Pure Insanity

reply to post by The Nighthawk

Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Because the world doesn't work that way. Since I'm not an illegal alien there's no construction/trade jobs to be had anymore. My lifestyle is already on a subsistence level. And yes, it IS my job to worry about others, because again, that's Society.

There certainly are decent paying jobs in the trades. My son-in-law is in his mid twenties and makes about $65K/year as a plumbers apprentice. That will increase considerably as soon as he completes his apprenticeship/training. The electrical tradesmen still do well. You can't make a lot just pounding nails, due to cheap labor, but other facets of trades and construction are still doing OK. The illegal immigrants don't want to or can't put in the time to get their licenses. Good for the citizen worker, I say.

We need to visualize world peace. What would it be like?

A world without humans. It would be rational.

We glorify the warrior but what do we do for the one who seeks peace?

These two people are the same.

I hate to sound pessimistic but peace is a scarier prospect than war considering what we would have to give up. Peace can only occur when there is no scarcity of resources.

The thing about giving things up is that everyone has to do it.

And greed won't allow that.

Less war, more social resonsibility.

Originally posted by budski

This is an excellent article detailing the role of various people and organisations in conflicts over the last 5 years or so.

What is truly frightening is that the conclusion of the author is spot on, as can be seen every day on ATS.

In the race for power and money masquerading as patriotism, many have lost sight of the essential parts of humanity that makes us different from the animals - the ability to look at the truth, in a reasonable, circumspect manner and declare that war is not the answer.

But because those who rely on the MSM for their view of the world are drip fed their daily dose of war-fuelled propaganda and view it as truth, the world will be a dangerous place for many years to come.

We could have come so far in the decades since WW2, but instead it seems we are going backwards.

www.opednews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 4/6/2008 by budski]

This is a great article.

The problem is that we've fallen victim to corporatism; which is the tendency in politics, for legislators and administrations to be influenced or dominated by the interests of business enterprises, employers' organizations, and industry trade groups.

It isn't difficult to understand how the 'food shortage' could been engineered along with oil rates.

The reasons being;

1) to 'necessitate', or justify, a greater centralized control and discretionary powers for the highest levels of government (a.k.a. the corporate elite);
2) justify an intensive and omnipotent agricultural architecture (via GMO's, etc.);
3) involve the 'unfortunate' starvation of many of our overpopulated world's least 'useful' groups; and
4) place the middle class in sufficient debt and panic that we will demand to be saved from item 3 by items 1 and 2.


The OP's original quote is spot on.

The twin monsters of greed and war have been allowed dominance in our new world order while other values, such as empathy and generosity are seen as effeminate weaknesses. I don’t think that the level of violence or the hunger for power that has swept through our country and has led to the bankrupting of all social nets is a coincidence or an unintended consequence. It is what was intended all along.

When I read the article, I thought of this video of Eustace Mullins...

Google Video Link

Coincidently enough, the interview uses a portion right at the beginning that addresses this point...

We have AIPAC running its major policy session this week in Washington with Obama, McCain and Clinton all needing to speak there and assure them of their allegiance to the State of Israel, which is odd because they are not Israeli citizens. Yet, such things, this kind of right wing, reactionary war mongering goes on and on.

reply to post by malcr

This is your political agenda made to read like a list of public fears. Clever attempt though.

Thank you, but I am a bit confused as to how this can be a political agenda. Maybe I just need to widen my definition of 'political' to include more than attempts to control others. As in:

• Terrorism - I would like for people to be free to travel as they wish, read as they wish, etc.
  
• Global Warming - I do not want people to have to pay additional taxes and higher prices due to 'scientific' observations which seem to be made in order to accomplish same.
  
• Energy - I would like for people to have plenty of affordable energy to heat their homes, drive where they need to go, and for goods to be transported cheaply so people can have plenty..
  
• Taxes - I would like for people to have the things they work so hard for, rather than having them taken away to give to others by force.
  
• Smoking - I would like for people to be able to choose for themselves whether they wish to use tobacco and whether they wish to be around those who do..
  
• Nuclear Power - I would like to see Nuclear Power advanced, with emphasis on the single major problem with it - waste. I would also like to see more research into real obtainable new energy sources, without forcing people to accept them, but allowing people to do so.
  
• Guns - I would like to see people have the ability to protect themselves from harm.
  
• drugs - I would like to see everyone able to get any drugs they need, without having to give up necessities such as food to do so. I would like to see drugs prescribed by doctors based on need, rather than based on profit.
  
• Socialized medicine - I would like to see everyone able to pay for any medical services they need, and be assured that they are receiving top quality treatment for their hard-earned money.
  
  Now if that equates to a political agenda, so be it. I tend to consider it a humanitarian agenda, but then again, labels are simply that - labels.
  
  TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Pretty much eveything on that list is politicised and then monopolised by corporate entities.

Whilst I disagree with some of your wishes, I DO agree that a fairer system would help to solve some of the issues you raised.

Going back to fear of change - it is perhaps the politicians and the corporations who fear change the most, if it is change driven by someone other than themselves.



[edit on 7/6/2008 by budski]

reply to post by budski
OK, that deserves a star.

The thing is that we can disagree without being afraid of each other's viewpoints. I know for a fact that you and I disagree quite frequently on issues, but that does not mean that either is operating outside of reason. Disagreement and compromise are the lifeblood of profitable politics. It is only when that fear of change creeps in that the name-calling and personal attacks emerge to destroy the discussion.

(On a personal note, I enjoy your posts. You make some pretty strong points.)

In the end, disagreement is a result of that single most common human quality - greed. Everyone operates on the premise of trying to better their own lot in life, whether they admit it or not. The question then becomes, Whose interests will be heeded? In a perfect world, it is those interests which benefit the most and harm the least. In today's world, it appears to be those which benefit the loudest or the most active. And of course, that includes politicians.

Watch the threads here on ATS; you will see fear manifested in almost every single one. If you want to know when to watch for it, look for personal attacks or irrational statements. They are accurate precursors.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Well, I don't want to get into a mutual admiration thing here but the reason I engage in proper conversation and debate with you is because you approach me in the same way - which I appreciate.

As for the topic at hand, Bertrand Russell said:
"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct, and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd."

Which very nearly matches what Dorothy Thompson said:
"Fear grows in darkness; if you think there's a bogeyman around, turn on the light."

In my opinion, intelligent discussion is a way of turning on the light.