It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Violently overthrowing governments leaves violent governments in charge.

page: 9
28
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   
i have to disagree with the title of this thread, it's a linear logical fallacy. the 2nd amendment isn't there to make things worse, it's there to rollback the warped constitution. a violent revolution doesn't mean a new violent government.




posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hendrix92TheUniverse
The Rebels who took over the corrupt government of Myanmar, TODAY, turned over the government to the democratically elected government.

So your premise is indeed false.

But thanks for posting, and making us think about it.


So are you saying democracy's cannot be corrupted? U.S... ? Britain...? None...?

So your premise is indeed false.

But thanks for posting, and making us think about it



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by shagreen heart
 


So, your implying that the American Revolutionaries, for instance, weren't violent? Didn't they overthrow the British government? What about the French Revolutionaries? What about the Russian Revolutionaries? Who fought in the world wars? Non-violent soldiers working for the government? Sorry, you're wrong.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by shagreen heart
i have to disagree with the title of this thread, it's a linear logical fallacy. the 2nd amendment isn't there to make things worse, it's there to rollback the warped constitution. a violent revolution doesn't mean a new violent government.


The very wording of that last sentence is a contradiction of itself. The fact that violence was used to establish a new government, explicitly defines the meaning of "the new government (created by the 'Revolutionary's') is violent", They have already used violence...


To all that truly believe a violent revolution can achieve lasting peace and rights, I ask of you; have you ever killed a man? Or even shot a man? Have you ever been shot before? Has anyone in your family, or multiple people, ever been murdered in an act of violence?

I ask these questions because the average human is pushed to the brink of insanity when they are confronted with these situations. Military personal go through a completely life altering breakdown and rebuilding process of their 'self' just to prepare for these situations, and even they cannot always kept their sanity when exposed to this type of murder, blood and war.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   
just have to chime in....

Has Japan done anything violent to anyone since Hiroshima?



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   
See, I think (most) people are starting to get it. I have a very non-violent way of taking out governments. It is very very very easy. It is so easy, you don't even have to do anything. I made a thread about it, which is under read. I got some mad mod points for it too - and people keep asking why isn't my thread getting more flags?

I think people would more rather go the violent route - which would only achieve their destruction. If people start shooting at troops and police, they give them just cause to attack the rest of us. People need to stop and think - use some critical thinking for a change.

Not to thread jack - but check out my thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It is under the NWO thread, but it greatly applies to all forms of control... what ever you want to call the control, and what ever controls you - my form of revolution will destory it.... nonviolently.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by LanMan54
reply to post by shagreen heart
 


So, your implying that the American Revolutionaries, for instance, weren't violent? Didn't they overthrow the British government? What about the French Revolutionaries? What about the Russian Revolutionaries? Who fought in the world wars? Non-violent soldiers working for the government? Sorry, you're wrong.


your first question makes absolutely no sense and i'm not even sure how you came to that conclusion from my post to even ask the rest of the tangential questions you did that made even less sense than the initial one, you're not paying attention at all to what i wrote or inserted in the conversation. no, i did not imply the revolutions were without violence, and i have no idea how you arrived there after reading my post. and no, i'm not wrong, violently removing a corrupt government via 2nd amendment doesn't instantly establish a brand new bloody government, because that government hasn't been set in motion yet. it's not a = b. it's a, then b. the 2nd amendment implies violence towards those that are acting violence upon us, or slavery through legislation. does it mean anyone has to die actually or even get hurt? nope. but if in the act of overthrowing a corrupt (which the 2nd amendment encourages you to do) things do become violent, which is unfortunate, then that's it, it happens to get violent, but it doesn't mean the revolutionaries want to base their government off of their coup, it means they want change and they are willing to do anything, even sacrifice their own lives to ensure the peace and sanctity of the future o their country.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy

Originally posted by shagreen heart
i have to disagree with the title of this thread, it's a linear logical fallacy. the 2nd amendment isn't there to make things worse, it's there to rollback the warped constitution. a violent revolution doesn't mean a new violent government.


The very wording of that last sentence is a contradiction of itself. The fact that violence was used to establish a new government, explicitly defines the meaning of "the new government (created by the 'Revolutionary's') is violent", They have already used violence...


To all that truly believe a violent revolution can achieve lasting peace and rights, I ask of you; have you ever killed a man? Or even shot a man? Have you ever been shot before? Has anyone in your family, or multiple people, ever been murdered in an act of violence?

