Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
The new prophet
Mr Brumby said: "I am categorically in the business of making the right decisions now to secure the long-term future of the state." Good on you, Mr. Brumby. I won't ask you what's your secret, you must have the rare gift of looking into the future.
In the past, a distant past, those claiming to know the future where usually burned, much to the amusement of the community, nowadays soothsayers go into politics. Or maybe Mr. Brumby's perception of right differs from a common sense approach. Or maybe he simply mistakes decisions providing his friends and himself with a permanent revenue stream of OPM (other people's money, also called tax) with "the state".
Of course, one could call a statement like Mr. Brumby's, aired when asked to justify a decision clearly targeted against Public transport, preposterous, mindless or plain stupid. But maybe it's just visionary. It certainly secures a lot of party contributions, individual spending money for a bunch of advisors and consultants, lots of overtime for the police dealing with protest against this tunnel.
An elected politician can't be that stupid - he wouldn't be selected otherwise, right? He must belong to that special breed of people who simply know it better, otherwise he wouldn't be in the business of making the right decisions for the long-term future, right?
Representative democracy might be just another name for feudalism. A real democracy could afford it ask its citizens about vital decisions. A society on the way to some real democracy would make its decisionmaker responsible for their decision, and not grant them with lifelong pensions for helping their networks or plainly doing nothing.
But that's the magic of words. Call a nation democratic, and hardly anyone suspects it to be corporatism (a neologism for fascism, in case you didn't know). Call a soothsayer politician, and then you don't need to burn them for using witchcraft in public.
Maybe next time you read or hear in the mass media about "what the public thinks", you can be brave enough to think for yourself, instead following sheeplike a statement that just turn into a public opinion by idiots believing in the benevolence and superiority and authority of those wanting more for themselves as the deserve in a just society.
In case you didn't know, even the mafia calls protection rackets "contribution to the community". If you expect politicians to admit that they are part of a criminal organisation, and believe their public statements that they act in the interest of society, you might as well believe in Santa Claus. Just never underestimate the power of fairy tales, but don't be surprised if you wake up some day in a full blown fascist society.
Mr Brumby said: "I am categorically in the business of making the right decisions now to secure the long-term future of the state." Good on you, Mr. Brumby. I won't ask you what's your secret, you must have the rare gift of looking into the future.
In the past, a distant past, those claiming to know the future where usually burned, much to the amusement of the community, nowadays soothsayers go into politics. Or maybe Mr. Brumby's perception of right differs from a common sense approach. Or maybe he simply mistakes decisions providing his friends and himself with a permanent revenue stream of OPM (other people's money, also called tax) with "the state".
Of course, one could call a statement like Mr. Brumby's, aired when asked to justify a decision clearly targeted against Public transport, preposterous, mindless or plain stupid. But maybe it's just visionary. It certainly secures a lot of party contributions, individual spending money for a bunch of advisors and consultants, lots of overtime for the police dealing with protest against this tunnel.
An elected politician can't be that stupid - he wouldn't be selected otherwise, right? He must belong to that special breed of people who simply know it better, otherwise he wouldn't be in the business of making the right decisions for the long-term future, right?
Representative democracy might be just another name for feudalism. A real democracy could afford it ask its citizens about vital decisions. A society on the way to some real democracy would make its decisionmaker responsible for their decision, and not grant them with lifelong pensions for helping their networks or plainly doing nothing.
But that's the magic of words. Call a nation democratic, and hardly anyone suspects it to be corporatism (a neologism for fascism, in case you didn't know). Call a soothsayer politician, and then you don't need to burn them for using witchcraft in public.
Maybe next time you read or hear in the mass media about "what the public thinks", you can be brave enough to think for yourself, instead following sheeplike a statement that just turn into a public opinion by idiots believing in the benevolence and superiority and authority of those wanting more for themselves as the deserve in a just society.
In case you didn't know, even the mafia calls protection rackets "contribution to the community". If you expect politicians to admit that they are part of a criminal organisation, and believe their public statements that they act in the interest of society, you might as well believe in Santa Claus. Just never underestimate the power of fairy tales, but don't be surprised if you wake up some day in a full blown fascist society.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Hell, I love PBS. Their eclectic collection of music stuns me more and more. I heard this tune earlier this week, and it made my day. I dedicate this one to Rosa Sparx, the artist responsible for Insultadarity. Hope you like the tune, Rosa.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
We need a One-World Government
In my humble point of view, humans can organise their affairs without any formal government. Before the introduction of written language, which enabled the evil principle of bureaucrazy (typo intended), the concept of government hardly existed at all.
