XPost: alt.politics.socialism

Some details of what seems to be developing weapons capabilities of the
ruling class, particularly in the area of influencing civilians and
populations by means of physical bodily interference:

https://www.globalresearch.ca/brain-battlefield-future/5822326

DARPA Neurologist and Chief of the Neuroethics Studies Program at
Georgetown University, Washington DC, Dr. James Giordano, who is
also a weapons expert, started his presentation at West Point NY
Military Academy by saying, “The brain is and will be the 21st
Century battlefield. End of story.”

End quote.

What does not seem to be clearly understood, is that it is not in a
narrow sense the security and secret agencies of the Government doing
this on their own initiative, but rather these are the consequences of limitless and effectively unstoppable centralization of wealth in an
economic system where everything is traded, including the land itself, companies and wealth of any size are allowed, etc. This build up of
wealth in an increasingly immoral and criminal group of people, is the
force behind these developments, and why they are so difficult to stop.

The will within the population to buy cheap and enjoy maximum effect of
their money, is a strong force. The effect that someone owning a lot of
land will have a greater capability to buy even more land than someone
who has less land, is also a strong force. The same is true for other
forms of wealth.

While there is an effect of poor people being motivated to work (more)
and gain wealth, which is also a great force in the population, this
effect is reduced by the markets in land causing the landless to offer themselves as servants to the rich in order to reduce their poverty. By
this method, they will make the rich even more rich, while others who
are not hired may end up in a hopeless situation. They have no access to
free land, from which to build themselves up, enrich the markets with
their offerings, and thus reduce the control of the rich, returning
balance and fairness to society. The markets in land ruin this effect
for balance, even turn it into another strong force by which the rich
get richer.

The super rich are not moral people. If you are a moral person, you want
to do good in the world. For an immoral person "to do good" even doesn't
mean good in a moral sense, it means "good" for themselves, it means
bigger houses, more cars and more servants, a more luxurious life, more
power, etc. If you where rich and moral, you would use your money to do
good in the world, and thus it is unlikely you could become extremely
wealthy.

Even if some moral persons are wealthy or even super rich, they won't
use their money to bribe Governments and act immorally to gain even more
power and wealth. It is simply unnecessary for a human being to own as
much wealth as the Government year budget of a city of 100 000 persons.
A human has only one stomach, two hands and one ass. How many chairs do
you need ? How many chairs could you possibly want ?

This is where it all falls down: the population and even these people
who seem to care, they seem unable to figure it out, despite the
simplicity of the problem. If you set up an economy like this, some
people are going to take advantage of the possibilities you have offered
them. Indeed, if they don't, someone else will. The population causes
all this themselves, due to their careless and also immoral creation of
an economy which does not properly function.

Here we see the immorality of the common person. The common person
should have cared that a young man has no way to start his life, but
through servitude to the rich. They don't even think twice about it, but
it is already a violation of the young man's life. The common man may
know about poor people, but lacks the empathy to realize these people
need something more serious than a hand out: they need land. The common
man is himself so greedy and careless, that if he sees the luxury of the
super rich, many of them may covet being like them, rather than be
properly enraged about the immoral and greed obsessed behavior of the
super rich.

This is how the population is paying for their own immorality, their own stupidity: a class of super rich will emerge, who are increasingly
primitive in their morality (a nice way of saying: "monsters" at war with humanity). The population will then have to suffer the Tyranny they
created themselves.

A parliament is perhaps 150 persons, a royal family is perhaps 20
persons, the Judges on the highest rung of the Judiciary might be
thousands of people. This is not much power or influence compared to the
tide of the centralization of power in the entire economy, while at the
same time these people are also affected by the same problems given for
the common man, such as not understanding how economics should function,
not caring enough, wanting to be rich themselves, etc.

Once you get a number of super rich individuals who are interested in
expanding their Empires beyond ordinary economic operations, and who
have already been dealing with the Government and therefore trying to
influence it, there is an endless amount of ways they can use their
money to do it. The largest business Empires may wield more money and power eventually than entire Provincial Governments. These Empires are
naturally coming into contact and conflict with Governments of all
kinds. The Governments can easily make laws and policies which threaten
such Empires, or make them even more rich and powerful. There is a
strong influence on the part of the super rich, to take control over the Government. This is not a difficult job, because people want money, and
they have an enormous amount of it, created by the ordinary people
themselves who work for them, buy their products, and allow these
companies to own the land, the factories and in some cases even the
power to print money (!!!).

