It seems to me that often people associate revolution naively with the idea that it will miraculously make everything better. I think that in order for real change to happen you need to make sacrifices. Seems to be the main thing stopping it from happening. If you really want things to get better, you need to shed your attachments to things that aren't actually helping the situation. Even though it's uncomfortable, that's what we call a commitment I guess.
In order for real change to occur, in any situation, not specifically a revolution, there is a certain degree of sacrifice required. It can be useful when undergoing a self transformation to destroy objects that represent the old you. Similarly in countries where there is a regime change, liberation or revolution they usually destroy the monuments of their old leaders.
This type of progressive movement allows us to move forwards with our lives unattached to what was holding us in the past. The present moment is the most important one. That's not to say that you shouldn't plan for the future. It just means that what we have to deal with now will always top the list of priorities. Usually it's some form of attachment that holds us back. Although sometimes this can manifest in the form of Billie not smashing in Jack's face due to the fact that it would hurt someone he loves. Sometimes attachment can cause us to think twice.
The trick is in being able to analyse & pick out the stuff that's holding you back. Now look at this in the context of a revolution: A populous needs correct motive, true direction & to be rid of attachments that are holding it back. Also a populous needs to have an idea of what it wants to do after, as a matter of fact that should be the driving force of the movement. We can't have these wishy washy movements without a sense of direction, purpose or ideology. True action demands that we organise and plan ahead by taking in the moment.
How do we asses what needs to go?
Now we come down to a question that is truly deep, truly profound. This question concerns subjects that have piqued the interests of great minds over the centuries. Essentially what it comes down to is morality. In the context of revolution & self-development, dispose of the immoral. Dispose of those things which cause you to act selfishly. Strip all politicians who previously led the country into crisis for their own gain. Because in a commune self interest has no place. We must analyse scrupulously our assets, actions and associations. We must know what is wrong, only then can we find a cure.
To reiterate I don't think we should all go & persue a life of minimalism, become a monk or a hermit. I think we should live, & live life to the fullest. Sure some may find that they need to strip away the garments of modern life in order to find what is inside themselves. Yet, we all have true potential, it's just the unlocking it that is the hard part. Detachment is a necessary part of the journey. To what degree, that is up to your discretion.
Wednesday, 11 September 2013
Thursday, 30 May 2013
A Quick Disproof of Infinite Possibility
Ok, haven't made any posts in a while... been studying. I've been contemplating this problem for a while now. Since I was introduced to the idea I had some major difficulties coming to terms with the idea. Now, down to business. Often this idea is linked with the concept that the universe is infinite.
My logic is as follows: if everything that could happen does but in a parallel universe. Then it follows that there is a universe in which you yourself obtain the means of travelling to this very universe & killing yourself. In a reality with infinite possibility, what's to stop this from happening. In fact in a universe where everything happens there is a you that destroys the very everything that you exist within. It's a major paradox.
An awful lot of respectable physicists support this theory. I know it's probably really a nice dreamy idea you can use to chat up women, but it's fundamentally flawed. It would be good to understand the logical link (if any) between infinite possibility & infinite universe.
Originally I was going to call this article " A Quick Disproof of the Infinite Universe Theory" but I thought that it would probably be best not to, seeing as I was uncertain of whether or not this disproves the theory. If you have an idea about this then please do not hesitate to contact me. Who knows this could be a disproof of the theory once & for all.
My logic is as follows: if everything that could happen does but in a parallel universe. Then it follows that there is a universe in which you yourself obtain the means of travelling to this very universe & killing yourself. In a reality with infinite possibility, what's to stop this from happening. In fact in a universe where everything happens there is a you that destroys the very everything that you exist within. It's a major paradox.
An awful lot of respectable physicists support this theory. I know it's probably really a nice dreamy idea you can use to chat up women, but it's fundamentally flawed. It would be good to understand the logical link (if any) between infinite possibility & infinite universe.
Originally I was going to call this article " A Quick Disproof of the Infinite Universe Theory" but I thought that it would probably be best not to, seeing as I was uncertain of whether or not this disproves the theory. If you have an idea about this then please do not hesitate to contact me. Who knows this could be a disproof of the theory once & for all.
Saturday, 2 March 2013
Ideas #3 - Revolutions
The current political system is abhorrent. Our parliamentary supervisors are as much slaves to the pound as we are. It is evident to me that things need to change. A good friend of mine pointed out once that most historical revolutions leave countries debilitated & crippled economically. I would agree with him to some extent although I would say that recent political movements have made me see fragilities in this theory. For instance most of the well documented historical revolutions that have failed are the revolutions of political systems that would compromise our current capitalist system. I have already discussed in detail the downfalls of capitalism.
