If ever the world needed to see reality, this video would be rated as foundational: (Please comment AFTER you watch and gain a decent comprehension of the material).
Nope, couldn't get thru it, sorry. He just sounds like a lunatic in these videos to me. I have tried, can't watch another one. EDIT: To be clear, I am not saying he can't have his opinion or that others don't share it. I am just not interested enough in the discussion to watch this guy that much.
What is it that sets you off so much?? I am interested in all of the ways folks view the events of humanity. I can stomach a wide range of videos and speeches across the political spectrum, in my pursuit of truth. Apparently that is rare. Good day to you and yours, whether you respond here or not.
So most of it sounds like anarchist/conspiracy theory stuff. And while he does a great job of selling it, it's mostly taking unrelated concepts and linking in a superficial "gotcha" kind of way. It reminds me of college kids learning Descarte or Nietzsche (or even Ayn Rand) for the first time and thinking they have discovered some noble truth and now everything in the world can be described through that lens. I almost expect him to jump out at the end of the videos and say something like, "Haha, just kidding. I hope you didn't think I was SERIOUS, lolz" And I am not suggesting there's no hint or possibility of truth. But it mostly just sounds to my ears (perhaps un-knowledgeable) that it is stuff that sounds good at a basic level, but that are also hard to definitively show or prove with any rigor.
If @Sokolov --or anyone else--thinks the status quo is moving humanity forward, then, by all means, carry on. I find this era amazing and grotesque. Regarding "it is stuff that sounds good at a basic level, but that are also hard to definitively show or prove with any rigor", one would have to watch the entire video and then spend scores of hours investigating the claims PRIOR to denouncing them. Alternatively, spending many hundreds of hours studying history, science, and human nature before ever watching the clip would also put one in a position to rationally discuss the topic at hand. Namely, that we are tax livestock for the oligarchy. Thus the filthy rich get richer. Anyone who attempts to expose the system is visited by metaphorical agents, sooner or later, a la The Matrix. (The media are the Priestesses and Priests of Regression, IMO of course). If one has valid arguments, put them forth. Battlefield of ideas and such. Vague statements of scorn mean nothing. One strategy would be to find a core claim, and then try to prove or disprove. Cheerio.
I tried to read all the way through your posts, but I couldn't do it. Most of it sounds like biased denial based on pro-Governmental prejudice/ propaganda. I'm also not a fan of the "This guy is clearly a lunatic and shouldn't be bothered to be listened to" attitude/tone. But in all seriousness, after having watched a few of his videos I don't particularly like the fellow either. Although I did like the audio clip, think it was on his wiki-page, about the Gift of Life and whatnot. I suppose part of my deal is that I simply prefer direct information so that I can follow up things on my own rather than merely taking someone's word for it. The other part likely being a specific interview he did that DJ posted in some other thread with a fellow talking about how having proper amounts of food, sexual activity, etc. makes you less likely to succeed in life. But rather as a function of biology rather than psychology (there was, of course, more to the interview and all that, but that's what stood out to me the most). Here's what I do know: There are many unanswered questions about the attacks in 2001 in the US. Some of those questions were actually answered, however, the US Government has suppressed those answers from getting to the public (both relevant administrations). The CIA is known to disseminate propaganda. In 1967, a directive came out on how to handle "conspiracy theorists." This has led to a general cultural shift, to make the base assumption that all those called "conspiracy theorists" by the "Mainstream media" are inherently crazy, dangerous, and likely have some sort of ulterior motive. Of course, all a conspiracy theorist really is, is someone who has gathered information and/or speculation as to whether or not there was a group of people that planned to do something in secret. The 9/11 attacks themselves were carried out by a conspiracy. Yet, when with relatively little real evidence, The White House or other investigators blame al-Qaeda for the attacks they aren't called "conspiracy theorists." In spite of the fact that they are theorizing that these people conducted such and such a conspiracy to achieve these results. Basically, the term has morphed into a pejorative euphemism. In some cases, the derision is of course understandable. I keep seeing threads pop up in the Hearthstone forums about how the "Matchmaking and/or Card-draws must be rigged! How else would my win-streak suddenly turn into a losing-streak?" Which, if they actually produced any evidence whatsoever of there being the capability of that within the scripting, might be interesting food for thought. However, they have zero evidence, and only the most vague of anecdotes to back it up. Let alone their refutation of exploring any alternative explanations even when there is evidence to support those potentialities. And, of course, it is that last one which is most problematic. In the case of 9/11, there are many discrepancies in how the matter was handled which differed from standard operating procedure, which, if followed, may well have prevented the attack. The alleged hijackers were, for example, already wanted, and were primed to be put into FBI custody, but the FBI was told to back off. VP Cheney has prevented aerial interception of the rogue airplanes. And there are some questions about the nature of the collapse of the buildings. Most notably why it occurred, and why it occurred so quickly. This thread at least starts with an interesting back and forth on the latter subject: http://worldaerodata.com/forum/read.php?5,493 And also why Building 6 had collapsed and almost as quickly, in spite of not being hit by any airplanes/significant debris. Regardless of the full answers to these questions, there can be no refutation that the US Government, and later several European Governments working towards common ends with the US, utilized the tragedy to enhance centralized power, to limit people's freedoms and rights, and to all in all, as Rahm Emanuel would say, "not let a serious crisis go to waste." While there can be a lot of speculation based on circumstantial evidence, it is generally far more concrete than people whining that they've lost because Blizzard "wants" them to lose as opposed to the opponent being stronger, pure simple luck, fatigue reducing one's ability to play, or the Chaos Theory. I might not personally care for Molyneux or whatever his name is, but I also think the label of "Conspiracy Theorist" has been grossly misused. Further, that disagreeing with what a Government claims does not make one a lunatic, particularly when there is, at the least, reasonable doubt and information to suggest furthered exploration of the idea (after which, once you've proven it, you may call them crazy lunatics). But I'm probably just coming off as a bit too preachy. I mean, I don't know if you've actually looked into these things or not. If you have, than you may have a very good reason to be so dismissive. But if not... Personally, I have my own theories, but ultimately I simply lack enough satisfactory information to come to a conclusion on this specific issue. Which doesn't necessarily mean either side lacks it, but I don't have the time to go through it all, as I'm much more interested in the politics side of things, how it's been used and whatnot. Cause is important, but one must still deal with effect.