People need to get out of their simple minded thinking. A super rich
clique of evil people can do a lot more than merely bribe a Judge, or
buy an advertisement in a newspaper. That's what a child thinks. Grow up please. If you have a massive amount of money, you don't just bribe the
judge, you initiate political parties and see to what degree you could influence the writing of the law. Another giga rich buddy in the same
class might be buying the newspaper, or create a new newspaper. These operations themselves could even generate more revenue: party members
pay dues, newspapers get sold in the street. In the end it doesn't
have to cost money, if you do it well enough you could be earning more
still. How about pretending your private profits are a charity, and you
pay for people their academic careers whose corrupt thinking you like,
and fill the book stores and the learning with ideas suitable for the
expansion of your Empire.

It's not like you have to complete all this in a day. These people work
at it for centuries, and all the time the aforementioned effects of the centralization of wealth in a failed economic system help them get where
they want to be. It covers for their mistakes, replenishes them and sets
them back up to try again. Even if a few fail, others rise up. The class
of the super rich is a cancer tumor in the economy, which is created out
of the failed model itself. This is why they keep winning. Not so much
because they are better, but because they constantly have the wind in
their sails. The failed economic system is that wind in their sails, and
that failed economic system is caused by the ignorance and immorality of
the common man. The economic disease which are the super rich, then
become a punishment for the common man, a punishment for his ignorance
and carelessness.

In this article you see it again: the person writing it was formerly
part of the United Nations, and seems to have believed in it. How can
anyone believe the United Nations is set up for peace ? You already fell
for USA war propaganda if you believe that. You already work with a
reduced set of facts about World War 2, by ignoring the American
Plutocracy was financing Hitler, and by ignoring previous attempts by
the American Plutocracy (or whatever) to create an explicit global
Government system (wasn't it called League of Nations?). Apparently the
believe that the second world war was America's good war. Of course it
wasn't. The Americans wiped out the native Indians in genocidal fashion,
they reached the end of the land, and now they wanted the world. Why is
the United Nations located in New York, what self respecting Nation can
accept that ? Conquered Nations accept that, because they are conquered
and have no more choice. See also United Nations declaration of human
rights, article 29 section 3, which was a product made not long after
the second world war.

Precisely like I said they would and are doing: they are consistently pretending the United Nations is the good guys. They have some army kill
a lot of people, and then the United Nations is going to pitch tents for
the survivors to look good. They pump out non stop positive propaganda
about the United Nations, because they are targeting the minds of the
children and the minds of the ignorant, the minds of the fools. Constant association: UN flag, help mission, UN flag, distributing rice, UN flag
"peace mission", UN flag "demand for humanitarian reprieve" and on and
on it never stops ... until they have the United Nations entrenched as
the global super state, with direct power over individuals in the entire
world (!). Notice how the human rights declaration of the UN already
sets it up that way: direct control over the individual. Not just
Governments is a sort of con-federation or even federation. A State with
the full power over the individual, over the entire world. National
Governments will become local Governments, subservient to and
controlled by the core. Who is in control of that core ? You guessed it:
the wicked super rich, who rise up thanks to a failed economic system.

You get a sentence like this in the article, which was otherwise
interesting and undoubtedly heart felt:

"The UN sell-out to a corrupt elite"

End quote. This is what was mentioned before also: the U.N. is hiring
good people for now, ahead of a purge, so that they can actually pretend
to be good. The U.N. didn't sell out to a corrupt elite, they are
completely the product of a corrupt elite, but they use good people at
the start of the project to sell the poison of global control to the
common street fool.

Even the sentence itself says a lot about the danger of the UN. Why
don't people use their heads ? Can you see what is so wrong, just from
the sentence itself ? Try it, treat it like a riddle.

The way I at least see it: the U.N. as a global forum for Governments,
should have been nothing more than a debating platform. If this is about
peace, perhaps Governments could get together for a chat, rather than go
to war on each other. I guess there is something to say for that. If it
was just that, there would not be a "U.N." that is its own entity. It
cannot "sell out" to anything, because it really doesn't exist. Without
the National Governments around the world participating, or those who participate, being present "it" cannot do a thing, it is nothing more
than an empty table and some dishes, coffee cups and a floor to clean.
It cannot sell out, it cannot do anything, it does not exist. If it sold
out to a "corrupt elite", then that would mean little more than that
cheap labor was used to clean the floor at the meeting hall, and coffee
was poured made by abused labor, and garbage was ditched illegally in
the woods to safe costs. This is of course not what this is about.

