Aaron LeClair
Paranormal Maven
Can I be VP? (Vengeful Prick)
-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, 11 years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Oct 26th show
- Thread starter Ally
- Start date
Free episodes:
Can I be VP? (Vengeful Prick)
Rocketsauce
Haagen-Dazs Addict
Gottcha, get where your coming from. I do agree the western world has spent outside it's means, but I also think those other countries would do it if they could, I think it's human nature.
Also, about the Nazis - "Sales campaign or not, it was convincing and attractive to the German people. Especially after the collapse...."
Indeed that couldn't be more true unfortunately
brougham86
Paranormal Novice
please please please do tell about R.U. Sirius.
Admittedly, this may provide more evidence for the supposition that quantum mechanics either drives one to give up to preserve ones sanity, or conversely, leads others to question ones sanity upon grasping it.
But both this thread and the show that generated it (both of which I enjoyed) led me to a remembrance of this classic...
Wikimedia Error
(Yes, this is the level of compliment you receive from an engineer who enjoys Kipling)....
But both this thread and the show that generated it (both of which I enjoyed) led me to a remembrance of this classic...
Wikimedia Error
(Yes, this is the level of compliment you receive from an engineer who enjoys Kipling)....
Drew UK
.
DON'T RELY ON THE STATE :
I would have moved on to the acceleration of poverty which is unfolding on our doorstep and the implications as we face it in the contemporary society.
But first, I think I need to point out something else - Given the short period in history, whereby the state has always held a cushion out for difficulties in affordable times - I think many people, have become to rely on it too much, and once again put themselves in a comfort zone that they prefer to hide away in, but for those that are concerned and given the current situation we need to ask how will the system cope - more precisely, if it cannot cope what will the affects of breakdown be and how fragile is our current system? Ultimately, what do I mean by system, state and government?
If you ever want to learn about modern politics, I would recommend that you read the following - I believe it contains the fundamental basics that we can take to understanding what will be going on in the near future and it is one that I will be referring to - although not directly - as we go further into this topic.
Niccolo Macchiavelli -
At the beginning of the world the inhabitants were few, and lived for a time dispersed and like beasts: later as the generations multiplied they gathered together, and in order to defend themselves they began to seek among themselves the one who was most robust and of greater courage, and made him there head and obeyed him. From this there arose the knowledge of honest and good things; differentiating them from the pernicious and evil; for seeing one man harm his benefactor there arose hate and compassion between men, censuring the ingrates and honoring those who were grateful, and believing also that these same injuries could be done to them, to avoid like evils they were led to make laws, and institute punishments for those who should contravene them; whence came the cognition of justice. Which thing later caused them to select a Prince, not seeking the most stalwart but he who was more prudent and more just.
But afterwards when they began to make the Prince by sucession and not by election, the heirs quickly degenerated from their fathers, and leaving off from works of virtu they believed that Princes should have nothing else to do than surpass others in sumptousness and lasciviousness and in every other kind of delight.
So that the prince began to be hated, and because of this hate he began to fear, and passing therefore from fear to injury, a tyranny quickly arose.
From this there arose the beginnings of the ruin and conspiracies; and these conspiracies against the prince were not made by weak and timid men, but by those who because of their generosity, greatness of spirit, riches and nobility above the others, could not endure the dishonest life of a prince.
The multitude therefore following the authority of these powerful ones armed itself against the Prince, and having destroyed them obeyed them as their liberators. And those holding the name of cheif in hatred, constituted a government by themselves, and in the beginning [having in mind the past tyranny] governed themselves according to the laws instituted by them, preferring every common usefulness to their conveniences, and governed and preserved private and public affairs with the greatest diligence.
This administration was later handed down to their children, who not knowing changeability or fortune [for] never have experiencing bad [fortune], and not remaining content with civil equality, they turned to avarice, ambition, violation of woman, caused that aristocratic government [of the best] to become an oligarchic government [of the few] regardless of all civil rights; so that in a short time the same thing happened to them as it did to the tyrant, for the multitude disgusted with there government; placed themselves under orders of whoever would attack those Governers, and thus those arose some one who, with the aid of the multitude, destroyed them.
