GeoFee's picture

GeoFee

image

Conspiracy Theory as Obfuscation

Because conspiracy theorists are easily found out as false does not mean all is well. Power seeks opportunity for the increase of power. This takes form in history as an ever narrowing locus of control. Pharaoh in Egypt. Augustus in Rome. Somebody in our time.

 

Just now there are several somebodies at work, deploying all available means to guarantee outcomes advantageous for the increase of power. 

 

Masses are easily manipulated by drawing on a well researched pattern of command/reward conditioning. Social construction shapes consumers where citizens are needed. Advertising as ritual luring the unaware into conformity with ideologies of greed and avarice.

 

An increasing percentage of the population is in debt to the structures of money at levels beyond their means. To continue in the enjoyment of consumption these will of necessity compromise principle in the critical moment. Either that or step out of systemic security and into profound personal vulnerability.

 

The middle ground is disappearing. Soon it will be only the wealthy and the poor. There will be no well fed, clothed and sheltered middle population. These will be found as expendable as the poor, in the day when mathematics trumps compassion.

 

History itself has carried us to the precipice. Our collective momentary priorities and commitments have sown the seeds of destruction. That seed is now come to maturity and is set for harvest.

 

Said to frighten? Not at all. The exact opposite. Said to warn and exhort to preparation. As Radar O'Reilly would have it: "Incoming wounded."

 

George

Share this

Comments

UnDefinitive's picture

UnDefinitive

image

Alternatively, conspiracy theories may arise when evidence available in the public record does not correspond with the common or official version of events. In this regard, conspiracy theories may sometimes serve to highlight 'blind spots' in the common or official interpretations of events. - Wikipedia

An increasing percentage of the population is in debt to the structures of money at levels beyond their means. To continue in the enjoyment of consumption these will of necessity compromise principle in the critical moment. Either that or step out of systemic security and into profound personal vulnerability - George

I do believe that profound personal vulnerability and being in debt beyond personal means are one and the same.  I do not believe that a promise of systemic security could be trusted whether there is a compromise of principle or not.

Said to frighten? Not at all. The exact opposite. Said to warn and exhort to preparation. As Radar O'Reilly would have it: "Incoming wounded." -George

Self inflicted wounds possibly ... wounded all the same!  With the banality of evil all around ... count me warned and exhorted to preparation ... I AM Beholding!

Pinga's picture

Pinga

image

GeoFee, in fact the middle class is increasing in developing world.

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/03/15/174339876/power-shift-underwa...

 

I encounter this in daily life, as I work for a multinational and we get to know the people on the other side of the world, witness them jumping from company to company as the base rate increases.  Hear about housing and infrastructure booms.

 

The middle class is not shrinking globally..it is expanding.

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

I don't think so, I think the poor are getting poorer and the affluent are calling themselves middle class in comparison to the extremely affluent is what's going on. If you've got two new Hondas (even one car, a used one) and own your own modest home and almost paid off the mortgage instead of a Porsche and a Lexus and a luxury home- that would be "middle class"- but it's actually affluent when you consider the high cost of housing let alone buying a home and how many don't have any place to live. If you're pressed to afford a bus pass and not being paid a living wage for honest work- or there is no honest work to be had for any wage let alone a living wage- that would be poor. And that is increasing worldwide. So is homelessness. The rich are getting richer and the poor poorer but standards at the higher end have changed.

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

85 individual people in the world hold as much wealth among them as the poorest half of the planet- 3.5 billion people- that's disgusting. Half the planet falls into the "poor" category and the other half are people who land anywhere under those 85 people- the standards are distorted. So, when I hear "the middle class is growing"- I get a little perturbed, I must admit. Because that overlooked fact skews the picture considerably. The unemployment rate in much of Europe is extremely high. And in Canada an US it's too high. To be blunt, having a war might clear out a few people and generate some jobs as the war machine revs up production, though. And then there's all the units of production involved in rebuilding- that adds more jobs. It's all really awful and unjust, but that's how it works. I think that's how it's unfolding.

Dcn. Jae's picture

Dcn. Jae

image

What's wrong with people being wealthy if they've worked hard and wisely and earned it? What's wrong with people being wealthy if they've inherited the wealth from loved ones?