I ask these questions because the average human is pushed to the brink of insanity when they are confronted with these situations. Military personal go through a completely life altering breakdown and rebuilding process of their 'self' just to prepare for these situations, and even they cannot always kept their sanity when exposed to this type of murder, blood and war.



no. the revolution was violent, but that doesn't mean the new government will be or intends to be. they aren't the same thing at all. the revolution is a completely separate event, the anarchy. anarchy is the bridge between the old government, and a new government, and yes, there will most likely be violence during times of anarchy, it's pretty much garunteed. i'm not sure what is so confusing about this.

the rest of your post is irrelevant. i'm not postulating that violence = peace, i'm saying the logic of this thread title is fallacious and that the two situations are not related.
edit on 2-2-2011 by shagreen heart because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-2-2011 by shagreen heart because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by shagreen heart
 


"the revolution is a completely separate event"

Separate, like absolutely separate? Meaning in no way interconnected with life? Or history? Or with humans? Or earth? Or the universe? Or time? Like it doesn't exist anymore?

How can a violent revolution that is rooted in culture, faith, principles and ideologies, ever give rise to a peaceful society, when those cultures, faiths, principles and ideologies, that will create this new society, are.. um, sympathetic to violence? Are you saying they will change their minds and convert into peaceful human beings? Name one instance in history when that has happened.

edit on 2-2-2011 by LifeIsEnergy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by LifeIsEnergy
 


yeah look, i grip the hypothetical bait you're dangling, but that's not what i'm saying. the conditions of the revolution are subjective. a still doesn't equal b. nobody wants a violent uprising. you can't always fight with pacifism if you have your species' (cultural organism) best interests at stake, and are met with violent force yourself, or are being tyrannically choked or deprive of your well being. i'm not saying violence is the only answer, or a good answer, i'm saying a violent uprising doesn't automatically = a brand new violent government, that's linear logic, which is fallacious. just because it's never happened before (because all systems fail and we aren't a spiritual or altruistic and unified planet yet) doesn't mean it can't, or won't, or is impossible and therefore untrue.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


When the chopped-off head was unilaterally deciding puroportedly on behalf of the people but effetively only regarding his sinlge human interest, such bloody maniouvers remarkably cleared the way of food to the peoples tables.

Non-rethorical answer.




PS - this happened centuries ago, it wont happen again, not here in EU. But we know how it works.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Anyway, Beezer,
let me add one thing...

I agree 100% with your post.

Violence appeals or attracts more violence. One Government overthrown with violence will surely be managed by violent squads. and it would be likely to presume it will be overthrown by violence too.

Peaceful Democracy Is Needed across the whole world.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by AboveTheTrees


Anyway, Beezer,
let me add one thing...

I agree 100% with your post.

Violence appeals or attracts more violence. One Government overthrown with violence will surely be managed by violent squads. and it would be likely to presume it will be overthrown by violence too.

Peaceful Democracy Is Needed across the whole world.


Thank you. I'm not a pacifist. I'm as flawed as anyone else. But I can only hope for more positive ways to change than procedures that utilize violence so easily.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by lowki

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Ban all private ownership of infrastructures.The public owns it. Waterworks,Power,roads,railroads,harbors,land(no property tax).
Ban all private ownership of business entities.The public owns it(1% per local resident no more).

You an aspiring socialist dictator?
no

Oh ya, once you have public agriculture,
you'll probably starve the populace.
Cause that always happens.
"By accident".


Stalin, Mao, you name it.
Industrial Russian Agriculture still can't grow an food.
people have to grow at home, or else they'd starve (mostly).

Both were very authoritarian I am very libertarian. The local infrastructures are owned by local public democratic cooperatives. Not privately owned multinational corporations owned by the elite. The people that live there own the infrastructure there. They can lease it to a local cooperatives for use though.Either way the community profits



Back money up with raw resources like nickel,copper,platinum,silver,gold,fresh water,non-GMO crops etc.

No central banks.No FIAT currency. PERIOD.

then what are you backing up?
you mean You want to be The Central Bank?

Our central "bank" is publically owned. If your a citizen you already own 1% of the "bank". No one is allowed to own more than 1% shares. They are untradeable. Everyone can vote on how the "bank" can be ran. All other banks have to be publically owned(1% per local resident of the community).



Pay is determined by how much you contribute to the community in paid volunteership hours.Sit on your ass you get barely enough to pay the bills and some cheap subsidized food. Contribute and you can get a condo and eat at a nice restraint and order a pizza.



