[KMA]Avenger wrote:Elongar wrote:I'm NOT saying that the leaders of Rockefeller's New World Order care about me individually and personally. That would be absurd. What I am saying is that the leaders of the New World do care about the preservation of the system as a whole. And that is significant, because in my opinion, in a modern society, the motives of the leaders of the New World coincide broadly with our motives - namely economic growth and stability. At some level, you have to decide on a particular group/individual to whom you bestow power, but at that point, that individual's ideas of growth and stability outweigh your own. This is inevitable, unless you revert to anarchy. Your own, personal needs and ideas will always be outweighed by someone elses.
i understand what your saying, but what i am telling you is that the NWO as you know it does not exist, it has been dressed up for the public to consume and accept.
the world is in a state of anarchy as it is, we have all types of crime spiraling out of control, wars all over the globe, a worldwide recession, 99% of the world in poverty caused by the likes of the Rothschilds and Rockefellers and for MANY people they have no future other than work, pay bills work and pay bills....and thats a good thing?
when things get so bad that people will no longer moan but demand a change they will give us the solution of a 1 currency world and we will then so enslaved that even the most hardened admirers of economic growth will be forced to see just how wrong they are, it happened in 1913 and it will happen again....take my word for it!
up until 100 years ago, people used to govern themselves, and they did a very respectable job of it to, don't be so sure that society would fall apart if we did away with the current system
Anarchy and crime spiralling out of control? Yet your argument is that police and government are doing more than ever to keep it at a low. If you go back a mere 200 years, I'd say crime was spiralling out of control. Lack of forensics, lack of standardized criminology, lack of a capable, trained police force. On the cuff side, "the commons" was a messpit of moral turpitude, with widespread prostitution (of minors, would you believe...), murder, theft and banditry going unpunished.
You speak of the wars going on in our modern age, and yet we're militarily as chaste as a handmaiden compared to our past. The numbers dying in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Sudan, etc are certainly horrifying, in the sense that human loss due to violence is horrifying, but we're far more averse to fighting war now than a hundred years ago. The political hit taken by a head of state of a democratic country when he declares war on another country is phenomenal - why would someone with so much to lose choose to do away with his power to quickly? It's simply not worth the fallout unless there is a genuine need for it! Go back 100 years, and something as petty as the murder of the Archduke of Austria results in the loss of millions of lives. I am simplifying, obviously, but we're talking about highly developed, economically aggressive and competent countries putting their livelihoods on the line; literally, because they're not fighting against some developing Middle-Eastern country, but against their economic and military peers and equals. Such a thing is unthinkable nowadays.
As for the world in poverty, I'd like to draw your attention to a recent report in the Economist about the "Burgeoning Bourgeoisie", as they like to call it. Specifically, this little article
here. The middle classes today, defined as those with over a third of their income available for discretionary purchases, encompasses more than half the world's population. These are people with financial ambitions, and the drive (and in the cases of the UK and US, which appear to be the centerpoint here, the means) to attempt to fulfill them. That alone raises a lot of doubt about your 99% poverty figure. It's not a perfect world, admittedly, but I never claimed it was, and I wouldn't claim that such a thing is possible. You will tell me that something like 70-80% of wealth is distributed amongst about 1% of the world population, and I will agree with you. Those happen to be the people driving industrial and financial growth. If you reduce the commercial world to a grassroots level again, the vast majority of modern popular culture, technology and society will simply be lost. I hope you will understand then, without further elaboration, that we have an extremely comfortable lifestyle when compared with our past generations.
To some, this whole simplicity and lack of modernity creates a sense of romanticism about the whole 19th Century - from our cosy 21st Century homes, protected by our 21st Century statutes and bills, and our 21st Century police officers with phasers, that's a very contradictory/controversial position to take. My opinion is that you are conceiving of a Utopia that has simply never existed, and simply never will.
[KMA]Avenger wrote:government used to be small and NEVER in history has a government had so much control over peoples lives (i'm talking about free societys as we are supposed to have, NOT dictatorships or empires).
people DID govern themselves, where do you see government in peoples lives in say 1900's? you dont!
people were born and their being born was recorded in the family bible.
the local schools were either built by the local community and teachers gave their time freely or people were educated at the local church.
communitys used to thrive by either having a store which the community relied on, had a farm or provided some kind of service and the wealth would be spread around, there was little to no crime as the community would not tolerate it and as such, most community's got by fine with just 1 local sheriff/constable, where do you see government there?
i would rather live in a world like that than what we have now, because people no longer have the will to govern themselves and i for one would rather govern myself and conduct myself with honesty and honor than to have ANYONE tell me what is best for me or mine!
we have grown lazy and we expect government to take care of it, the last thing people need is for the few to have such authority or power over our lives.
we ARE living in a dictatorship whether people are willing to admit or not, but keep this mind peeps...the worse form of lying is lying to ones self.
Government has never been "small". Before democracy, our communal decision-making power was simply commandeered by whoever the oligarchy decided would be making decisions for the next while. After democracy, we as a people, became more involved in government, and the immediate consequence was that the government became more involved in our lives. This change has continued, and we're still seeing it change today, but that's a reflection of modern values and not megalomaniacal power-hungering. I certainly agree with you, as I have expressed in a previous post, that modern, developed governments have overstepped the line, but not to the extent that you are proposing. I don't see how people in 1900 had any more power to "self-govern", on a fundamental level, than now. What fundamental rights exactly do you think have been taken away from you? And can you think of a reason for why these rights have been taken away (if they have)? I have been looking at the actions of these "Freemen on the Land", who seem to take a similar position to you, and their only real gain seems to have been the right to openly mock police and judicial officials about their lack of power over them. Childish behaviour - a great source of banter, perhaps, but I don't see how there is a serious case for what they're doing.
To address your description of this rural Utopia towards which you seem to be striving, as already stated, you seem to desire Medieval mercantilism over modern capitalism. You said above somewhere:
[KMA]Avenger wrote:MANY people they have no future other than work, pay bills work and pay bills....and thats a good thing?
And the alternative is just work, work, work (without paying bills)? Life was considerably
harder in the 19th Century than it is now. Life is considerably more
complicated now. But this is only natural: we're developing as a society; we're designing new methods to spread our wealth. Now I don't need to book a concert hall in every major city in the world to communicated my piano-playing - I can video myself and upload it, and it's immediately available to a phenomenal amount of people, in more locations than I could possibly visit myself. Now, if some day-dreamer in Japan invents some card game involving "Pocket Monsters", for his kids, he can give millions of other children around the world equal pleasure by allowing major corporations to publish and distribute his work. Think of what would be lost if we reverted to what you are suggesting! I talked above about your Utopia, and it's intrinsic lack of feasibility. This is exactly what I was referring to!
Lastly, I'd like to add that your particular values of "honor" and "honesty" may be honorable, but there's no guarantee that people as a whole share that with you. There's no accountability in your system. If you encounter someone with fundamentally different values to yours, and this results in a confrontation, what will you do? What if he won't accept what you think to be a reasonable compromise? What if he feels he has the right to interfer, or even to break down your own system of values? How will you respond?
Thanks!