“He who controls the past now controls the future. He who controls the future now controls the past” - George Orwell
This quote is relevant on this topic I would say. That's not to say that I'm advocating communism, I certainly see it's crippling effects on the welfare of the populous. But I do think that the media we consume is a consequence of capitalism. Most media outlets today are controlled by a handful of companies. Usually multinational & of course answering to no master save the share-holders. This is a giant gaping hole in our international community. The channels in question will only report on conflicts that suit there own vested interests & this misinforms the population. This is why we are left with the notion that if we revolt or try to change anything we will be left crippled. These are reminiscent of totalitarian scare tactics.
On a side note: Another thing which as been annoying me recently is that for some reason right-wing politicians seem to categorise anyone on the left as socialist. While socialism is certainly a left-wing political philosophy, it is not to say that there aren't other systems on the left of the spectrum. Yes often left-wing ideologies draw similarities with socialism, but it's not the same. It is socialism that is in the category of the left, not the left that is in the category of socialism. They just seem not to be able to think outside of their misinformed box.
Personally I've been finding recently that socialism, capitalism even... dare I say it... monarchistic democracy are all outdated modes of governance. I believe that a contemporary & subsequently relevant system would be preferable. The current politics available to us were all devised in an economic, technologically & culturally foreign society. So I would postulate that a functional system would be both adaptive & fluid. It would be organized in such a way that when one generation has ceased to be relevant, the laws & principles of their society could easily be adapted in order to suit the needs of those who are in need.
Just to clarify at this point I would like to state that I believe Anarchism in its true & proper form would be a political ideal (Anarchism another left wing philosophy that isn't socialism). What I mean is that if it were possible for every person in the world to live every day without getting under each others feet or disagreeing with one another, there would be no need for government. We can deduce from this that the role of a government is not to control the populous (sorry Benito) it is to resolve disputes in a fair & unbiased way. Another proper function of a government is to take care of its people.
A positive point about modern life in Britain is that we are privileged enough to experience a higher than average standard of living. Although our society is not perfect. To elaborate, things need to change. It seems that up to this point conservative politics in Britain has dominated & been based on the notion that you cannot consolidate wealth without suppressing the wealth of others. I believe this isn't true simply from a utilitarian perspective. As in the wealth of a nation is in the welfare of its people. Of course currency plays the role of the enabler, but should not be the focus of policies.
Our current democracy is weighted too much to the big business & corporate wealth. I think it's about time we realized that there are other routes to prosperity. It would probably benefit us as a whole if our leaders were better educated in political science, sociology & economics. Of course in a society where it is mandatory for an MP to have this education, corruption could seep in via means of the education system. So it's important for us to examine the education system. An interesting system of education that could be applied here is the self-taught method. As to how these members would be elected a democratic system would probably be preferable. Although some modifications such as when re-voting parliament each members agenda should be assimilated as a simple text file or pamphlet with a preset design. The glamorous campaigns that we see in America are just open invitations for businessmen with bulging wallets to buy their favourite politics.
Another friend of mine brought up a highly rational query to democracy as we know it here in the UK. She wondered why we don't vote on every policy. It's a simple enough observation which highlights the weaknesses of our governance. I can already hear the counter-argument: This would take too much time over each policy. But to be quite honest if I had been of age & given the chance I would have voted against the barbaric Iraq war. To resolve this I propose we assign groups of common people (much like jury duty) to asses the bills being put through parliament before they get put through & decide if they require public vote. Failing this we could vote on everything, or create a new house for deliberation of small possibly case specific policies which would not require public vote. Either way it should be easy to know what is being debated in the houses of parliament.
I also think that publicisation of certain ministries (eg. public transport) is advisable because as I've stated before, & I can't really stress this enough, corporations don't answer to the public. So publicisation in certain sectors relating to the public is optimal. Obviously we wouldn't want to take it to a ridiculous level like in communism. Just as long as we iron out the corruption we can have a bit more say over our public transport.
Thanks for reading.
“He who controls the past now controls the future. He who controls the future now controls the past” - George Orwell
This quote is relevant on this topic I would say. That's not to say that I'm advocating communism, I certainly see it's crippling effects on the welfare of the populous. But I do think that the media we consume is a consequence of capitalism. Most media outlets today are controlled by a handful of companies. Usually multinational & of course answering to no master save the share-holders. This is a giant gaping hole in our international community. The channels in question will only report on conflicts that suit there own vested interests & this misinforms the population. This is why we are left with the notion that if we revolt or try to change anything we will be left crippled. These are reminiscent of totalitarian scare tactics.