Oh Soviet Russia,
how lazy everyone was,
all the same pay,
a scientist,
or janitor.

why work,
when you can socialize?
still putting in the hours.

This is false. Unlike the soviet union you have a choice to work or not work. Your allowance is based on your community voluneteership hours and value of work to a publically owned cooperative. Do nothing you get paid a bare minimum.(barely enough to pay your bills in subsidized housing and industrial canned foods etc) Do alot for the local community your allowance is alot. A scientist asking price for his services to a publically owned cooperative is higher than a janitor because a janitor's service's are easier to come by.

Allowance == Bidding price of quality of work + volume of work + rarity of service

I mean you don't HAVE to work but you can be ALOT more confortable if you do.





Giving money to another person is impossible AND illegal(secured debit).

Oh ya, soldiers with machine guns walking around,
on the streets enforcing anti-trade laws.
Yep, definitely most people starve.
You don't have to when its almost impossible.It has to be approved by the local public community first.You don't need guns/police state servience just fine people electronically.

edit on 1/2/11 by lowki because: quotes


at least in Soviet-Communism, internal-trade was ignored,
there was the bazaar or farmer's market,
which provides the bulk of the food,
without it, we'd mostly be dead.

non-profit food markets are legal. Cooperative food markets are legal. What are you talking about

during the artifical-famines,
my grandma starved so hard,
she had a swollen colon, like those sympathy-ad African children,
even though they were growing potatoes and vegetables themselves.

the less fortunate reverted to cannibalism,
and there is still lots of "black humour"
to remind us of those days.

A joke I overheard at the dinner table:

One Cannibal as discussing with another:
Why shouldn't you make a student in soup?
why not?
Cause they'll eat all the vegetables!
ahahaha

Ya I was surprised,
they were so hungry,
that they would eat vegetables.
edit on 1/2/11 by lowki because: Cannibalism


No one is advocating starving people. Nor are we advocating authoritarian central governments. Local democratically ran libertarian collectives would make sure people don't starve. How? The collectives(the local governing body) are the residents of that community NOT elite private interests.

In this system the dominating government is the public itself. There are no presidents or kings or prime ministers. None. Just the people. These libertarian communities have thier own bill of rights and local direct democracy voting precedure.

They all have an unchangeable civil/human rights laws and libertarian constitution.

If the local community wants to legalize weed and prostitution then they can legalize it via local direct democracy.
They can freely construct their society the way they want to. They just can't violate libertarian constitutional laws.(no state governing body that is not the public. No leaders. No taxes that are not agreed on by the local community.No property tax, there is rent though but is owned by a local land coop.The income tax pays for public social services,like,all the insurances,workman's comp,disability,medicare,etc NOT to a privately owned industrialist cartel).



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Originally posted by lowki

Originally posted by John_Rodger_Cornman

Ban all private ownership of infrastructures.The public owns it. Waterworks,Power,roads,railroads,harbors,land(no property tax).
Ban all private ownership of business entities.The public owns it(1% per local resident no more).

You an aspiring socialist dictator?
no

Oh ya, once you have public agriculture,
you'll probably starve the populace.
Cause that always happens.
"By accident".


Stalin, Mao, you name it.
Industrial Russian Agriculture still can't grow an food.
people have to grow at home, or else they'd starve (mostly).


Both were very authoritarian I am very libertarian. The local infrastructures are owned by local public democratic cooperatives.

Ya, a Kolkhoz.
We had those in soviet union.

They only make food for themselves,
and the city people meh whatever.



Not privately owned multinational corporations owned by the elite. The people that live there own the infrastructure there. They can lease it to a local cooperatives for use though.Either way the community profits

I thought you said it was public,
as in not-privately owned...
then how could they lease it?

profits on leasing land...
so you support feudalism?



Our central "bank" is publically owned. If your a citizen you already own 1% of the "bank". No one is allowed to own more than 1% shares. They are untradeable. Everyone can vote on how the "bank" can be ran. All other banks have to be publically owned(1% per local resident of the community).

Doesn't sound like anything can get done.
There will still be a small group making most of the decisions.

The vast majority of people,
will be powerless to affect change.
Unless people can make their own currency,
they will always be in debt to currency issuers.






Pay is determined by how much you contribute to the community in paid volunteership hours.Sit on your ass you get barely enough to pay the bills and some cheap subsidized food. Contribute and you can get a condo and eat at a nice restraint and order a pizza.