The United Nations is being grown larger and larger, like a cancer
tumor, to become the global State. Since it is global, it cannot be
democratic, because it is far too large for the vote of people to have
an impact. This is also something completely neglected by most people:
the size problem. The second even more fundamental problem is that a
United Nations over all Governments and all humanity, is absolute and totalitarian. There is nothing outside of it. Power centers always want uniformity below them, because that makes things predictable, which
makes things governable. You are looking at a monstrous global
monoculture, under the control by the super rich. It will become a
global Tyranny, and it will also wage wars if the super rich feel that
they need a war to maintain control - which is likely going to be a
constant. Constant war, to keep the peace.

The only point you could get an end to military war in it's current
form, is if they are able to maintain control over individuals to such an extend, that they don't need such larger scale spectacles anymore. You are
then talking about a casual control over life and death at the push of a button, or even fully automated (more likely), a precision strike against individuals and networks of people who form a danger t otheir power. It
would be a war of repression, also with many deaths and injured people, imprisonment and torture, and less large scale destruction.

This is the price you are paying for ignorance about economics, and the cowardice to not get things done the way they need to be done.
Governments are essentially powerless against a tide this great. The Governments are swepped away by the force of the wave of money directed
against them in a nefarious way, and all the many ways that money will
be deployed to get its way. Even if they fight it, they will almost
certainly loose. Basically the only way the Governments can win this
struggle against the immoral super rich, is to initiate a program like I
am proposing, or indeed an economy such as described in the Torah. You
have to disrtibute the land to all for free, and only allow rent and
swap markets. You also probably want to outlaw extremely large
businesses and wealth build up directly.

It is literally an individual act of slavery, which escalates over time
to become a monstrous global Tyranny. It is to deny that one young man
his chance in life which is his free land, and that makes that young
man a servant from the start, a slave rather than a man. Roaming
wildlife upon someone else's land. This immoral act, this act of
disregard of the needs of one person, is going to potentially forever
enslave the world to a clique of wicked super rich people who are
absolutely vicious to the bitter end, who will rejoyce if they can
murder you slowly and see you suffer and die, who will high five each
other if they can cause and see small children ruined by a slow and
deadly disease, celebrating the despair of the parents. This is the kind
of people you are dealing with, this is the kind of people who have been brought to power thanks to the vices of the common man: his ignorance
and carelessness.

What needs to be done is clear, but if it isn't, I prepared a program
which is quite detailed and which has a good tensile strength (so to
say): market.socialism.nl It is an actionable plan, both an architecture
and an implementation plan. It is not a plan written from the God
perspective, or assuming things will just magically happen because
someone wrote it should. This is an action plan like a manual for the
action oriented person, about how to organize for different aspects of
what needs to be done, what different things can and should be achieved,
why and how, all keeping in mind a relentless counter pressure from both ignorant and evil people, as well as some good people who just disagree
I suppose. It is not a simplistic plan. It is written with internal
corruption in mind as the main problem.

P.S.

In searching for a contrast with Communism, I came upon this

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists

In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as
a whole?

The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other
working-class parties.

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the
proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
to shape and mould the proletarian movement.

The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties
by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians
of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front
the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of
all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the
struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass
through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the
movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^...
most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties
of every country, that section which pushes forward all others;
on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass
of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding
... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
of the proletarian movement.

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other
proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
by the proletariat.

The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
by this or that would-be universal reformer.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing
from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going
on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations
is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.

All property relations in the past have continually been subject to
historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.

The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in
favour of bourgeois property.

The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of
property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But
modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete
expression of the system of producing and appropriating products,
that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many
by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the
single sentence: Abolition of private property.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

End quote.

Wow, what a contradictory and intellectually lazy mess. This Communist
program is quite different that what is proposed on market.socialism.nl

First the contradictions in the Communist Manifesto above: the author apparently wants to cut off anyone from making arguments and having
debates about how an economy and society should function, but then
pushes himself forward as this universal-reformer with the idea that
the Communists should fight for the 'Abolition of private [bourgeois] property'. There can be no "universal-reformer", except the authors of
this 'Manifesto'. They are the 'universal reformer', and everyone else
should just shut up. Indeed, this was the result: a Tyranny. People
where forcefully shut up, once this thing gained power.