Of course, most historians have some objections against this point of view, and do their best to create a perception of history that never questions the usefulness of government. Leadership certainly exists in primate gangs, but it differs significantly from the infection with formalised forms of governance the human race suffers from currently.
Although I consider the nonsense of governments detrimental for the human evolution, I have arranged myself with their existance. I appreciate company and lack the survival skills of an Unabomber, which makes it virtually impossible for me to live in a place without any government.
Yet as long as humanity is infected with the inhumane idea of government, I certainly prefer democracy instead of dictatorship. Unfortunately, democracy doesn't exist on this planet, although some nations like Switzerland come a bit closer to a society where all citizens have their say in common affairs.
Representative democracy, however, fails to deliver participation of all, and differs hardly from feudalism, which the French revolution ostensibly eradicated. The US and its phony elections in this millenium serve as perfect example why the name democracy doesn't suit the organisational structure of its society: Although both times Bush got "elected" by massive manipulations, the vote fraud was simply swept under the carpet.
The funny political games others play would not bother me too much, if the parasites of society, also called politicians, wouldn't demand some large protection racket (euphemistically called taxes). In peaceful times this protection racket partially served a decent purpose: Besides financing a luxurious life style for the god fathers and capos of the political system some of the money got spend for the community in form of infrastructure.
911 has changed the world (or so the saying goes...), and serves since 2001 as carte blanche to remove the remaining illusion of democracy. The political parasites now use this excuse not only for a redistribution of wealth within their controlled territory, but also to finance mass killings and destruction of arable soil outside their "official" sphere of regency.
People in the US, or here in Australia, or back home in Europe, hardly notice the amount of their money spend on bloodshed in the name of "freedom and democracy", nor the systematic withdrawal of governments from their traditional role to provide services to their citizens.
The mass media mind fuck works just too well. Scared into submission, artificial targets take the blame for obsolete governments: Terrorists, foreigners, disbelievers, homosexuals, communists, conspiracy buffs, native people, social loafers, binge drinking youth.
I found this interesting op-ed piece in a small American "News" site: Humankind benefits from New World Order: We need One-World government. Let's have a look at some of the myths the author tries to materialise in this piece of disgrace for journalism.
Omissions can create lies easily, and the list of participants offers only to politically/economically interested people insights what kind of "networking" happens during the Bilderberg meetings. Sorry, Britney Spears didn't come, just the Queen of England, Condi Rice, Henry Kissing and David Rockefeller might qualify as celebs during that meeting.
The consumerist world ridiculed the idea of Mao's blue ants. One size fits all? No fucking way, consumers define themselves by choices, we are all Induhviduals. Sure, there's the white collar and blue collar uniform, but with the freedom to choose the brand of your suit or costume, the colour of the tie, the interior of the car the illusion of identity is created.
Global village? Get real, the majority of people dwell in cities in the 21st century. The dynamics and the stratification of cities differ drastically from a village. Hardly any village would tolerate different religions, yet a city allows peaceful coexistance of a variety of believers and non-believers.
No single instance can cater for the needs of all. Each concentration of power allows abuse on a larger scale. Only by negotiating common affairs societies can develop cohesion, and offer the freedom to choose - a One-World government can only exist as dictatorship.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I just can't rape my mind enough to stop questioning authority. In a capitalist world, I pay for those suckers representing authority, whether I want to or not. But no matter how often I read praises for the suppressors of human evolution, I won't "get with the program".
In my humble point of view, humans can organise their affairs without any formal government. Before the introduction of written language, which enabled the evil principle of bureaucrazy (typo intended), the concept of government hardly existed at all.
Of course, most historians have some objections against this point of view, and do their best to create a perception of history that never questions the usefulness of government. Leadership certainly exists in primate gangs, but it differs significantly from the infection with formalised forms of governance the human race suffers from currently.
Although I consider the nonsense of governments detrimental for the human evolution, I have arranged myself with their existance. I appreciate company and lack the survival skills of an Unabomber, which makes it virtually impossible for me to live in a place without any government.
Yet as long as humanity is infected with the inhumane idea of government, I certainly prefer democracy instead of dictatorship. Unfortunately, democracy doesn't exist on this planet, although some nations like Switzerland come a bit closer to a society where all citizens have their say in common affairs.