Oh Soviet Russia,
how lazy everyone was,
all the same pay,
a scientist,
or janitor.

why work,
when you can socialize?
still putting in the hours.

This is false. Unlike the soviet union you have a choice to work or not work.

that's exactly how it was in Soviet Union.

Common anecdote was that
people could sit at home,
and spit on the ceiling all day if they liked.



Your allowance is based on your community voluneteership hours and value of work to a publically owned cooperative.

I think publicly owned and co-operative are mutually exclusive.

Publicly owned things do what the government says they should do.

Co-operatives are when everyone including customers is a member,
can vote, be elected, or have their say in matters.



Do nothing you get paid a bare minimum.(barely enough to pay your bills in subsidized housing and industrial canned foods etc)

That's just like here in Canada.
Afford you bare minimum.
rent, and food.

if you're disabled,
can get a little extra.



Do alot for the local community your allowance is alot. A scientist asking price for his services to a publically owned cooperative is higher than a janitor because a janitor's service's are easier to come by.

Allowance == Bidding price of quality of work + volume of work + rarity of service

yes, thank you for complimenting my price-calculation formula.

Bidding price = Utility
Quality ~= Chakra
Volume = time+mass
rarity = abundance

(time+mass)^chakra/abundance*utility=price




I mean you don't HAVE to work but you can be ALOT more confortable if you do.

But you're still stuck at the teat of the state.

The most comfortable aspect of the Soviet Union was long vacation times.
My parents had at least 3 months vacation every year.





Giving money to another person is impossible AND illegal(secured debit).

Oh ya, soldiers with machine guns walking around,
on the streets enforcing anti-trade laws.
Yep, definitely most people starve.
You don't have to when its almost impossible.It has to be approved by the local public community first.You don't need guns/police state servience just fine people electronically.

So people can starve while waiting for approval, I see.




at least in Soviet-Communism, internal-trade was ignored,
there was the bazaar or farmer's market,
which provides the bulk of the food,
without it, we'd mostly be dead.

non-profit food markets are legal. Cooperative food markets are legal. What are you talking about

you didn't mention anything like that.
also if they are non-profit,
what's the incentive?

Back to Kolkhoz,
grow the bare-minimum for yourself,
and everyone else meh whatever.

Soviet union was forced to get students from the city to work on farms.
I was told a story recently about such an excursion.

They arrived at the farm,
she had never seen plants grow before,
they were instructed to collect tomatoes into boxes.
which is exactly what they did.

They were told a truck would come by to pick them up,
after over a week no truck had come by to do so,
the first boxes of tomatoes had already rotted away.
They were instructed to dump them out,
and then to fill those boxes with more tomatoes.

Eventually a privately owned Belarussian truck showed up,
and they had students load up all the useful tomatoes,
and they took them back to Belarussia.
Effectively "Stealing" the tomatoes.

When they got back to the main city,
there were no tomatoes in the official market.





during the artifical-famines,
my grandma starved so hard,
she had a swollen colon, like those sympathy-ad African children,
even though they were growing potatoes and vegetables themselves.


No one is advocating starving people. Nor are we advocating authoritarian central governments.

But you said publicly owned... that's implies authoritarian central ownership.



Local democratically ran libertarian collectives would make sure people don't starve. How? The collectives(the local governing body) are the residents of that community NOT elite private interests.

yes that's tribalism.
completely different.
much more like intentional-communities.
people get to maintain their own habitats.



In this system the dominating government is the public itself. There are no presidents or kings or prime ministers. None. Just the people. These libertarian communities have thier own bill of rights and local direct democracy voting precedure.

They all have an unchangeable civil/human rights laws and libertarian constitution.

isn't that somewhat of a contradiction?
they all have their on bills-of-rights,
and unchangeable (elite-enforced) rights?



If the local community wants to legalize weed and prostitution then they can legalize it via local direct democracy.

Excellent, local-override.



They can freely construct their society the way they want to. They just can't violate libertarian constitutional laws.

contradiction.



(no state governing body that is not the public. No leaders. No taxes that are not agreed on by the local community.No property tax, there is rent though but is owned by a local land coop.The income tax pays for public social services,like,all the insurances,workman's comp,disability,medicare,etc NOT to a privately owned industrialist cartel).

okay that's just a bunch of not's so it's like you said nothing at all.
Except you mentioned taxation,
which is the blood-sucking that led to enslavement of the masses.

