Skip to content
Welcome guest. | Register | Login | Add
About | Wiki | Legacy

The universal anti-progress law - big powers = big stagnation

8 replies [Last post]
memenode's picture
User offline. Last seen 10 weeks 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-07-12

Even while shift happens continuously and the change in the world accelerates, the really most important big issues are moving so slowly that you could question whether it is the same planet we are talking about when describing it as one in which shift happens in an accelerating manner. WHY?

After exploring various "conspiracy theories" and taking into account the sum of what I learned and experienced so far, applying my logic I would conclude that there is one single commonality which can be seen as a cause of this world not being better than it is: concentration of power = stagnation.

Well I probably didn't discover anything new, but still my mind is my mind and as such it is unique for if it weren't I probably would have a mind-clone somewhere in the world. Therefore you never know whether the exact feelings and perceptions I associate with a given commonly "old" conclusion does not contain a breath of something "new".

Take music industry: Power that was, is and wants to continue to be: RIAA
Take movie industry: Power that was, is and wants to be: MPAA
Take energy industry: Power that was, is and wants to be: Big Oil cartels
Take political industry: Power that was, is and wants to be: USA
Take any industry: Power that was is and wants to be likely inhabits it.

And what all of them have in common is what perhaps instinctively comes out, in their probably always greed corrupted minds, as an answer to the desire to continue existing as a power that they are: STAGNATION!

Of course, since they are the most powerful entities, since otherwise they wouldn't be "powers that were and are" in this context, it seems logical to conclude that they CAN keep this stagnation going for quite a while.

And now someone here may call foul of me for implying some conspiracy theories again. I tell you I don't want to hear that FUD again. Crying foul and using this incredibly tainted term "conspiracy theory" to back it up is often just a quick way for someone to justify not thinking about this any longer - because you'd rather drown in the "normal life" you are leading than discover how this "normal life" is actually a substitute for a life that has been stolen from you - a life in a better world - a world building of which has been successfully prevented by the powers I named above.

So don't call it a conspiracy theory. Call it what you really think it is. You don't call a theory you don't agree with a "theory" in order to dismiss it. That's freaking stupid. You call it wrong, unfactual, unscientific or anything else you feel or believe to know about it, but not a theory. So you see, calling something a "conspiracy theory" is about the same as saying NOTHING.

So let's get back to the topic and tell me what you think?

I believe that if the above is correct, and it seems fairly logical to me, in fact logical to a point of making myself wonder why the hell am I talking about it as if it's something so novel or far out to be doubted this much, but hey.. doubt everything. If it is true, and I believe it is, there is only one solution for bettering the world: neutralize powers who push for stagnation any way possible. Neutralization may be done in a multitude of ways categorized as either their destruction in the market or their conversion into a world-changing force.

I believe we have EVERYTHING we need to build a world RIGHT NOW in which we already don't produce any more polluting trash, generate about 70 to 80% less unhealthy emissions to the planet's atmosphere and all live in freedom. That's the world we should have had YESTERDAY. Why we don't have it yet: it's those powers. They see the means of bringing that kind of world as a threat to their power. But we don't have time to let them keep it, not to mention it is utterly unfair to both us and the planet to let them keep it. Hence, they either need to be crushed or converted, NOW.

Discuss the theory. Discuss why. Discuss how.

__________________

Daniel Memenode signature

User offline. Last seen 10 years 34 weeks ago. Offline
Moderator
Joined: 2005-05-29
potential end of USA's stagnation

Right now, it looks like Barack Obama will be the next president of the USA (there is a lesser chance of Hilary Clinton (shudder) or John Edwards become the next president). I am quite certain that there will at least be some movement forward ("conversion into a [positively] world-changing force"). The biggest issue I see is that he is currently vocally against the interference of business in politics, but he previously accepted money from the RIAA.

Disclaimer: I support Mike Gravel.