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

I don't believe those 85 people and those who have anywhere near what those 85 people have worked for it any harder than the billions who grind out production day in and day out for their wealthy 'masters' for less than a living wage- or those who work hard at just surviving even if it pays them nothing monetarily. They have no way of earning it, no means to ever achieve even a comfortable life. That's what's wrong with it. And then to not only not share it but clamour for more and more, not through honest work but through power games, and express actual contempt for those who have less- it happens- is even worse. People feel contempt for the disadvantaged, the less educated, etc. And if people inherited it- how many have a sense that since they inherited it for no other reason than being born in a certain place at a certain time- maybe they have more responsibility to help those less fortunate. There are some- but not what they do is out of proportion to what they could do, and still live comfortably, IMO. It's not just.

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

"if you work only work hard you can have the (North) American dream" sounds good but it's not true. You can work really hard your whole life and have nothing. Many do. And 'working smart' isn't always an option without the required smarts or if a person is instead gifted at something that's not financially lucrative- again, people in our society tend to have contempt for that. The American dream is really a lottery win. Working hard for it is not a guarantee that you will achieve it.

Pinga's picture

Pinga

image

Kimmio wrote:
I don't think so, I think the poor are getting poorer and the affluent are calling themselves middle class in comparison to the extremely affluent is what's going on. If you've got two new Hondas (even one car, a used one) and own your own modest home and almost paid off the mortgage instead of a Porsche and a Lexus and a luxury home- that would be "middle class"- but it's actually affluent when you consider the high cost of housing let alone buying a home and how many don't have any place to live. If you're pressed to afford a bus pass and not being paid a living wage for honest work- or there is no honest work to be had for any wage let alone a living wage- that would be poor. And that is increasing worldwide. So is homelessness. The rich are getting richer and the poor poorer but standards at the higher end have changed.

 

Kimmio,you may not "think so", or believe the statistics.  I cannot help you get past your bias of developing countries.

 

I can tell you that the people that I work with in China and India ae the middle class. They have homes, they have cars, they have lovely homes, they have cell phones, and computers, they go out for dinner, they raise children, have university degrees.

 

For my friends and coworkers in India, one thing that is different is that the poor there have a much lower bottom limit.  Given that, most of the middle class folks that I know have multiple servants in their homes or as assistance.  Some have drivers.  

 

It is interesting, as they will say their standard of living decreases when they come to the US in a leadership position as they no longer have all the helpers at home.

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image
Pinga's picture

Pinga

image

Correct, the poverty in India is signficantly different than poverty in Canada.  Your point is/

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

You say your friends have multiple servants and drivers and yet one in 6 people in cities are living in conditions unfit for human habitation- and people in rural areas may have it slightly better living on the equivalent of just over $7 a month. What does just barely fit for human habitation look like then? And having multiple servants is "middle class"? I guess if they die off in the slums that opens up the opportunity for developing some nice real estate? You really don't get my point? If they have no rice they can always eat cake?

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

And the people from US in leadership positions who set up shop in India? They must be wealthier than middle class over there. How many servants do they have?

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

I think you just illustrated George's point.

Pinga's picture

Pinga

image

kimmio, the rise of the middle class is seen as a positive impact to those in poverty by those in the country and by economists.

 

Yes there are many many many poor in India, there are some very wealth.  You will find lots of stats and stories regarding the poverty and the challenges.  Many developing countries have significant challenges to handle the level of poverty in their lands.

 

the point being made is that there is a growing middle class in these countries.

 

A strong middle class is an important item to society, including for the least among us.  It is why you hear concerns when the middle class is weakened in a country.  The middle class in India drive demand for infrastructure, government services.  They drive stability and have expectations regarding government.  One of the big things that my friends and coworkers ahve discussed is corruption in government and how that impacts things like building inspections (think collapses).  The middle class forces change in many areas which have positive impact. 

 

It is why I support offshoring of professional services including engineering and IT even if my coworkers lose their jobs, it has a positive impact on the global economy and the poor.

 

 

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

Servants and drivers, though? That's some distorted "middle class" perspective IMO. Sounds awfully bourgeoise in a place where so very many people are living in slums unfit for human habitation.

Pinga's picture

Pinga

image

A person who was a good friend, came from a rural area in India.  His father is a farmer. his mother is a teacher.  they own land.  They have a lovely home.  He had a good job with us, but, left it to run the farm (oldest son, cultual).  When he was working with us, we worked to get a satellite into his village through hsi company so he could work from home.  His mother (middle class) works with lowest class / poor to provide education for free and special tutoring to help bring them into the next level of society.  

 

He and his coworkers refer to the reverse prejudices of north Americans regarding presumptions of poverty of his people.  he did not deny the poverty; however, he also outlined the normalcy of cities and homes and families, and middle class life.  

it is shifting, thee have been significant changes in a generation and the economy is booming as people and the country shifts.