On a side note: Another thing which as been annoying me recently is that for some reason right-wing politicians seem to categorise anyone on the left as socialist. While socialism is certainly a left-wing political philosophy, it is not to say that there aren't other systems on the left of the spectrum. Yes often left-wing ideologies draw similarities with socialism, but it's not the same. It is socialism that is in the category of the left, not the left that is in the category of socialism. They just seem not to be able to think outside of their misinformed box.
Personally I've been finding recently that socialism, capitalism even... dare I say it... monarchistic democracy are all outdated modes of governance. I believe that a contemporary & subsequently relevant system would be preferable. The current politics available to us were all devised in an economic, technologically & culturally foreign society. So I would postulate that a functional system would be both adaptive & fluid. It would be organized in such a way that when one generation has ceased to be relevant, the laws & principles of their society could easily be adapted in order to suit the needs of those who are in need.
Just to clarify at this point I would like to state that I believe Anarchism in its true & proper form would be a political ideal (Anarchism another left wing philosophy that isn't socialism). What I mean is that if it were possible for every person in the world to live every day without getting under each others feet or disagreeing with one another, there would be no need for government. We can deduce from this that the role of a government is not to control the populous (sorry Benito) it is to resolve disputes in a fair & unbiased way. Another proper function of a government is to take care of its people.
A positive point about modern life in Britain is that we are privileged enough to experience a higher than average standard of living. Although our society is not perfect. To elaborate, things need to change. It seems that up to this point conservative politics in Britain has dominated & been based on the notion that you cannot consolidate wealth without suppressing the wealth of others. I believe this isn't true simply from a utilitarian perspective. As in the wealth of a nation is in the welfare of its people. Of course currency plays the role of the enabler, but should not be the focus of policies.
Our current democracy is weighted too much to the big business & corporate wealth. I think it's about time we realized that there are other routes to prosperity. It would probably benefit us as a whole if our leaders were better educated in political science, sociology & economics. Of course in a society where it is mandatory for an MP to have this education, corruption could seep in via means of the education system. So it's important for us to examine the education system. An interesting system of education that could be applied here is the self-taught method. As to how these members would be elected a democratic system would probably be preferable. Although some modifications such as when re-voting parliament each members agenda should be assimilated as a simple text file or pamphlet with a preset design. The glamorous campaigns that we see in America are just open invitations for businessmen with bulging wallets to buy their favourite politics.
Another friend of mine brought up a highly rational query to democracy as we know it here in the UK. She wondered why we don't vote on every policy. It's a simple enough observation which highlights the weaknesses of our governance. I can already hear the counter-argument: This would take too much time over each policy. But to be quite honest if I had been of age & given the chance I would have voted against the barbaric Iraq war. To resolve this I propose we assign groups of common people (much like jury duty) to asses the bills being put through parliament before they get put through & decide if they require public vote. Failing this we could vote on everything, or create a new house for deliberation of small possibly case specific policies which would not require public vote. Either way it should be easy to know what is being debated in the houses of parliament.
I also think that publicisation of certain ministries (eg. public transport) is advisable because as I've stated before, & I can't really stress this enough, corporations don't answer to the public. So publicisation in certain sectors relating to the public is optimal. Obviously we wouldn't want to take it to a ridiculous level like in communism. Just as long as we iron out the corruption we can have a bit more say over our public transport.
Thanks for reading.
Saturday, 20 October 2012
Ideas #2 - Soloutions
So, in my last post I was writing about paranoid illuminati theories & the realistic events & situations which back them up. I would also like to make it clear that the capitalist political system does threaten certain social systems which are necessary for our progression as a species.
From what I can gather out of various sources it seems that most parties responsible for economies which are in the top 30 or so countries are highly subject to "economic blackmail". This happens because an economy (of a country) becomes so large it depends largely on corporate enterprises in order to sustain its growth which is only logical in a political system which depends largely on the acquisition of capita.
But this way of regulating things (or lack of really) has its downfalls. Because of the large dependence on corporate interaction within an economy, governments become subjected more & more to the policy of those companies which dominate the economy in their countries. An example of this is the recent public outrage at an invitation by one MP to privately meet with David Cameron to discuss policy. This particular example leads me to question how well is the operation run. Is it a meticulously planned public relations manipulation as some would have us believe? Or is this really an example of a slip up. Deliberate or not, the fact is that someone responsible for making decisions about the U.K. (be it governmental or in the private sector) essentially is in favour of corporatocratic government. So we see that the logical outcome of capitalism is corporatocracy. Much in the same way that the flaws of communism lead to a dictatorship or totalitarian society. I find it almost mathematical the way in which political systems when enlarged breakdown. Of course this is the nature of adaptation. One person (or in this case a select few) will come along with a set of ideas & the ideas are guaranteed to not be perfect, so then it simply takes another set of people to analyze & modify them. This is the position we find ourselves in now as a global society.