In Somalia one of the few free-states on this planet,
taxation is plain illegal.

here is a summary of their legal system, known as Xeer law


Under Xeer, there is no authority that dictates what the law should be. The law is instead discovered by judges as they determine the best way to resolve a dispute. As such, the Somali nation by tradition is a stateless society; that is, Somalis have never accepted the authority of any central government, their own or any other.

en.wikipedia.org...


edit on 2/2/11 by lowki because: b

edit on 2/2/11 by lowki because: quotes


Honestly, calling Somalians pirates,
is like calling the American Coast-Guards pirates.
Who also like to steal or "confiscate" and hold people for ransom or "bail".
They have all the same functions.


Here is an article "Stateless in Somalia, and Loving It!"
mises.org...

a quote, from the article, of a quote from CIA factbook


"Despite the seeming anarchy, Somalia's service sector has managed to survive and grow. Telecommunication firms provide wireless services in most major cities and offer the lowest international call rates on the continent. In the absence of a formal banking sector, money exchange services have sprouted throughout the country, handling between $500 million and $1 billion in remittances annually. Mogadishu's main market offers a variety of goods from food to the newest electronic gadgets. Hotels continue to operate, and militias provide security."

edit on 2/2/11 by lowki because: somalia


one of the main issues I see with Somalia,
is that it's very hard to become a member,
either you have to be born or somehow accepted into a clan,
or you have to be a feudal serf by leasing land.

Though you always have the option of forming your own clan or tribe,
then acquiring, maintaining, defending, some habitat.
near wherever you are currently,
or where you can find a place.

There is always the option of seasteading,
can get concrete submarines at $10,000USD or grams-of-silver per person.
www.seasteading.org...

I'm working on a belief-system,
for helping to make it easier,
by compiling relevant data,
manufacturing, social, law,
and various other aspects.

though there are many tutorials already available online.
survivalism and gardening is always a great start.
edit on 2/2/11 by lowki because: seasteading



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   


RE: Debate about resource based economy, i did not want to derail thread


first off, I think It's a great contribution to the thread,
as it's showing the alternatives to violent revolution.
as well as what people believe might be a better solution,
that the system which we have currently.

such as Zeitgeist "Resource Economy" mass movement,
or alternatively forming your own neotribal community.


Please take some time to view the bigger picture here.

Ok money is great, it has been a huge contributor to our human evolution as a species. It has done its job so far, and a pretty good job of it.

:-)



But also with money, the system is designed to have pockets of very very poor people, some of the pockets being entire countries. Look at the rate of which infants,children,teens,young adults,middleaged people, and the elderly are ALL starving to death because of the lack of care for these countries. Guess what, if this was a person that was killing 18,000 people a day, we would spend billions of dollars to send soldiers to find that person and end the problem, BUT it is a silent killer, no bombs no nuclear anything, so nobody really cares, I mean on a daily basis I'm sure there are way more people that don't think 1 second about any of them, and its very sad.

Yes, Zeitgeist is good at being the Illusionist,
drawing away attention from the actual causes.

Starvation occurs when people have their habitat destroyed or stolen.
Do you think African people were starving before white invasion? lol

In Somalia, which has managed to be a free-country,
they have the best telecommunication in Africa,
with much food and gadgets at the market.



The resources wasted on WW2 could of built several hospitals in every single country in the world where it was needed, Yet we wasted it on war and even more death and destruction, all for what? If you follow the money trail it goes to people that made a lot of money on WW2.


WW2 was purely funded by fiat-currency,
from the international bankers.

Since the Rothschild's lineage foundation,
they've found war to be the most profitable.



Humanity has a case of "Values Disorder"

In our minds, $20,000,000 is worth way more than 1 persons life, I would bet the farm that more people would take money over a strangers life.

with my price-calculation formula,
there is exponential difference between things of different levels of development.

(time+mass)^chakra

so a rock, or metal, piece of currency is mass^1.something
whereas an ordinary human typically third-density is time^3.something

so it implies that the more hours you work,
the more you get paid per hour.



The argument that countries that are starving does not have farmland is laughable.

they have lots of farmland,
but they aren't allowed to use it,
governments us the threat of death.



We have the technology to build farms in buildings that are as tall as the demand for food is, with hydroponics.
Hydroponic food is 1000 times better than soil grown s*it
with poisons sprayed on it for our own good, also it has a lower chance of spreading diseases that kills the populace, which happen all too often.