 

Geos point was the middle wsa shrinking.

Statistically and through story, that is not occurring globally. It is increasing.

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

The middle calling themselves middle are actually rich- IMO- that's not "middle"- and people are living and dying in slums. Is there much in between?

Pinga's picture

Pinga

image

Kimmio wrote:
Servants and drivers, though? That's some distorted "middle class" perspective IMO.

 

Respectful employment is a good thing.  In a land where washing machiens are expensive and there are extreme poor, then you are more likely to hire someone to do your wash for you.    That in turn employs people who would not otherwise be employed, as gardeners, nanny's, cooks, drivers, etc.  The middle class results in a greying of the lines, as you see the poorest moving upwards as they become employable.  

I do not wish to indicate that it is perfect but, the middle class rising in these areas is one of th emost significant changes occurring globally.

 

Do not put your standards of what is normal regarding employment and spend of funds to others.  Middle class  is those between the rich and the poor who work for a living , typically business or mfg or farmers, etc.  In a country developing, you will often see more direct hiring.

 

These economies are shifting rapidly.  

The entry level employment places have high turnover as people pick up skills and move to the next company.  We see it.  You feel it when you call someone who has outsourced their support to offshore, based on the level of the company they chose will depend on how many years people have been employed.   

 

 

seeler's picture

seeler

image

Thank you Pinga for explaining some things about the global economy.  

It is sometimes hard for us to understand how conditions in other countries compare to here.  

I am old enough to remember when many middle-class households in Canada had a hired girl to help with the children, housework, meal preparation.  In the 1950s a hired girl earned her room and board, plus $10 or $12 a week and usually got a day and a half off.  Plus some evenings - but not all.  She often baby-sat as part of her job while the parents went out.   

These were coveted jobs for rural girls.  Often they paid better than working at Zellers or Woolworths once you considered that people in those positions had to pay for their place in a rooming house.  

Another arrangement that was common back then was for village people (the doctor's wife, the school principal, and the mill owner) to have a farm girl live with them while attending high-school (rural schools seldom went past grade 8).  The girl did housework in exchange for room and board.  Boys sometimes were able to make similar arrangements but often the lure of better money working full time in the saw mills had them dropping out of school.  Rural women often had more education than their husbands - except for the very few boys who finished highschool and went on to college.

 

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

In this scenario I would consider the servants and drivers middle, then- and people who can afford to hire servants and drivers, affluent. I assume the numbers of employed servants and drivers will go up as more people become affluent- is that a good thing in your opinion? Will their proportions outnumber the destitute?

Pinga's picture

Pinga

image

Thanks seeler. Great addition to the thread

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

Oh, I know someone who worked several years ago as an Au Pair for a wealthy family in France for a summer and she loved it. Obviously though the standard of living there was better all around. I couldn't imagine moving to Mumbai, for example, and hiring servants (or calling household staff if I really truly needed help- and not just because 'I can' and it's easier), a 'servant'. An assistant/ partner, perhaps, but I would never refer to them as a servant. That's just me.


WaterBuoy's picture

WaterBuoy

image

I remain in my obfuscation (fuzzy logos ... Matthew 24:30, 31) as I can not relate to those that support that 85 people who see nothing bad but getting more and more.

 

Alas: I've been told it is not nice to speak about such things (some people can't believe that) pure evil cynicism. Is this a subtle or humble skill GEO? So I remain speaking incoherently to support the ultimate unknown ... the Hebrew called this god ... but what would I know about the dangers of not knowing? Is an unknown mental state dangerous and something to get right into? Scott Peck says not to go there alone ... what should one take with them? A few powerful clues is a possibility ... but different than a philosophy of numbing down a whole nation with lies. It is something to ponder ... what some call thinking and yet others deny ... and then follow up with the comment nothing is denied! yet there is nothing like L'uv ... a dark or obtuse light ... creating fuzzy logos!

 

Is what you know more dangerous than what you don't know if you know very little and are cognizant of it? Kinda makes you question everything, even god ---1 Thessalonians 5:21! This part of the sin-taxis's often disregarded. Did you know the understanding of regard in ancient Gael is much like the old terms for science as something blind man gets free of? Then heh can see ...

 

In some authoritarian "confidence" men that don't know (by virtue of self-centred love) ... do they thus become corrupted by such power? It is a convoluted thought ... yes/no? A bit of a bent in the greater soul that simple people should look into as something vaster than we could even imagine ... lifts one beyond the chaos of real life experience ... that's really sadistic ... yes/no?