I find that often when I come across material discussing this stuff, they're often inconclusive & I'm left with a feeling of helplessness & depression for humanity. This is possibly a good thing because I now feel driven to list a couple of ideas of solutions. So let's for just a minute take our eyes of what's happening now (only briefly mind) & look into the proposed future of political systems.
The Technocratic Approach
So, some people (mainly engineers) think that the best way to run things would be to replace the control of the corporations & fill the government with engineers & scientists instead. I know it sounds a bit far fetched, but what would be good about this type of government would be that the decision makers would be very well educated. That would mean they would be less likely to make terrible decisions. But as most of you have probably noticed our governmental leaders most of them already have been to very high quality places of education. It doesn't seem to help them not be absolute dickheads. So the logic of a highly educated elite making the decisions is just another duff argument, the fact that they would have had a scientific or engineering education makes no difference. Being a scientist doesn't imply morality or social understanding.
The "Zeitgeist" Solution
Because the Zeitgeist movement, it's affiliated films & pages seem to be reluctant to promote a political allegiance (as if that would be a bad thing) it's hard to ascertain what they stand for. But, from what I can gather the Zeitgeist movement promotes a slightly different take on technocracy whereby they don't specifically want scientific leaders they just want a scientifically regulated society. Alternatively to the technocratic approach "a scientifically regulated society" allows social science experts to be in the ruling elite. This is a little better than just scientists having control over everything. It allows for what experts refer to in Plato's "Republic" as the principle of specialisation. In this context I'm (maybe incorrectly) using it to describe how in this proposed system experts have control within their respective fields. Of course this still allows for a form of absolute control. Highly specialised absolute control but absolute control nonetheless.
Monetary Reform
This solution addresses the specific problem of the way that money is regulated in this country. I'm specifically referring to the monetary reforms as proposed by the Positive Money Campaign. Their argument is highly logical, I seriously suggest you go watch some of their video's as they are very educational. They are addressing the inability of the government to regulate the creation of money. They attempt to solve it by getting a law passed which means that bankers cannot simply create money. It's a very complex problem so it's worth looking up. Although it is a good cause it is not the end of the game. I believe the campaign is a small step towards to addressing much broader issues.
The Socialist Solution
I'm sure you've all heard of socialism. Most often socialism is referred to in connection to communism. For instance Karl Marx famously said that socialism was simply a transitional period between society as we know it. I find communism is an idealistic form of political philosophy but I disagree with it because it requires that same type of absolute control which tends to be the downfall of most political systems. Whereas socialism is a much more moderate form of the political ideals I like out of communism, but presented in a much more handleable format. Some would argue that in a socialist state having a centralised government controlling the distribution is in itself a form of absolute control. I would agree with that but at least in this model the centralised authority have a pre-arranged duty to provide for the people. But as we know in this country that isn't enough to ensure unbiased regulation.
Overall it seems the solutions I have provided are inconclusive to solving all our problems. They're either not broad enough or not ensuring of regard to the public. I think a sensible formula for our development as a society is progress in very much the same way that we've always done. & I don't mean let's continue with out capitalised "democracy"(/corporatocracy). I mean every socio-political norm is subject to the analysis of every free mind. So the health of our society is dependent on how much free thought is allowed & how much our regulators allow themselves to be questioned. Because the only way to prove that your idea is a strong one is to subject it to a great deal of analysis. I think the Socratic notion of questioning everything applies here.
Just to clarify I advocate none of the political solutions listed above in whole (except the monetary reform one).
Further reading:
From what I can gather out of various sources it seems that most parties responsible for economies which are in the top 30 or so countries are highly subject to "economic blackmail". This happens because an economy (of a country) becomes so large it depends largely on corporate enterprises in order to sustain its growth which is only logical in a political system which depends largely on the acquisition of capita.