And the memory of the Prince and the injuries received from him being yet fresh [and] having destroyed the oligarchic state [of the few], and not wanting to restore that of prince, the [people] turned to a popular state [DEMOCRACY] and they organized that in such a way, that neither the powerful few nor a prince should have authority.
I am going to do a Gene Steinberg now, and take a break.
I would have moved on to the acceleration of poverty which is unfolding on our doorstep and the implications as we face it in the contemporary society.
But first, I think I need to point out something else - Given the short period in history, whereby the state has always held a cushion out for difficulties in affordable times - I think many people, have become to rely on it too much, and once again put themselves in a comfort zone that they prefer to hide away in, but for those that are concerned and given the current situation we need to ask how will the system cope - more precisely, if it cannot cope what will the affects of breakdown be and how fragile is our current system? Ultimately, what do I mean by system, state and government?
If you ever want to learn about modern politics, I would recommend that you read the following - I believe it contains the fundamental basics that we can take to understanding what will be going on in the near future and it is one that I will be referring to - although not directly - as we go further into this topic.
Niccolo Macchiavelli -
At the beginning of the world the inhabitants were few, and lived for a time dispersed and like beasts: later as the generations multiplied they gathered together, and in order to defend themselves they began to seek among themselves the one who was most robust and of greater courage, and made him there head and obeyed him. From this there arose the knowledge of honest and good things; differentiating them from the pernicious and evil; for seeing one man harm his benefactor there arose hate and compassion between men, censuring the ingrates and honoring those who were grateful, and believing also that these same injuries could be done to them, to avoid like evils they were led to make laws, and institute punishments for those who should contravene them; whence came the cognition of justice. Which thing later caused them to select a Prince, not seeking the most stalwart but he who was more prudent and more just.
But afterwards when they began to make the Prince by sucession and not by election, the heirs quickly degenerated from their fathers, and leaving off from works of virtu they believed that Princes should have nothing else to do than surpass others in sumptousness and lasciviousness and in every other kind of delight.
So that the prince began to be hated, and because of this hate he began to fear, and passing therefore from fear to injury, a tyranny quickly arose.
From this there arose the beginnings of the ruin and conspiracies; and these conspiracies against the prince were not made by weak and timid men, but by those who because of their generosity, greatness of spirit, riches and nobility above the others, could not endure the dishonest life of a prince.
The multitude therefore following the authority of these powerful ones armed itself against the Prince, and having destroyed them obeyed them as their liberators. And those holding the name of cheif in hatred, constituted a government by themselves, and in the beginning [having in mind the past tyranny] governed themselves according to the laws instituted by them, preferring every common usefulness to their conveniences, and governed and preserved private and public affairs with the greatest diligence.
This administration was later handed down to their children, who not knowing changeability or fortune [for] never have experiencing bad [fortune], and not remaining content with civil equality, they turned to avarice, ambition, violation of woman, caused that aristocratic government [of the best] to become an oligarchic government [of the few] regardless of all civil rights; so that in a short time the same thing happened to them as it did to the tyrant, for the multitude disgusted with there government; placed themselves under orders of whoever would attack those Governers, and thus those arose some one who, with the aid of the multitude, destroyed them.
And the memory of the Prince and the injuries received from him being yet fresh [and] having destroyed the oligarchic state [of the few], and not wanting to restore that of prince, the [people] turned to a popular state [DEMOCRACY] and they organized that in such a way, that neither the powerful few nor a prince should have authority.
I am going to do a Gene Steinberg now, and take a break.
Drew UK
.
Continuing.........
And the memory of the Prince and the injuries received from him being yet fresh [and] having destroyed the oligarchic state [of the few], and not wanting to restore that of prince, the [people] turned to a popular state [DEMOCRACY] and they organized that in such a way, that neither the powerful few nor a prince should have authority.
And because all states in the beginning receive some reverence, this popular (democratic) state maintained itself for a short time, but not for long, especially when that generation that had organized had extinguished, for they quickly came to that license where neither private men or public men were feared: this was such that every one living in his own way, a thousand injuries were inflicted every day: so that constrained by necessity either through the suggestion of some good man, or to escape from such license, they once again turn to a principality; and from this step by step they return to that license both in the manner and for the causes mentioned previously.