Where did you learn any of this?

Hydroponics is very resource intensive,
requires lots of products, buckets, hoses, lights, fans.
You spend much more energy on growing,
than you get from the food itself.

Also it lacks many nutrients that are found in soil,
so hydroponic food is usually very bland and tasteless.

Due to mono-cultures hydroponics are just as if not more susceptible to plagues of disease and pests.

Sorry but petrochemical fertilizers/pesticides aren't for anyones good,
the main things they do is destroy soil quality and habitat.
They are part of The World War on Nature,
which started as continuation of WW2.

If people actually wanted to get the most food from the ground,
then they would be using permaculture and forest-gardening,
Nature is the best teacher when it comes to efficient productivity.



Guess why countries like africa do not have those everywhere?? Oh yeah money. Its not because it does not work, look up the farms that are already on youtube, its amazing.

:-| I have no idea what videos you're talking about.
Yes Zeitgeist socialist does support hydroponics,
also some petrochemical companies.

Only "free" people using hydroponics,
are the ones growing marijuana,
mainly to evade detection.



History does not apply to the current times, no other time in history did we have people losing a vast amount of jobs

You should be yelling "Hip hipp horrah!"
"Freedom from wage-slavery! Salvation"

There is that stockholm-syndrome thing,
where people that have been traumatized severely,
eventually fall in love with their oppression as a defense mechanism.

I really think you should consider getting well.
Remember in nature, nobody has jobs...

well not quite nobody.
the closest to jobs, could be ants,
that enslave ants from other colonies,
by stealing the larvae and bringing them up as their own.

See most ants are actually sisters,
and so are merely doing tasks for their family.




that created wealth due to robots, and it is showing no intent to slow down, it will get worse by the decade, by 2050 how many robots to todays do you think there will be

According to Ray Kurzweil a technology futurist, trends-analyst,
by that time you could buy as much computing power,
as is found of all the human-brain on earth combined,
for equivalent of $1500 in 1995 U.S. dollars.



Im interested in a civil debate with you because I would really like to hear your reply.

:-) of course.
It's great to clarify things.
edit on 2/2/11 by lowki because: clarify

edit on 2/2/11 by lowki because: alternatives to violent revolution



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by shagreen heart
 



"i grip the hypothetical bait you're dangling,"

" just because it's never happened before (because all systems fail and we aren't a spiritual or altruistic and unified planet yet) doesn't mean it can't, or won't, or is impossible and therefore untrue."

Hypothetical huh? Your whole premise is hypothetical as you have no evidence.

How can a culture, society or group of people who are sympathetic to violence, ever create a non-violent society? Isn't a non-violent society unsympathetic to violence?


Oh, and if A = Revolution, and B = New Government, and C = Violence

Then if A=B and A=C, then B=C

Math simplifies everything. Thanks.

edit on 2-2-2011 by LifeIsEnergy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Thank you Beezer. It takes courage to OP a great thread. This is a great thread.




edit on 2-2-2011 by angelwrangler because: Note: flag and star!



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
reply to post by shagreen heart
 



"i grip the hypothetical bait you're dangling,"

" just because it's never happened before (because all systems fail and we aren't a spiritual or altruistic and unified planet yet) doesn't mean it can't, or won't, or is impossible and therefore untrue."

Hypothetical huh? Your whole premise is hypothetical as you have no evidence.

How can a culture, society or group of people who are sympathetic to violence, ever create a non-violent society? Isn't a non-violent society unsympathetic to violence?


Oh, and if A = Revolution, and B = New Government, and C = Violence

Then if A=B and A=C, then B=C

Math simplifies everything. Thanks.

edit on 2-2-2011 by LifeIsEnergy because: (no reason given)


your statement is hypothetical (and was trying to imply or get me to agree with something that has nothing to do with my original statements) and my statement is logical. you don't understand the difference. here we have a hypothetical situation, and you are already telling us how it's going to end as if YOU have evidence. i'm not saying there is any definite outcome, because there is not. until were on the same page you need to stop acting like what were having is an argument rather than your need to assert your beliefs before reasoning.

there will never be a society without violence, just like nature will never be without violence. society is an idea of man, so is "peace", which is just lack of confrontation or violence. and just because there is a violent uprising, which could have happened for a number of reasons, and doesn't mean it's because you're sympathetic to violence, doesn't mean that the new government intends to be sympathetic to violence. that's completely fallacious and i can't see how you're linking the two events logically at all.