But this way of regulating things (or lack of really) has its downfalls. Because of the large dependence on corporate interaction within an economy, governments become subjected more & more to the policy of those companies which dominate the economy in their countries. An example of this is the recent public outrage at an invitation by one MP to privately meet with David Cameron to discuss policy. This particular example leads me to question how well is the operation run. Is it a meticulously planned public relations manipulation as some would have us believe? Or is this really an example of a slip up. Deliberate or not, the fact is that someone responsible for making decisions about the U.K. (be it governmental or in the private sector) essentially is in favour of corporatocratic government. So we see that the logical outcome of capitalism is corporatocracy. Much in the same way that the flaws of communism lead to a dictatorship or totalitarian society. I find it almost mathematical the way in which political systems when enlarged breakdown. Of course this is the nature of adaptation. One person (or in this case a select few) will come along with a set of ideas & the ideas are guaranteed to not be perfect, so then it simply takes another set of people to analyze & modify them. This is the position we find ourselves in now as a global society.
I find that often when I come across material discussing this stuff, they're often inconclusive & I'm left with a feeling of helplessness & depression for humanity. This is possibly a good thing because I now feel driven to list a couple of ideas of solutions. So let's for just a minute take our eyes of what's happening now (only briefly mind) & look into the proposed future of political systems.
The Technocratic Approach
So, some people (mainly engineers) think that the best way to run things would be to replace the control of the corporations & fill the government with engineers & scientists instead. I know it sounds a bit far fetched, but what would be good about this type of government would be that the decision makers would be very well educated. That would mean they would be less likely to make terrible decisions. But as most of you have probably noticed our governmental leaders most of them already have been to very high quality places of education. It doesn't seem to help them not be absolute dickheads. So the logic of a highly educated elite making the decisions is just another duff argument, the fact that they would have had a scientific or engineering education makes no difference. Being a scientist doesn't imply morality or social understanding.
The "Zeitgeist" Solution
Because the Zeitgeist movement, it's affiliated films & pages seem to be reluctant to promote a political allegiance (as if that would be a bad thing) it's hard to ascertain what they stand for. But, from what I can gather the Zeitgeist movement promotes a slightly different take on technocracy whereby they don't specifically want scientific leaders they just want a scientifically regulated society. Alternatively to the technocratic approach "a scientifically regulated society" allows social science experts to be in the ruling elite. This is a little better than just scientists having control over everything. It allows for what experts refer to in Plato's "Republic" as the principle of specialisation. In this context I'm (maybe incorrectly) using it to describe how in this proposed system experts have control within their respective fields. Of course this still allows for a form of absolute control. Highly specialised absolute control but absolute control nonetheless.
Monetary Reform
This solution addresses the specific problem of the way that money is regulated in this country. I'm specifically referring to the monetary reforms as proposed by the Positive Money Campaign. Their argument is highly logical, I seriously suggest you go watch some of their video's as they are very educational. They are addressing the inability of the government to regulate the creation of money. They attempt to solve it by getting a law passed which means that bankers cannot simply create money. It's a very complex problem so it's worth looking up. Although it is a good cause it is not the end of the game. I believe the campaign is a small step towards to addressing much broader issues.
The Socialist Solution
I'm sure you've all heard of socialism. Most often socialism is referred to in connection to communism. For instance Karl Marx famously said that socialism was simply a transitional period between society as we know it. I find communism is an idealistic form of political philosophy but I disagree with it because it requires that same type of absolute control which tends to be the downfall of most political systems. Whereas socialism is a much more moderate form of the political ideals I like out of communism, but presented in a much more handleable format. Some would argue that in a socialist state having a centralised government controlling the distribution is in itself a form of absolute control. I would agree with that but at least in this model the centralised authority have a pre-arranged duty to provide for the people. But as we know in this country that isn't enough to ensure unbiased regulation.
Overall it seems the solutions I have provided are inconclusive to solving all our problems. They're either not broad enough or not ensuring of regard to the public. I think a sensible formula for our development as a society is progress in very much the same way that we've always done. & I don't mean let's continue with out capitalised "democracy"(/corporatocracy). I mean every socio-political norm is subject to the analysis of every free mind. So the health of our society is dependent on how much free thought is allowed & how much our regulators allow themselves to be questioned. Because the only way to prove that your idea is a strong one is to subject it to a great deal of analysis. I think the Socratic notion of questioning everything applies here.
Just to clarify I advocate none of the political solutions listed above in whole (except the monetary reform one).
Further reading:
Has western capitalism failed?
For those of you who don't attend my college. I've decided to share with everyone my argument for why western capitalism has failed from the debate on "Has western capitalism failed?". The version I read at the time was a somewhat condensed version of this. There was some uncertainty in what the title was, while at the time of agreeing the topic it was "Has western capitalism failed?" the title on the poster changed the end bit to "...has finished" so essentailly the oposition argued against a different point. It was still a pretty well matched debate, the opposition did nobly in the face of complete logic. We still won 12 votes to 9. Enjoy!
