hip-hop record, which is more or less the same thing.
but it doesn't matter what you or i think. if you look at the evidence of what happens during periods of collapse, it's clear that communities come together to collectivize basic services. the tyranny of property is only possible through state violence. once that violence is removed, people tend to revert to a communal instinct very quickly.
your hobbesian reality is a fairy tale, or a nightmare; either way, it doesn't actually exist. all evidence suggests the exact opposite.
Hambone Jones
Right whatever you say. I think you're the one who believes in a fairy tale. The idea that people will live in harmony without law is totally laughable. If we already have a problem living civil in a state of law, what gives you the delusion that we would when there's no law whatsoever. Where's this evidence you speak of?
deathtokoalas
government is not law, it's violence. it's a property rights relationship built on top of slavery. the only way to establish a system of actual law (which exists in our minds as a set of norms and is enforced through social relations, not in a book downtown and enforced by thugs with guns) is to get rid of the thugs with their guns and property rights. government does not enforce law, it upholds a state of lawlessness that enables one class to exploit the others.
one example of many is the reaction to hurricane sandy. look up occupy sandy. this is repeatably demonstrable human behaviour, as determined through observation - not worthless philosophy some monk shat out in pre-modern england.
Hambone Jones
No, the government is law, there's no other way around it. I do agree that there is a certain social class of people who are above obeying those laws, but they still do exist and the reason they exceed their due justice is because the people are too lazy, uninformed, and unaware of the power they have to change that and bring about that said justice. The evidence is in how people vote for our Presidents and if you ask the average voter why they vote for who they choose, their answers are usually appallingly basic. Regardless, it sounds to me like you're in favor of a more communist system to be put in place of our way of life. Maybe you should educate yourself on the great USSR and how far that got them. Not to mention that the founder of the communist ideal was nothing but a spoiled rich kid who never even worked a day in his life.
And I see your Hurricane Sandy and I'll raise you a Hurricane Katrina: an event composed of extreme civil communication breakdown resulting in looting, raping, and murder. What a harmonious example of human beings coming together to show just how far removed from the animal kingdom they are.
deathtokoalas
i'm not aware of any violent crime coming out of katrina that was a result of katrina (besides disproportionate violence by state agents), but i need to point out that an anarchist would be in favour of looting stores, as they uphold commercial relations. i wouldn't call that "violence", either, i'd call it "justice". the crime in such a situation would be to prevent the distribution of goods by insisting on a payment for it. the city just sunk into the ocean and you want me to pay for that apple? that's the crime, there, and people ought to work together to string that fucker up a tree. so, i think the overall response to katrina upholds my argument, rather than yours.
the question of whether the government upholds or suspends law is partly semantic. by definition, the state exists to uphold property rights. law, in our tradition, is basically exactly that. so, we define law as the process of the state upholding property rights. but, when you compare that to any concept of distributive justice, human rights or what could be called "natural law", the state is not able to do anything but interfere. as a result, we end up with these topsy-turvy concepts of law that put property relations over rights. it's "illegal" to take an apple when you're hungry, but it's not "illegal" to watch a man starve rather than feed him. what "rule of law" is this? it's the absence of law, the absence of rights, the absence of justice - in favour of a class-based system of feudalism, where the rich can (as the op stated) treat us as commodities to be exploited.
Hambone Jones
Oh God no, Katrina does not support your argument at all. You need to read more about that entire situation. There was much more widespread murder, rape, looting and overall violence perpetrated there by civilians than there were police and Blackwater operatives, whom I'm assuming you were referring to when you said "state agents". Go ahead and read about it and leave La-La Land behind.
Also the next time you feel powerless over the "ruling class" I'd like you to read about recall elections and how the people are too stupid to realize time and time again that they can use them to their advantage but are too unorganized and uninformed to do so. The illusion that we're given is that the people have no power. However, we do have the numbers. And power is in the numbers. We're just too stupid and comfortable with our existence to compromise any of it.
deathtokoalas
i really think that you're the one that's misinformed. new orleans was a violent place before katrina, and a violent place after it. the vacuum allowed organized crime some space to develop, but that's criminals killing criminals over drugs and whatnot, not random violence due to social breakdown. the media had a very racist response that's been ironed into the narrative, but there was actually a very strong grassroots community movement in the region that had to improvise in response to the total lack of any response from fema.
i've been dancing around the point, but the reality is that the apocalyptic future you're describing is what we already have, because it's what the state is designed to do. madison was pretty clear on the point that the purpose of the byzantine structure of government in the united states is to make it virtually impossible for people to use the local state apparatus to actually organize. the existing circumstance is one where there is no law, no social services, no real actual "government" - just a police state that herds people around.
Hambone Jones
So you're telling me that a life-altering hurricane was a non-factor in how fucked up things are/were in New Orleans? Unbelievable, so that only proves my point further that people are complete animals, even under the control of the government. Again, whatever fantasy world you're living in where people are these loving, caring creatures who come together to help benefit each other as a species, rather than savages who violently fend for themselves by any means of survival, I'll never understand it. You can live there if you want; everybody has the right to sleep comfortably at night. Only time will tell which one of us has our thumb more firmly placed on the pulse of the people.
deathtokoalas
well, new orleans is very deeply divided along class lines, which are strongly racial in character. it has a high poverty rate and a high crime rate. one would expect that already existing gangs would take advantage of the situation, but that doesn't finger the hurricane as the cause of anything. the cause would be the factors that created the already existing crime and poverty problems.
this is a decent summary:
a k
Your heart is in the right place; but it is not the free markets fault. It is the fault of ex Nazi's like George soreos and totalitarians like Bloomberg who give money to people like Obama, Clinton, and bush to put regulations on the free market in order for the existing wealthy people will be the only wealthy people. Because of government regulations on the free market, it is impossible for the younger generation get into doing manual labor.
deathtokoalas
no. the "free market" is essentially an orwellian term for a specific type of statism. the only way to enforce the rules is with force. markets are inherently violent. the market cannot exist without the state to enforce the rules, and will collapse along with it. to even suggest it will collapse with it is confusing; they're identical, precisely the same thing.
i mean, i know that i, for one, would never accept the ideas underlying private property if it weren't for the the coercive threat of violence forcing me to.
Guy Pearson
What is the Hegelian dialectic and dialectics in general?
deathtokoalas
i wouldn't get too caught up in them. the scientific method is far superior to any system of dialectics.
put another way, dialectical reasoning is precisely what is wrong with marxism and precisely what needs to be rejected in order to move the left forward. it's easy enough to look up. but it's exactly wrong.