again, your math is using linear logic, which is also fallacious. a = a, b = b, c = c.

you're welcome?



posted on Feb, 3 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by lowki
 


~~~Begin quote~~~
Yes, Zeitgeist is good at being the Illusionist,
drawing away attention from the actual causes.

Starvation occurs when people have their habitat destroyed or stolen.
Do you think African people were starving before white invasion? lol

In Somalia, which has managed to be a free-country,
they have the best telecommunication in Africa,
with much food and gadgets at the market.
~~~End Quote~~~

Drawing away attention from the actual causes? I would say they do a very great job of attempting to explain human nature, and why people act the way they do in an intelligent process, and it makes sense.

Starvation happens due to the lack of care we have for other people, sure they used to not starv, but someone came along and destroyed them for the money to be gained. See what I'm saying, because it costs money to help them out, were likely not going to help any of them, and they will continue to die everyday, while the developed countries with money can over consume resources without the worry about the impact because they have money.

~~~Begin Quote~~~
WW2 was purely funded by fiat-currency,
from the international bankers.

Since the Rothschild's lineage foundation,
they've found war to be the most profitable.
~~~End Quote~~~

Right, war means money, so because of the need to obtain money, we kill each other without remorse. Without money, what would be the point of killing each other? Without money, the need to kill is would be eliminated from our thoughts mostly.

~~~Begin quote~~~
so a rock, or metal, piece of currency is mass^1.something
whereas an ordinary human typically third-density is time^3.something

so it implies that the more hours you work,
the more you get paid per hour.
~~~End quote~~~

This is the point... The more hours you are a SLAVE, the more money you are "rewarded" with. What happens in 50-100 years though? Sure the monetary system will work now because we have people that "need" money and can work. What happens in 100 years when robots take over 90% of the jobs and we can no longer work to make money, explain how we can still make money without working? Also explain where the money to pay off the interest that is made when money is created? Thats right, it does not exist.
~~~Begin Quote~~~
Hydroponics is very resource intensive,
requires lots of products, buckets, hoses, lights, fans.
You spend much more energy on growing,
than you get from the food itself.

Also it lacks many nutrients that are found in soil,
so hydroponic food is usually very bland and tasteless.

Due to mono-cultures hydroponics are just as if not more susceptible to plagues of disease and pests.

Sorry but petrochemical fertilizers/pesticides aren't for anyones good,
the main things they do is destroy soil quality and habitat.
They are part of The World War on Nature,
which started as continuation of WW2.

If people actually wanted to get the most food from the ground,
then they would be using permaculture and forest-gardening,
Nature is the best teacher when it comes to efficient productivity.
~~~End quote~~~

I'm not sure where you've learned any of this, but hydroponic food is very higher quality than soil grown food, and does not destroy the ground. You don't NEED lights, but If you are growing in an enclosed building you would. Hydroponic farming is the future of farming because it is leaps and bounds more productive than soil farming, You say that the cost for the supplies outweighs the productivity, dead wrong. Hydroponic growers have a much higher output of crop per sq yard than soil, hydroponic food is not bland at all...... Have you ever tried it? Its amazing really, I grow my own hydroponic veges and they make the store bought crap look pathetic. It's actually impossible for soil to have more nutrients because the nutrient levels are monitored constantly and added when needed, the nutrient levels of soil is harder to tell, and you have to pay a lot for fertilizer,pesticide. Don't forget currently 80% of the corn you've ever eaten was from mosanto and is GMO'd to produce pesticide inside the product.

By the way why do you think marijuana growers use hydroponics? Because it creates a way higher quality product at the end, and I can say from personal exp that it is true.

Take a quick look at this video about a hydroponic lettuce farm www.youtube.com...

Zeitgeist socialism, lol, You can call it whatever pleases you, but this zeitgeist socialism is a way better life than what we are living in now, by far. People say " you would leave you decisions to a computer" well yeah, wouldnt you turn to a person that knows EVERYTHING EVER LEARNED IN HISTORY BY MAN, or would you go to a president like Obama or bush JR? Computers>any human being alive, remember also that 97% of all money is in computers.

Monetary life is just the system we decided to use, we could of evolved throughout history with totally different morals in mind, Money will not last another 100 years, it's virtually impossible. Im not saying the zeitgeist system is the 100% model we would use, but it is on the right track.




top topics



 
28
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join