Has western capitalism failed? Yes, yes it
has. Capitalism as an economic system has adverse political effects which lead
to unfair leverage from people who have large amounts of money. Ideally
government would be the main deciding political ministry. But realistically the
logical extent of capitalism causes corporations to have an unnecessarily large
influence on the economy & therefore the power to dictate the market.
For instance, in the U.S.A. one of the leading capitalist
economies of the world, their politics is rife with corporate corruption. For
example Michael Taylor former Monsanto Senior Lobbyist was appointed as a
senior advisor to the FDA commissioner. Monsanto are the company responsible
for Bovine Growth Hormone which is illegal in the EU due to its potential side
effects. They are also responsible for countless other untested genetic
engineering which has caused hazards to public health. Another example of this
is Climate change skeptic senator James Inhofe who received around one million
dollars between 2005 & 2010 from major oil & gas companies.
Some of you may have come across the term military-industrial
complex in your reading which describes the suspicious number of shared current
& ex-staff members of leading weapons manufacturers & U.S. government
bodies involved in military decision making. Just to give you some perspective
on that, the U.S.A. holds ¾ of the global arms market & their military
budget this year so far has been 295 thousand million dollars.
Although monopoly is technically illegal, in certain
industries there are only a few notable companies which practically run the
game. This contradicts the ideology of a free market economy because capitalist
style acquisition of wealth naturally equates to a few extremely wealthy & economically
globally dominant organizations in each field of the market.
One of the big problems with this is that companies are
legally obliged to grow & produce profit for their shareholders. In most
cases organizations will disregard public & environmental welfare in the
area’s from which they recruit labor & harvest resources in order to meet
their profit quotas. While there is much exploitation of workers in this
country, the law is fairly effective in protecting workers. But this often
causes multinational corporations to move overseas bringing with them the
disregard for local health & the environment. Another effect of this
importation of labor & materials is that it effectively re-routs the money
flow away from our national economy causing degradation in working class wealth
& national productivity.
Which brings me to my next point; the 4 fastest growing
economies in the world are; Brazil, Russia, India & China. These are
collectively known as the BRIC countries. They are significant because it is
speculated that their economies will eventually grow to surpass the main
economies of today by 2025. It is also pertinent to note at this point that
none of these economies are based on western capitalist ideals.
An underlying relevant fact is that our much beloved western dream
of unlimited growth is simply not feasible because the resources on the planet
although vast aren’t infinite.
The 2008 recession of the western world was a result of the
government’s inability to regulate the banking system. Years of boom were
replaced with a fore sighting of many years of bust. This has meant;
·
The implementation of austerity measures as can be
seen in the recent cuts to spending.
·
High unemployment coupled with
·
A reduction in benefits
·
Leading to a cycle of poverty
One of the main causes of the recession & indeed flaws to
the capitalist system is the result of banks; Lending more & then when people spend more, people borrow more which
leads to more defaults. Then the banks panic & lend less which in effect causes the money
supply to shrink. This penultimately leads to less spending and after that a recession.
Banks have come to have a huge impact on the money supply.
Storing & lending money now has become an essential part of our financial
system. The Federal Reserve in the U.S. & the Bank of England are both
privately owned banks responsible for the printing of money in their respective
nations. Most of you will probably be surprised to hear that 3% of the money in
circulation in the U.K. is in notes & coins the other 97% is in digital
storage. I would also like to add that when a bank lends money it digitally
increases the value of that persons account.
In effect banking largely depends on lending money which the
banks may or may not have; this is known as fractional reserve banking. The
consolidation of market control that I was talking about earlier also applies
here: the 5 largest banks represent 85% of the international market & they
have 78 board members between them.
An unfair side effect of capitalist politics is that the rich
portion of the population has continued to be richer & more concentrated.
And inflation becomes more disproportionate to the increase in wages. This
means it becomes much harder to support a family in Britain.
Just to give you an idea of this in America the richest 1%
have a third of the net worth of the country & the richest 20% own 85% of
the wealth. In this country 10% of the population is more than 100 times as
wealthy as the poorest 10%.
In the 1920’s there was a big push in America to improve the
standard of living. However this influx of spending led to the great
depression. After this president F.D.Roosevelt introduced the “new deal”, which
where a series of reforms that created more jobs through the injection of money
into the economy via the government. This style of nationalized economics has
proved to be quite successful. For example in this country we have the National
Health Service that improves our standard of living vastly. The alternative,
privatization of public services for example the case of the transport system
has further restricted our freedoms in those area’s & allowed private
businesses unnecessary control in things which are part of the public domain.