Centralized power is, by definition, more power in the hands of the few--Oligarchy--at the expense of the many. Americans are finally understanding that "The Patriot Act" was just one more tool to circumvent the constitution. Corrupt Republican and Democrat politicians have been expanding that liberty and freedom killing piece of garbage for many years now. A cursory review of the politicians running for POTUS clearly shows that most D, I, and R Americans are beyond done with the status quo. All the good ole boys/girls are fading back while the outsiders are surging up. I hope this trend continues, because metaphorical chemotherapy is better than dying. All IMHO of course. I want all Americans to succeed, except for the intraspecies predators. (AKA crony capitalists, politicians, and "journalists").
Not going to quote anything specific, because lots of text and I am lazy First, I should clarify my original statement: "that it is stuff that sounds good at a basic level, but that are also hard to definitively show or prove with any rigor" and state that I also think it is fundamentally hard to disprove. So I think that is partly why I can't handle too much of this at once, because while I don't mind a difference of opinion, these sort of things are usually come of as "if you don't believe this, it's because you are blind to the truth" to me. You can say "well, you can't prove the government didn't cover it up!" and sure, I can't, but I admit that I can't and I don't try and claim that the government hasn't done anything wrong (tho I do believe it is more unlikely than it is likely). This is because the topics being discussed are, in many cases, things with "unknowns" such as the 9/11 stuff. Yea, it is possible something fishy is going on. I can't prove to you definitively that it's all on the up and up, but in general it does seem like you'd have to extremely distrusting to believe otherwise also. I deal with this a lot when working with games, actually. Players often accuse me or other developers of "bias" or "hating something" or whatever. Or they ask "how could this be broken or have been done like this." Or they hate SOE (as a whole, for some reason) for specific actions. And from the player's perspective with limited information, yea, I sympathize, it doesn't make much sense. But when you have more of the information, and as the decision maker, you know very well yourself that no bias was intended, and there were legitimate and valid reasons to do X or Y that weren't out of malice for a particular faction or class of players, etc. To prove that tho, you'd have to explain a lot of stuff, much of which you aren't even allowed to share, and then the player probably wouldn't believe you anyway. Certainly games isn't the fate of the world, so it's not on the same level or scale, but I do think similar mechanisms are at play here. I don't have a problem with people skeptical of government and other such things. It is healthy and justified, and I have a lot of problem with the US and other governments myself. For example, I am totally with you guys on the Patriot Act, that thing is insanity - but there's a reason Bush's approval rating went to 99 or 100% following 9/11 and it's the same reason such an act can get passed, or the treatment of Snowden who has to deal with the irony that there was no "proper channels" for him to go through and actually have an impact. I think the US locks up the wrong people (war on drugs vs 1 conviction related to financial crisis) and the police is a problem. I think the justice/patent system is screwed up. I also think a large part of the problem isn't so much government itself but the people behind corporations and the rich as well (who basically run the government). Of course, the unfortunate truth, imo, is that those most fit to govern typically have no desire to do so. If Molyneux is out to expose the government or corrupt practices, ok, that's perfectly legitimately - but it doesn't feel like he's doing that to me. Instead, it feels like he's putting on a show and speaking about flowery stuff instead of concrete stuff (in a way, I feel he's basically doing what he accuses the Priests of doing in this video). But maybe that's what's needed now? For people to get riled up about things, etc. so maybe he's doing a service? *shrug* Anyway, it seemed like I was being painted as a "government can do no wrong" guy when that isn't what I think at all. I just don't think the idea of government itself is fundamentally broken, instead, I feel it is vital for progress, but it does come with its own set of problems.