And this is the circle in which all the republics are governed and will be eventually be governed; but rarely do they return to the same [original] governments: for almost no Republic can have so long a life as to be able often to pass through these changes and remain on its feet.
But it may happen that in the troubles besetting a Republic always lacking counsel and strength, it will become subject to a neighbouring state which may be better organized than itself: but assuming this does not happen, a republic would be apt to revolve indefintely among these governments.
Henceforth, in the UK - we maintain a monarch, and also revolve around a democratic government and maintain an aristocratic house of lords.
I think in the US - you have an executive, senate and house of representatives.
All keeping each other in check. <-- THIS IS THE IMPORTANT BIT
The problem will be, as in the UK that one form develops a hegemony on the rest. I think we made a gross error in our recent parliament act - which concentrated all the power in the "democratic" - house of commons. Here lies the problem - that true power now resides in the house of commons/prime minister (democracy), rendering all other establishments useless - this will be fatal to the prosperity of state - and it allows the people of this state to rebel, and I dare to add - rightly so.
The nature of this rebellion is what I originally tried to get on to.
And the memory of the Prince and the injuries received from him being yet fresh [and] having destroyed the oligarchic state [of the few], and not wanting to restore that of prince, the [people] turned to a popular state [DEMOCRACY] and they organized that in such a way, that neither the powerful few nor a prince should have authority.
And because all states in the beginning receive some reverence, this popular (democratic) state maintained itself for a short time, but not for long, especially when that generation that had organized had extinguished, for they quickly came to that license where neither private men or public men were feared: this was such that every one living in his own way, a thousand injuries were inflicted every day: so that constrained by necessity either through the suggestion of some good man, or to escape from such license, they once again turn to a principality; and from this step by step they return to that license both in the manner and for the causes mentioned previously.
And this is the circle in which all the republics are governed and will be eventually be governed; but rarely do they return to the same [original] governments: for almost no Republic can have so long a life as to be able often to pass through these changes and remain on its feet.
But it may happen that in the troubles besetting a Republic always lacking counsel and strength, it will become subject to a neighbouring state which may be better organized than itself: but assuming this does not happen, a republic would be apt to revolve indefintely among these governments.
Henceforth, in the UK - we maintain a monarch, and also revolve around a democratic government and maintain an aristocratic house of lords.
I think in the US - you have an executive, senate and house of representatives.
All keeping each other in check. <-- THIS IS THE IMPORTANT BIT
The problem will be, as in the UK that one form develops a hegemony on the rest. I think we made a gross error in our recent parliament act - which concentrated all the power in the "democratic" - house of commons. Here lies the problem - that true power now resides in the house of commons/prime minister (democracy), rendering all other establishments useless - this will be fatal to the prosperity of state - and it allows the people of this state to rebel, and I dare to add - rightly so.
The nature of this rebellion is what I originally tried to get on to.
Mothra
Oh, I see what you did there
Drew UK
.
If as many economists are predicting - that the current situation will be financially equivalent of magnitude and depth as the 1930's.
I am predicting, since academics always err towards optimism that the situation will be politically and financially even deeper than the 1930's - and it is no surprise that the westernized economies and governments are busting there guts out to patch it up.
- If they borrow - they need to tax more or put it on finance - so they reduce debt by increasing other debt so all they do is default on payment to a later date - which makes the next visit even more painful, and transfers power to those that lend it - i.e. China.
- If they cut interest rates - they increase the inflationary burden and devalue the currency.
- If they print more money - they increase the inflationary burden and devalue the currency.
In the 1930's this elastic expansion (Actual Wealth/Debt) of our economies was quite modest by todays standards and the elastic relaxed to its original state and the political institution recovered.
In Germany this elastic expansion was more elongated since the Debt raion was exacerbated by repayments from the "Great War" under the treaty of versailles and its actual wealth was reduced since it no longer had a </ST1
</ST1functioning defence structure (Army).In Russia in 1916/7 the elastic expansion again was stretched too far mainly by ineffiecient Tsarist Nicholas II leadership so that (Actual Wealth/Debt) of the people and society could not cope.