It is also a lazy intellectual approach, because it just cuts down all
debate. Apparently they are afraid of debate, they don't want people
thinking. Thinking people are harder to rule. 'Abolition of private
property' is a general sense, even though just above they say it should
not be in a general sense, if you combine that with 'conquest of power',
it becomes a political platform to usurp all power in the one group of
the Communists. Not just the Government power, but by abolishing
bourgeois power and ownership without being allowed to even think about
what to do with it, you then end up with that power in your hands, which
is of course exactly what happened.

Notice the absence of reasoning. These things are just pontificated.
Even if there was reasoning, could it be a well rounded argument for the
things being proposed here ? Why can an idea which is discovered not
give guidance ? It is a singular march for totalitarian power, by a
group not allowed to think.

Funny how extremely opposite this is from the program proposed on market.socialism.nl The plot thickens when you discover there may have
been ruling class super rich interests who financed the Communists.
There is no such financing behind market.socialism.nl - it's merely me,
one person, with a keyboard and a low income, with time to do something
due to constant pain.

This is what I mean with that the plan here proposed is not simple or
one dimensional, and not the kind of plan we are used to seeing from the
usual political ideologies. It isn't one domensional but actually 9
dimonsions of implementation are proposed, and the result is a series of increasingly detailed Constitutions which can in whole or part be
ratified. It is it's own thing, it is hard to summarize without starting
to go over the details and aspects of it one by one. By the time I'm
done with that, I have rewritten the book (which is a free download).

I wish people like globalresearch wanted to take it serious so we could
do something against the Plutocracy which has a chance of succeeding in
the long term, but so far there seems to be zero interest on Earth from
anyone whatsoever. Well, that was as expected. Good luck with your World
War 3 and global Tyranny, maybe when the world has been punished by its
own crimes are they more interested in getting serious with peace and
justice. The enemy will then come out with their own peace proposal,
probably, but it will be the same people who now made the war, and with
the same goal: global Tyranny.

The program I propose seems to be relatively complex, which is caused by humanity neglecting to learn what they should already have learned over
the last thousands of years. If you look into how humans fight wars, you
will also find a complex operation involving hundreds of thousands of
people. Humans invested a lot in killing each other, and by now it
became quite a complicated large scale thing, which is constantly
escalating. The book I propose has a lot of things which should already
have been learned, but have not been, while at the same time society is
more and more large scale, which also makes it more complex to legislate
and constitute.

For an isolated village with 300 persons in the middle of nowhere you
don't need to issue your own currency or legislate extensively around
it's Governments, while things like land distribution, basic elections
and common solidarity could already have been practiced and perfected.
When society became more populated, humanity could have learned how to
deal with that step by step. Now there is so much which is a failure,
that to correct all that to what it should be has become significantly
harder. This drives up the complexity of the proposal (directly for
a large scale society), and the difficulty in achieving it (lack of
lessons learned by humanity). If you ask the question "what gives", like
if it gets more difficult, then where is this accounted for during an implementation, where do you see that come out and how to fix it:
probably in time. The time to implementation will be longer, it will go
slower. I thought that implementation over the duration of 3 centuries
would probably be fairly realistic.

The plan here is also not like a balet, where you just assign wills and
wants to the characters. The plan is not of the class "You people X will
just work out of the goodness of your hearts and ...". That kind of
ignorant plan this is certainly not. Humans are assumed to be what they
are, which is greedy on the whole, and not so well behaved, with a few
good and few bad people mixed in. In this regard it is good to realize
that Capitalism as it is now, is a Utopian system which for its
stability requires people to be exceptionally moral and charitable.
Anything less and we get the mess we are in now, which will get worse.
This is exactly the opposite of what the Capitalists usually claim, but
they seem to be confusing a trade economy as such, with Capitalism in
practice (trade in everything, including land).

Etc etc etc. Funny but expected how a world on the brink of global nuclear
war, still doesn't care for a serious debate or reasonable political
proposal. It's not like they have anything worthwhile otherwise, right ?
No, it is the usual simple minded politics, a demonstration here,
a brief and directed complaint there, and that's it. A few people manage
to set up an organization, which is a big accomplishment, but typically
the goals are not fundamental enough to correct the entire situation for
the long term. It may seem strange, but if you complain about the NSA
spying, but you don't complain about landlessness, you are contradicting yourself. You are angry at a wave in the sea being too high above the
pier, but ignoring the tide below which drives up the entire sea.
--
Economic & political ideology, worked out into Constitutional models,
with a multi-facetted implementation plan. http://market.socialism.nl

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)