I am also not American, I just happen to live here, so I have never gotten to vote, and honestly have no desire to do so. I think the EC is stupid and inherently broken, and the First Past the Post system is dumb. I think it's funny that transferrable vote would have gained traction in the US if it hadn't been for opponents using the idea that "communists might get seats!" to maintain the status quo. Which seems to be how a lot of the political arguments in the US is, preying on the public fear of something. (I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Russia and China were Theocracies, if Americans would have vilified those religions instead of communism.) I also think the Constitution is illogically admired as a document, particularly given how many amendments and lawsuits have gone into that thing. I don't like how people cherry pick individual pieces of it like individual pieces of scripture. Instead of the Constitution doing what people seem to think it ought to, it appears to me that it is largely instead used as a way to attack other people for their opinions. I also don't understand the obsession with the flag as a symbol of democracy and patriotism, but that it is somehow ok to disrespect the people you elected (you might not like them, but YOUR democracy elected these people, isn't disrespecting elected officials indirectly disrespecting the democracy?).
Sure, though I would of course point out that there is (for better or worse) a distinction between the idea of Government, and actual Governments. For example, I'm certain I've come off as "anti-Government" to some people (not necessarily you personally), albeit likely not to the extent of Molyneux. But the reality is that I'm in favor of the idea of government, but rather disagree with certain current implementations. In that sense, we have certain commonalities (re: your view of the Constitution for example), if not necessarily common points of view or agreement on specific details.
Very glad you shared Sok, as I was surprised to think you were a big government supporter. I am glad to be wrong on that score. Instead of nitpicking your posts, at least right now, just gonna bask in the knowledge that we mostly agree. My fav word, as a Libertarian gamer dude, is efficiency. I want a LOT more of it in government. Ciao for now.
I support efficiency and practicality. I believe that government can theoretically and often does provide such benefits.
Theoretically yes. A clock is correct twice per day, and that is the efficiency of the last 100 years in Murica. The waste, fraud, and abuse of government has been EXTREMELY WELL documented for decades and decades now. The power of technology is the key, but way too many people prefer to ignore the truth and learn the Nae Nae instead. Unfortunate.
And the benefits of government has been EXTREMELY WELL documented for decades and decades now. In fact, government is what naturally forms when groups of individuals come together for a common goal. It's not that there isn't anything bad, I just don't think it's majority bad like you seem to.
Discipline in r/t debt is exhibit A: That is just the federal debt, mind you. Thank goodness state, county, city, and personal debt are all trending down...
Efficient websites are exhibit B: As of 9-2014... Obamacare Website Costs Exceed $2 Billion, Study Finds http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...re-website-costs-exceed-2-billion-study-finds
Horrific and unnecessary wars are exhibit C: As America’s efforts to “degrade and ultimately destroy” Daesh (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) militants extend into Syria, Iraq War III has seamlessly morphed into Greater Middle East Battlefield XIV. That is, Syria has become at least the 14th country in the Islamic world that US forces have invaded or occupied or bombed and in which American soldiers have killed or been killed. And that is only since 1980. Let us tick them off: Iran (1980, 1987-1988), Libya (1981, 1986, 1989, 2011), Lebanon (1983), Kuwait (1991), Iraq (1991-2011, 2014-), Somalia (1992-1993, 2007-), Bosnia (1995), Saudi Arabia (1991, 1996), Afghanistan (1998, 2001-), Sudan (1998), Kosovo (1999), Yemen (2000, 2002-), Pakistan (2004-) and now Syria. Whew. With America’s 14th front barely opened, the Pentagon foresees a campaign likely to last for years. Yet, even at this early date, this much already seems clear: Even if America wins, it will lose. Defeating Daesh will only commit the US more deeply to a decades-old enterprise that has proved costly and counterproductive. ...With abundant North American energy reserves now accessible — all that shale oil and fracked gas — America does not need the Arabian Gulf oil that ostensibly made its post-1980 military exertions imperative. For whatever reasons, Washington’s national security elites seem oblivious to the implications these resources have for policy in the Middle East. No matter how long it lasts, America’s war for the Greater Middle East will end in failure. And when it does, Americans will discover that it was also superfluous. http://gulfnews.com/opinion/thinkers/america-s-unnecessary-mideast-wars-1.1395435
"Education" in Murica is exhibit D, and we spend the MOST per capita: In a new Pew Research Center report, only 29% of Americans rated their country’s K-12 education in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (known as STEM) as above average or the best in the world. Scientists were even more critical: A companion survey of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science found that just 16% called U.S. K-12 STEM education the best or above average; 46%, in contrast, said K-12 STEM in the U.S. was below average. Standardized test results appear to largely bear out those perceptions. While U.S. students are scoring higher on national math assessments than they did two decades ago (data from science tests are sketchier), they still rank around the middle of the pack in international comparisons, and behind many other advanced industrial nations. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...nd-science-but-still-lagging-internationally/
America is tops when it comes to # of prisoners per capita, and that is exhibt E: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/uk/06/prisons/html/nn2page1.stm I could do this all night. But reality calls and I must work a bit more tonight. DaRn paperwork is a vampire.