 

If one has a subtle feel of the tree of life and wisdom ... one might suffer deeper clues ... the roots of vast wisdom? O' go wa' ve ... and then we're off ...

WaterBuoy's picture

WaterBuoy

image

Has anyone on this site studied the theories of Erasmus about the teaching of greater intelligence rather than the current numbing down trends?

 

Leads a character to question a lot of things covertly ... like Ruth and Na-OMI ... an undercover love about greater curiosities ...

 

It appears there's more to it than appears ... something unseen in the myth? Well that's the way authority likes it ... coverups!

Arminius's picture

Arminius

image

Obfuscation is part of most conspiracies.

 

We all tend to gather evidence that supports our ideals, and disregard evidence to the contrary, wether our ideals are good or bad. Pure objectivity is difficult because most of us tend to interpret and shape reality according to what we believe. Accordingly, there are conspiracies of the likeminded, who support what they believe and obfuscate what they don't.

 

 

 

 

 

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

These are the richest people in the world. Imagine what good they could do if they put their minds to it and had only a measly one billion dollars to live on? Is that mean to suggest they should really have to live so 'austerely'?

http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/

Arminius's picture

Arminius

image

In re-reading my reply, I realise that I did not really address George's question. He wonders whether conspiracy theories are obfuscations designed to mask real problems.

 

Yes, of course. The age-old "Satanic conspiracy to take over our souls of men" removes the responsibility for evil deeds from us and assigns it to some supernatural power. Evildoers can do evil to their evil heart's content, but are not responsible for their deeds. Satan is doing it!

 

 

 

 

Mendalla's picture

Mendalla

image

Kimmio wrote:
These are the richest people in the world. Imagine what good they could do if they put their minds to it and had only a measly one billion dollars to live on? Is that mean to suggest they should really have to live so 'austerely'? http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/

 

The thing is, Kimmio, many of them do. You don't get that kind of money by living high off the hog. Buffett in particular is notoriously cheap. Sure, they live more luxuriously than we do, but not much more so than guys in the hundred million dollar range. There is a finite amount of luxury one can have.

 

And don't forget that Gates, Buffett, Zuckerberg, and some others have already pledged to give a percentage (forget what amount) of their fortune annually to further various causes.

 

Gates, of course, does it through the Gates Foundation's work on AIDS and Malaria in Africa as well as educational causes at home. In fact, if we succeed in defeating these two scourges of Africa, Gates will ilkely get, and deserve, a bigger chunk of the credit than Western governments. He has become a loud, powerful, outspoken advocate for both his chosen causes and for philanthropy in general.

 

Buffett is giving a portion of his net worth to the Gates Foundation every year as well (they are friends and apparently play bridge together).

 

Zuckerberg has a raft of causes of his own and his wife's (she's a pediatrician with an interest in children's issues, IIRC) that he is throwing both money and longer term support like in-trust gifts of Facebook shares at.

 

I am not going to argue that anyone "deserves" that kind of wealth and I am anything but a defender of Gates' and Zuckerberg's business tactics (they are the scourge of IT in some respects), but suggesting that all of these guys are living high off the hog and not giving any of it back ignores the very real work that some of them are doing in their communities and in the world.

 

Mendalla

 

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

The 100 million dollar range? Must be tough. Like I said, I don't think they work any harder than most of the poor people in the world (some, at mere survival). They were born at a certain place at a certain time and with a certain set of attributes necessary for making that kind of money. I cannot believe that it's possible to earn that kind of money honestly- somebody has to get screwed over. And the people getting screwed over are the bottom half- simply by the acquisition of that much wealth by the few (to the point that they never have to think about working for their food and housing, ever- doesn't even cross their minds) there's only so much of the pie to go around (we're told). 3.5 billion people are denied a decent existance. So, while we see the Gates Foundation through the worldview lens that we've gotten used to- what's really happening is that a lot of people are dying, the earth is dying, and Gates (and other philanthropist billionaires like him) is dropping crumbs from the table, really.

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

...and while people fight over the crumbs other billionaires rev up the war machines and acquire more wealth.

Pinga's picture

Pinga

image

Kimmio, seriously?  The reason they got there was they invented something that others deemed worthy. Of course some of it is luck, yet, you wish to tar & feather them.