In America the ideal of a
capitalist system has been branded an essential element of national identity.
This was evident in the cold war, when political propagandists cast communism
as seemingly satanic politics (which was true for Russia in some respects). But
more to the point it has glorified capitalism as the best & most moral
style of living which as I said earlier is not the case. This type of political
supremacy results in further international division, which at the end of the day
is an illusion because of course we are all human. None of us should be considered
greater than anyone else. Inequality continues to be furthered in the name of
capitalist economics.
Sunday, 13 May 2012
Ideas #1
As this is the first post on my blog I guess I'd better start with something formal like: "Hello, welcome to my amazing blog on which you will find lot's of brilliant ideas concocted by myself". Of course this would be intensely sarcastic of me because I don't really care about formalities like this.
My inspiration to start this blog came from many late nights of research & idea creating. I sort of see myself as an amateur philosopher, if that doesn't sound too pretentious, & I often find myself with a whole heap of ideas playing on my mind which I just have to share. I think my facebook friends are starting to get a bit sick of my ramblings (although no doubt I will link to my posts via my facebook) so a blog is a good place for them. I do have a slight prejudice towards bloggers (admittedly this now includes me) I've always seen them as slightly self obsessed, egotistical & really someone who hasn't got enough friends to talk to so they open a media channel in order to supplement their loneliness.
But enough about the blog more about ideas!
Earlier I was researching into the current worldwide economic crisis we're experiencing. This is a fruitful research task as the internet is rife with sources & documentaries (allot of documentaries) which are gagging to give you their version of "the truth". I've been aware of what's going on since I was actually quite little as a result of many conversations with stoned hippies around camp-fires at festivals. What I've come to realise is that there are a couple of different ways of telling people what's going down. Admittedly allot of the crucial dynamics involved occur behind closed doors in the privacy of politicians & lobbyists quarters which leads to a certain level of uncertainty which in turn leads to its own level of interpretation. Most often what you'll hear from the average spiritual fadist, tend to run along the lines of the Illuminati story:
The Illuminati Story
This is the main caustic social agent which journalists attempting to discredit the fear of our current governmental system will latch on to. It describes the political system of the world quite literally as an empire run by an (often of extra-terrestrial reptilian descent) ruling elite. Who have been quietly pulling the strings of governments around the world & orchestrating just about every bad thing that has happened. Sources vary from suggesting they've been in power since the formation of the original Bavarian group formed in the late 1700s to a new group of superpowers who have arisen in the past century. Either way a fair few supporters of this theory claim that the group performs satanic rituals to bring about the anti-christ.
I think that while people in this category have many valid points, they tend to mix the valid ones with too many unprovable and frankly fantastical claims for anyone to take them seriously. This could prove detrimental to ever clearly showing people en-mass the political injustice that's occurring. Some might even argue that this sort of conspiracy theory has been vindictively concocted by the very people that it's about, in order drive away the attention from what's really going on, but then again that's blatantly just a conspiracy theory.
Really I think that we can safely discredit most of the ridiculous claims suggested by the Illuminati theorists. If you are reading this & have just found the information I just divulged compelling please allow me to refer you too the works of David Icke (Author of Children of the Matrix), Michael Tsarion (The Origins & Oracles DVD series) & of course the well respected author Mai Bum-Whol (Author of History of Ancient Stuff & how it's Mystically Linked to an Alien Supremecy).
I would like to point out at this point that I do not disbelieve some of the claims made by David Icke (mainly) & Michael Tsarion (not so much - more of a bullshitmongery for money kind of guy). In some of Divid Icke's material he mentions an elite family of financial businessmen. Although I am critical of the format in which it's presented. The modern stigma around conspiracy culture is detrimental to it's ability to be believable. The idea of there being an elite family of actually blood (or marriage) related oligarchs while may or may not be true is hard to believe. Although I would argue that often members of the UK parliament and the American white-house have been related to high up bankers, oil tycoons and other politicians. But I believe it is necessary from a journalistic perspective to dispel the image that it's a matter of "us and them" because at the end of the day that will only further the current public unrest, and we'll only end up with more people writing "class war" at every political demonstration we go to.
From my personal perspective it is clear that there is a "revolving door" provably between members of the U.S. defence department and multi-national weapons manufacturers. Similarly the U.S. Department of health is rife with ex-employees of companies such as Monsanto. In the U.K. both Nick Clegg & David Cameron have high ranking relations in the financial sector. So it's clear to me that at least two of the worlds political & economical superpowers are highly susceptible to corporate interest. For those of you who aren't aware the realistic implications of what this means; It means a move in policies away from public interest and away from services such as healthcare and education and a re-alignment of the governments interests to meet the needs of large companies who do not care for the welfare of the common people. Looks pretty grim.