__________________

idontknowctmwhatsthepointofcapitallettersorspacesorpunctuation

memenode's picture
User offline. Last seen 10 weeks 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-07-12
Interesting. One thing I

Interesting. One thing I noticed with Barrack Obama that I liked is how he speaks about blurring the lines between democrats and republicans (which seems to be a big schism in USA) and talks instead about just all americans no matter who they are... It's an attractive idea on one hand, because it is a refreshing way of looking at it that may encourage people to think in new and different ways (a clean slate kind of thing), but on the other hand I have reservations because if this would lead to some sort of uniting of the two sides it would essentially become (what it almost is anyway) a one-party system, which is even further from democracy.

But I'm just speculating and all I saw was maybe one or two videos of him on YouTube.

One thing I don't really like about him is how publicly does he profess his belief in God and his christianity. I think religion should be a personal thing, not something to be throwing around all over the place. I may be worried that while he supposedly separates business and politics he will bring religion and politics closer together, which is a mix as dangerous as anything.

But what's up with Ron Paul? He seems to be an all around favourite among many netizens, forward thinking people, technologists, geeks.. ("advanced" people in general from my impression of it).

__________________

Daniel Memenode signature

User offline. Last seen 11 years 31 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-08-23
It's a sad truth that anyone

It's a sad truth that anyone who doesn't rant about being a "good Christian" couldn't hope to become president of the US. But maybe that will change in the next decades, after all it's quite likely the next president will be the first not white or not male one. Change is happening. Still, my bets (without much enthusiasm) are on Huckabee.

Back to topic, I'm not sure what you're going on about. You state the obvious (concentration of power leads to corruption and inertia) and then warn everyone not to call you a conspiracy theorist. Where's the supposed conspiracy? Where are the "lies" and "coverups"? I don't get it.

memenode's picture
User offline. Last seen 10 weeks 2 days ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-07-12
tbuitenh wrote: Back to
tbuitenh wrote:

Back to topic, I'm not sure what you're going on about. You state the obvious (concentration of power leads to corruption and inertia)...

Well I said I didn't discover anything new, but basically argued that it still bears repeating. I suppose the "newness" that motivated me to write it comes from a renewed feeling of universality of the concept across various fields where I actually recognize the entrenched powers.

I might seem stupid in some silly fashion sometimes.. Smiling Of course I knew concentration of power brings inertia, but sometimes in my mind things get a kind of a different light shed on them that makes the whole thing seem even clearer and more profound from a certain viewpoint. But the discussion does not have to revolve around confirming the obvious if it doesn't need confirming. The tough cookie not yet broken is HOW to stop these powers from further imposing the stagnation and HOW to prevent powers of this nature to rise again.

tbuitenh wrote:

and then warn everyone not to call you a conspiracy theorist. Where's the supposed conspiracy? Where are the "lies" and "coverups"?

Well, to some people blaming the big guys for the worlds troubles is tantamount for accusing them of a conspiracy, implying that they do some "behind the scenes" shady activities. Besides how else do you think are the big powers able to force stagnation? Think of Big Oil and alternative fuel sources for cars for example? Or the continuous implications of there being Microsoft "shills" that try to spread FUD and muddy the waters for Free Software adoption.. And so on.. Whenever there is a statement of there being a big power which stops the positive change from happening there is an implied statement of this being done in a shady way.

And to just dismiss that out of hand because it reminds of conspiracy theories is stupid in my opinion, hence my "warning" (it's not like I'm implying a threat with it, just asking Eye ).

Cheers

__________________

Daniel Memenode signature

User offline. Last seen 11 years 31 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2004-08-23
The big ones can easily rule

The big ones can easily rule the world without resorting to shady practices. A lobbyist here, a donation to the campaign funds of everyone running for president in the USA there, a little old boys network, and that's enough.

User offline. Last seen 7 years 26 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2007-02-26
Laws need to change but too

Laws need to change but too many legislators are under obligation to big powers who funded their election campaigns. Public opinion still counts though and I think it's the key, and should be. The wider parties to which political 'leaders' belong will transmit strong public opinion as they worry about their own votes next time round. Still, unless public energy is strong, politicians rarely initiate changes that serve the common good first, usually their efforts suit the elite.