Representative democracy, however, fails to deliver participation of all, and differs hardly from feudalism, which the French revolution ostensibly eradicated. The US and its phony elections in this millenium serve as perfect example why the name democracy doesn't suit the organisational structure of its society: Although both times Bush got "elected" by massive manipulations, the vote fraud was simply swept under the carpet.
The funny political games others play would not bother me too much, if the parasites of society, also called politicians, wouldn't demand some large protection racket (euphemistically called taxes). In peaceful times this protection racket partially served a decent purpose: Besides financing a luxurious life style for the god fathers and capos of the political system some of the money got spend for the community in form of infrastructure.
911 has changed the world (or so the saying goes...), and serves since 2001 as carte blanche to remove the remaining illusion of democracy. The political parasites now use this excuse not only for a redistribution of wealth within their controlled territory, but also to finance mass killings and destruction of arable soil outside their "official" sphere of regency.
People in the US, or here in Australia, or back home in Europe, hardly notice the amount of their money spend on bloodshed in the name of "freedom and democracy", nor the systematic withdrawal of governments from their traditional role to provide services to their citizens.
The mass media mind fuck works just too well. Scared into submission, artificial targets take the blame for obsolete governments: Terrorists, foreigners, disbelievers, homosexuals, communists, conspiracy buffs, native people, social loafers, binge drinking youth.
I found this interesting op-ed piece in a small American "News" site: Humankind benefits from New World Order: We need One-World government. Let's have a look at some of the myths the author tries to materialise in this piece of disgrace for journalism.
The Bilderberg Group [...] are powerful, influential, and civic-minded overachievers who enjoy each others company.So far, so good. Attentive readers have noticed already the retarded ad hominem way of argumentation. And of course the lack of any real arguments. (Feel free to check the link to the original article to see how I distorted the line of argumentation to make my point here.)The conspiracy-minded lunatic fringe argues: How come only international bankers, politicians and media heavyweights are invited? Well duh, it's only natural that the powerful would want to network with each other; I'm not holding my breath waiting for an invitation.
Some conservative nuts need a bogeyman (Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commissions) to explain their failure to achieve anything of significance. "I'm working at Burger King because the Bilderberg Group is destroying America by outsourcing all the good jobs."
Omissions can create lies easily, and the list of participants offers only to politically/economically interested people insights what kind of "networking" happens during the Bilderberg meetings. Sorry, Britney Spears didn't come, just the Queen of England, Condi Rice, Henry Kissing and David Rockefeller might qualify as celebs during that meeting.
Now it's getting interesting. At the end of the list of "great issues" appears one item that certainly deserves a place there: poverty. Global warming might be another, the rest springs from a paranoid mind.I wish there were an international group of statesmen working to set up a one-world government. Sovereignty will one day be a thing of the past; it's a luxury this little world can no longer afford. Only a one-world government can adequately address the great issues of today: Overpopulation, terrorism, global warming, pandemics, tribal warfare, oil crisis, poverty...
It's a global mind fuck, and I won't "get with the program". I'd rather program my mind myself, than submitting myself to the idea of a global abolition of the attempt of democracy. Centralisation of power has already successfully eroded democracy in Europe, and a One-World government has no means of addressing the needs of local communities.It's a global economy, it's a global village and eventually it will be a one-world government. Don't be on the losing side of history, get with the program.
The consumerist world ridiculed the idea of Mao's blue ants. One size fits all? No fucking way, consumers define themselves by choices, we are all Induhviduals. Sure, there's the white collar and blue collar uniform, but with the freedom to choose the brand of your suit or costume, the colour of the tie, the interior of the car the illusion of identity is created.
Global village? Get real, the majority of people dwell in cities in the 21st century. The dynamics and the stratification of cities differ drastically from a village. Hardly any village would tolerate different religions, yet a city allows peaceful coexistance of a variety of believers and non-believers.
No single instance can cater for the needs of all. Each concentration of power allows abuse on a larger scale. Only by negotiating common affairs societies can develop cohesion, and offer the freedom to choose - a One-World government can only exist as dictatorship.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I just can't rape my mind enough to stop questioning authority. In a capitalist world, I pay for those suckers representing authority, whether I want to or not. But no matter how often I read praises for the suppressors of human evolution, I won't "get with the program".
affairs although authority bilderberg create democracy differs freedom global government group hardly human mind one-world people political power program serve society village world
created at TagCrowd.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)