reply to post by muzzleflash
#1) A Revolution against the tyranny of the arrogant elitists and tycoons.
Good luck with that. History has shown time and time again that even if a force were to sweep in and cleanse the corrupt arrogant elitists from power,
it is only a temporary state. New elitists will rise to power in the vacuum to take their place. Usually, it's the very people that swept the old
elitists out who become the new elitists.
That's because, fundamentally, we're no better than them. We're no more noble than they either. You'd be amazed at how circumstance and conformity
in a power structure can modify human behavior to motivate ordinarily good people to acts of evil.
Thomas Paine stood alone in defense of King Louis the XVI when the crowds cried for his blood. While he must be held responsible for his actions,
Paine argued, it was a travesty to slay a man for merely acting in accordance of the system he was born into. As any one of those among them there
would act if similarly placed in such a system. His words were ignored, and Louis was executed. It was not long after that Napoleon rose to power.
Prosperity has nothing to do with "industry", otherwise no nation before 1800 would have been considered "prosperous".
Name one extremely prosperous pre-industrialized nation which exists in the world today. As new paradigm technology arises, it fundamentally alters
and changes the society and markets it was released into. Industry was not a major indicator of prosperity prior to the industrial revolution. Up
until the advent of the computer, the strength of industry was significant in securing prosperity. Now, that's not so much the case anymore. The
computer and internet has revolutionized the landscape once again. Now, being an information/technology producing society is the strongest indicator
of prosperity. Of course, there are outliers like Saudi Arabia and Dubai who are blessed with a high-demand/cheap harvest resource such as oil. On the
flip side of the coin, look at how Japan has prospered after their expansionist ambitions were squashed and their territories highly limited in
natural resources. They caught onto the technology revolution quickly, and have forged themselves a prosperous and influential nation. As previously
industrial nations transition more and more towards information/technology societies, their industrial base is being outsourced to new emerging
A rough, rough, conceptualization... but basically, there it is.
Thats all we want. Freedom to choose our own destiny.
You already have that freedom. You might not like all of the choices, but part of living in a society is compromise... and just because you are
allowed to choose your destiny, doesn't mean you will achieve it. The Constitution outlines one of your inalienable human rights as the pursuit of
happiness. it does not guarantee the obtainment of happiness, or that the pursuit will be free of strife or obstacles.
reply to post by Advancedboy
tell me, which country in history had been prosperous without industries, without manufacturing and creation
Traditionally it was agriculture and the harvesting of raw materials. While those materials were fashioned into goods, it wasn't really "industry"
as we'd currently identify it. Factories didn't really exist for mass production of public goods, and the assembly line displaced the
Master/Apprentice relationship which previously dominated production.
Of course there are exceptions here and there... for example Alexandria's papyrus production was a vital trade commodity for Egypt who (aside from
the Nile Delta region) struggled more with agriculture than Eastern empires and territories across the Mediterranean. This, coupled with it's
location among other factors, is what turned Alexandria into THE major trade hub of the ancient world.
reply to post by PjZ101
Don't call my motivations rascist
I didn't call your motivations racist. I said there are strong undercurrents of racially motivated direction in the movement. I also said that you
are human, and that because you are human - you share a varying degree of racist tendencies. In some individuals it's not very noticeable, in some it
dominates their world view.
We all share that disposition towards racism, because we all descended from a dominant tribal ancestry. While we no longer live in tribes, we still
arrange ourselves tribal groups out of instinct. We identify ourselves and others by what our appearances are, what our likes and dislikes are, what
our ideologies are, what your religion is.... right down to menial things like what kind of clothes you wear, what sports team you support, or which
video game system you support. We don't innately look for similarities between each other... we look for differences, and assess threat levels we
think that "other" group poses. And this extends to race where the physical and cultural differences are more immediately noticeable. This isn't
the only factor involved, but it is a major one.
We are all innately racist to some degree or another. It's a human universal we've found expressed in one form or another in every society we've
thus far studied. You can no more change or deny this fact than you can deny all babies smile to express feelings of joy - even blind infants... or
that it's by FAR easier to learn how to speak a language than it is to learn how to write one.
This isn't something to be proud of by any means, but it's something that needs to be recognized. So long as you recognize that you harbor racist
(however slight you think) tendencies, then you can be more vigilant against those who would underhandedly exploit that inherent behavior tendency and
corrupt your motives without your realization because you felt you were impervious to racist motivations.
You have to also realize that for decades now people have been turned into zombie's over the years in this country and it was done by design
Oh, I do agree on that. Design most certainly plays a contributing role in it. How much it resembles Darwin and how much Descartes, though, that's
the critical factor. Neither one absolves personal responsibility for ignorance in the matters though.
The media is only giving the public what the public demands. What the public responds to. What keeps their ratings high and advertisers happy. Seems
rather evident to me, since after all, Fox News and Alex Jones are mirror images of one another. People turn from their Mass media speculation and
sensationalism to independently generated speculation and sensationalism. One side calls the other tin-foil nutters while the other side calls them
sheep, while arrogantly proclaiming their enlightenment and awakening. Why is it that so many who break free of religion after watching Zeitgeist end
up falling right back into the same old faith-based method of viewing the world.
reply to post by Phlynx
Although it will be great at first, it will lead to the same road again. Democracy is not working
We're not a democracy though. We're a constitutional republic. While the merits and ideals of democracy have always been highly espoused and
influenced the way our republic operates (the President is elected Democratically) the founding fathers were clear in their intent that the United
States be a nation governed by the rule of law - not majority or mob rule.
reply to post by crimvelvet
I see a lot more awareness of the issues today than I saw a couple of years ago. People are concerned and they have the computer to get non-media
Actually, several studies have suggested that people who get their news online are often more misinformed than the people who get their news from
major network news sources. Major News Networks have a very limited avenue for diversity in which to attract viewers. Because they are limited to only
a very few channels, structured around advertisements, and only so many hours in the day to broadcast programs for different demographics, News
Networks adopt a broader umbrella "mass market" strategy try to market to the widest audience possible. Sometimes, you will end up hearing
contradictory opinions, different ways of looking at things, and facts you might not otherwise be exposed to.
The internet.. however... well, technically there can be as many news blog sites available to you as there are people surfing the net. Cost of
operation is low, and individual bloggers can increasingly specialize and market their blog to consumers with a narrower and more specific market
demographics while still recovering costs through advertisement. Often people who get their news exclusively or disproportionately online will not
take the time to seek out contradictory opinions or views. They gather and focus on those sites which most closely resemble their own political,
religious, or social ideologies. Further, the rate at which information propagates across the net coupled with no formal system for fact-checking or
retraction - spurious information posted could contain grievous errors with no method other than personal initiative to fact check them.