TV and cinema still seem to be the most effective tools available to influence popular opinion. Contrast the impact of documentaries by Michael Moore and Al Gore with that of Zeitgeist. Online efforts by virtual unknowns don't do anywhere near as well as tv/cinema productions with charismatic household names. Naomi Klein could have had a bigger impact but is stuck in a rut flogging dvd's to a niche. Noam Chomsky thinks and writes brilliantly as does Stiglitz but the epic detailed slogs required to absorb their offerings repel all but the most interested.

A good documentary winning at Cannes would go a long way. Take from zeitgeist the hard-hitting exposure of the machinations behind the increasing rich-poor divide, then add solutions. Narrated by Morgan Freeman, of course. Semco is an ideal company proving that worker democracy can be far better by all measures than capitalist mini-empires. Switzerland shows how direct democracy can work better than 'elect and pray' representative democracy. They haven't achieved perfection but have it a damn sight better than what is tolerated elsewhere. That would be a good enough start.

The sequel would deal with the global economic war in similar problem-solution format. The exponential (in the second derivative) growth in both consumption of resources and pollution of our environment which are driven by population growth multiplied by economic growth provides the backdrop. Problems and shortcomings of the WTO, World Bank, IMF and the UN are exposed, the big picture of international horse-trading punctuated by the personal testimony of malnourished victims and their ragged children.

It's easy to show how countries who defied IMF/World Bank prescriptions did better than those who bought in because 1) those prescriptions are designed to rape the poor nation and profit the rich nations, 2) when you offer loans without oversight to corrupt politicians they will steal as much as they can but their country remains liable for the debt repayments. Corruption is a double win for the rich nations as the poor country doesn't get the development benefit from the loan but gets a huge debt burden diverting government spending from education, infrastructure etc (a condition of the loan is that debt servicing gets first call on exchequer revenue), and the economy ends up more dire than it was before the loan. Increased desperation paves the way for even more unfair trade relations. Roll on privatisation of profitable utilities, exclusive resource extraction licenses, and anything that's going in a feeding frenzy. Are we to believe that rich bankers are just naive in lending billions to charlatans? Don't be fooled, they wouldn't spend Christmas that shower, know well what they're doing.

Global solutions are trickier than national. Reform of the above institutions is needed but for starters the encumbent hegemon refuses to relinquish the exclusive vetos it deploys so viciously. Perhaps after the election... Maybe the answer is to point out that while the rich west dominates today, the populous east and south will inevitably be the powerhouses calling the shots by 2050. If we don't want our kids and grandkids to be treated as our leaders treat todays poor nations on our behalf, now is the time to establish a world order based on fair trade and with the goal of global socio-economic cohesion. We won't be in a position to instate that for much longer, China and India will be 3 Billion strong in a few years, never mind the rest.

User offline. Last seen 10 years 34 weeks ago. Offline
Moderator
Joined: 2005-05-29
more on USA politics

I think you're confusing Obama and Huckabee. They both speak about blurring the Democrat-Republican line, but I have not heard of Obama talking about religion. Huckabee, though, brings up his religion a lot and when I saw him speak he ended with something like "God bless you."

One gripe I have that I forgot to mention about Obama is that he does not completely rule out using military force against Iran, like the USA can even afford that now.

There is a chance Huckabee could win in November, but I doubt it. The Republicans have lost a lot of credibility with Bush (and the only sane one I see is Ron Paul, who only got 10% of Iowa's Republican vote).

A great way to find what each candidate support is Wikipedia. Just go to "Political positions of NAME".

__________________

idontknowctmwhatsthepointofcapitallettersorspacesorpunctuation

User offline. Last seen 11 years 27 weeks ago. Offline
Joined: 2007-02-09
Libervisco, I gave you 1984

Libervisco, I gave you 1984 to read and you've not done it. You're rehashing the Party's systematic method to keep people powerless.

READ THE BOOK. It's more than a story in the sense that there is a very systematic, directed way in which the Party got power and how they maintain it.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.