The outcome is that the elastic snapped and the state could not reform - resulting in change of state - as I previously examined in my previous post.
This was Democracy to more Authoritarian rule via the Anarchic rebellion and riots.
We need to ask, one impotant question, and maybe you need to be crazy to even contemplate it - Will our economies and state survive this one given the actual wealth vs debt ratio is nothing by comparison to the 1930's.
The financial analysis of this is now deeper than previously thought -
But, worse politically the nature of government and people during the 1930's would have been more adequate in dealing with this than now.
Today we have institutions where all decisions are made without any serious consideration, power less dispersed and in the hands of inexperience and corruption - and is less popular with the people since records began.
Then you have the people, which have lost the majority of principles regarding respect, common loyality, society and altruistic community to greed, selfishness and immaturity.
Do you think they are going to stand in mile long queues for 8 hours to recieve there pittance of a benefit like our grandfathers?
And, just when you thought it could not get any worse - what will happen to racial/cultural harmony in our less culturally homogeneous towns and cities?
If historical accounts can be a measure of human direction in the coming months - the future looks bleak - and this is an inference I do not make lightly - the only way out from this situation will be a F****** bloodbath - ultimately a change of state.<O
</O
CapnG
Devil's Advocate
The bloodbath may come but the change may not. The bloodbath itself may indeed be the point, as many conspiritorialists have claimed. How do you solve a problem of too many people in debt? You could reduce the debt or you could reduce the people... Which would the people who control the money prefer?
Drew UK
.
Excellent point, and I have glossed over this one - since most of our wealth is concentrated in our military establishments - then, it could be also a secondary solution that we send our people into the knife on a military exploitation exercise - so we take from other nations there wealth and dispose of our fruitless excess humanity which will absorb too much monetary demand from the state.
Next stop - Iran?
Bloodbath all the same, though.
You learn quick, CapnG.
You have beaten me on this one.
Thanks.
exo_doc
Foolish Earthling
Well, for those of you who are paranoid like me and think there is a real possibility that society's thin veneer might crumble and are a survivalist, here's another link for you;
http://www.greatdreams.com/survival.htm
I grew up during the cold war with a father obsessed with survivalism, and I guess he passed it on to me.
http://www.greatdreams.com/survival.htm
I grew up during the cold war with a father obsessed with survivalism, and I guess he passed it on to me.
Drew UK
.
Aaron LeClair
Paranormal Maven
Spreading paranoia? Don't you wish to cure it? If we are doomed, it's best that we learn to deal with it, don't you think? Being afraid of fate is sorta pointless. Now, if you think we can change fate... preach on. My guess is, it won't be via paranoia though, but through courage. Just a hunch and the ol 2 cents of course.
Sins of the father don't have to be passed on... The reason we're in shit that some perceive, is due to not changing ways from the old. My guess.
G
Gil Bavel
Guest
It wasn't a pity attempt for money.
I was venting, I was upset, and I posted the exact same thing on my MySpace profile as I did here.
It most certainly wasn't an attempt to get people to give me money. The fact that somebody did was nice, and unexpected.
I had to be asked what my PayPal email was, I didn't solicit it in any way.
G
Gil Bavel
Guest
Hoagland's book, along with Mike Bara, made it on to the NYT Bestseller list. Bullshit it may be, but it's interesting bullshit to many.
i asked what the paypal account was, and i didnt feel Gil was asking for money. i am infact unlikely to give money if i think its "solicited"
and my tax return from care australia was over 300 aus dols again this year (i give a dollar a day). so giving 50 bucks to someone who had lost their wallet is no skin off my nose.
having been in his shoes myself and been helped by strangers, it pleased me to do so in this case.
i prob should have just PM'd for the paypal details, but i was hoping to inspire others to chip in, because money is moot. i wanted to change the reality for Gil. that for every person who would rob you, others will help you.
at no stage did i see gils OP as asking for money, i just saw a chance to make a positive change, and repay the "spirit" of generosity thats seen me through tough times.