But not to worry in my following posts I will be outlining and comparing some of the proposed solutions to our current socio-political crisis.
Bibliography coming when I can be bothered.
My inspiration to start this blog came from many late nights of research & idea creating. I sort of see myself as an amateur philosopher, if that doesn't sound too pretentious, & I often find myself with a whole heap of ideas playing on my mind which I just have to share. I think my facebook friends are starting to get a bit sick of my ramblings (although no doubt I will link to my posts via my facebook) so a blog is a good place for them. I do have a slight prejudice towards bloggers (admittedly this now includes me) I've always seen them as slightly self obsessed, egotistical & really someone who hasn't got enough friends to talk to so they open a media channel in order to supplement their loneliness.
But enough about the blog more about ideas!
Earlier I was researching into the current worldwide economic crisis we're experiencing. This is a fruitful research task as the internet is rife with sources & documentaries (allot of documentaries) which are gagging to give you their version of "the truth". I've been aware of what's going on since I was actually quite little as a result of many conversations with stoned hippies around camp-fires at festivals. What I've come to realise is that there are a couple of different ways of telling people what's going down. Admittedly allot of the crucial dynamics involved occur behind closed doors in the privacy of politicians & lobbyists quarters which leads to a certain level of uncertainty which in turn leads to its own level of interpretation. Most often what you'll hear from the average spiritual fadist, tend to run along the lines of the Illuminati story:
The Illuminati Story
This is the main caustic social agent which journalists attempting to discredit the fear of our current governmental system will latch on to. It describes the political system of the world quite literally as an empire run by an (often of extra-terrestrial reptilian descent) ruling elite. Who have been quietly pulling the strings of governments around the world & orchestrating just about every bad thing that has happened. Sources vary from suggesting they've been in power since the formation of the original Bavarian group formed in the late 1700s to a new group of superpowers who have arisen in the past century. Either way a fair few supporters of this theory claim that the group performs satanic rituals to bring about the anti-christ.
I think that while people in this category have many valid points, they tend to mix the valid ones with too many unprovable and frankly fantastical claims for anyone to take them seriously. This could prove detrimental to ever clearly showing people en-mass the political injustice that's occurring. Some might even argue that this sort of conspiracy theory has been vindictively concocted by the very people that it's about, in order drive away the attention from what's really going on, but then again that's blatantly just a conspiracy theory.
Really I think that we can safely discredit most of the ridiculous claims suggested by the Illuminati theorists. If you are reading this & have just found the information I just divulged compelling please allow me to refer you too the works of David Icke (Author of Children of the Matrix), Michael Tsarion (The Origins & Oracles DVD series) & of course the well respected author Mai Bum-Whol (Author of History of Ancient Stuff & how it's Mystically Linked to an Alien Supremecy).
I would like to point out at this point that I do not disbelieve some of the claims made by David Icke (mainly) & Michael Tsarion (not so much - more of a bullshitmongery for money kind of guy). In some of Divid Icke's material he mentions an elite family of financial businessmen. Although I am critical of the format in which it's presented. The modern stigma around conspiracy culture is detrimental to it's ability to be believable. The idea of there being an elite family of actually blood (or marriage) related oligarchs while may or may not be true is hard to believe. Although I would argue that often members of the UK parliament and the American white-house have been related to high up bankers, oil tycoons and other politicians. But I believe it is necessary from a journalistic perspective to dispel the image that it's a matter of "us and them" because at the end of the day that will only further the current public unrest, and we'll only end up with more people writing "class war" at every political demonstration we go to.
From my personal perspective it is clear that there is a "revolving door" provably between members of the U.S. defence department and multi-national weapons manufacturers. Similarly the U.S. Department of health is rife with ex-employees of companies such as Monsanto. In the U.K. both Nick Clegg & David Cameron have high ranking relations in the financial sector. So it's clear to me that at least two of the worlds political & economical superpowers are highly susceptible to corporate interest. For those of you who aren't aware the realistic implications of what this means; It means a move in policies away from public interest and away from services such as healthcare and education and a re-alignment of the governments interests to meet the needs of large companies who do not care for the welfare of the common people. Looks pretty grim.
But not to worry in my following posts I will be outlining and comparing some of the proposed solutions to our current socio-political crisis.
Bibliography coming when I can be bothered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)