 

I have a friend who I dated in university days. A nicer guy you wouldn't want to meet.  He had a bad situation in a relationship when someone dumped him not nicely and he threw himself into his work for a while.  He was focussed.  He paired with 3 other geeks.  They formed a company.  They sold that company, and became multi-millionaires.

 

He is still a really nice guy.  He lives far away, but we chat once in a while. Had coffee once. He hasn't changed.  He looks the same, he lives his life much the same, sure a nicer house, but not hugely nicer. 

 

Circumstance, luck, his skill sets, all resulted in him working very hard and becoming quite rich.

 

I also have a friend who won 50million who is a lovely person, and is looking to do good with that income.

 

Not sure why you have these presumptions...and such a negative attitude.

Pinga's picture

Pinga

image

Kimmio wrote:
Oh, I know someone who worked several years ago as an Au Pair for a wealthy family in France for a summer and she loved it. Obviously though the standard of living there was better all around. I couldn't imagine moving to Mumbai, for example, and hiring servants (or calling household staff if I really truly needed help- and not just because 'I can' and it's easier), a 'servant'. An assistant/ partner, perhaps, but I would never refer to them as a servant. That's just me.

 

Kimmio, I think you are misunderstanding.  These are people from India, with household servants.  They are called servants as that is what they do  servant: "a person who performs duties for others, especially a person employed in a house on domestic duties or as a personal attendant."

 

People in our Canadian society hire servants all the time, they just don't tend to be in our house all day.  We tend to have specialists who are higher paid than a generalist sevant is.  You likely take a bus (public transit - servants of the public), you get your hair cut, you may hire someone to clean your house, or do your window washing or .....you go to a restaurant and get food to go.  Instead of having someone in your home doing those tasks, you have outsourced them to specialists who build careers or jobs around providing the service to multiple people.

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

Pinga wrote:

Kimmio, seriously?  The reason they got there was they invented something that others deemed worthy. Of course some of it is luck, yet, you wish to tar & feather them.

 

I have a friend who I dated in university days. A nicer guy you wouldn't want to meet.  He had a bad situation in a relationship when someone dumped him not nicely and he threw himself into his work for a while.  He was focussed.  He paired with 3 other geeks.  They formed a company.  They sold that company, and became multi-millionaires.

 

He is still a really nice guy.  He lives far away, but we chat once in a while. Had coffee once. He hasn't changed.  He looks the same, he lives his life much the same, sure a nicer house, but not hugely nicer. 

 

Circumstance, luck, his skill sets, all resulted in him working very hard and becoming quite rich.

 

I also have a friend who won 50million who is a lovely person, and is looking to do good with that income.

 

Not sure why you have these presumptions...and such a negative attitude.

Oh those poor multimillionaires and billionaires huh? People are so hard on them...I'm not tar and feathering him. I'm criticising how things work. It's more of a plea to the rich and powerful to wake up and see the injustice than it is tar and feathering. We'd be so much better off in the world if they actually saw the injustice in that system itself and sought to change it. He's doing just fine regardless. But he's not a hero. Nor was Steve Jobs. Nor is Warren Buffet or Richard Branson or any of the wealthiest. They're doing more than you're average joe but compared to the means they have to affect change...
...they're not- and the average joe can't. Why do I have such a negative attitude- because the world's in big trouble. People eek out a living if they can find one, while a very few have sooo much more money than they know what to do with except first and foremost make more money. He has the power to really and truly make a difference. He should do more that's all. He's got more money than some national governments. A lot more. Why are you tar and feathering those who would look at that with a critical eye? Why not more sympathy for the suffering people, caused in a world where only 85 people have more wealth than the poorest 3.5 million ** edit: sorry that's 3.5 billion people***? You don't see that there's any problem with that- that it would not pose any problem? I can't believe you don't see any problem with that kind of imbalance. Tough luck for them? You really deep down think that system is okay? Charities bust their asses to raise money and put themselves in harms way to make a small difference. Their CEO's get criticized if they make a very modest salary in comparison, that they earned- people complain about the 'gravy train' of social programs- and nary a peep about how the 85 people actually hold things back. You support a system that's unfairly rigged against half of the world?

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

Unfettered capitalism, no. Communism, no. There's got to be better options that some bright, powerful benevolent person or people could implement sometime, than the way this world now works. Maybe in a parallel universe there is. On earth as it is in heaven? We could do better. We're so far removed from that it's not funny.

Pinga's picture

Pinga

image

Kimmio wrote:
I cannot believe that it's possible to earn that kind of money honestly- somebody has to get screwed over. And the people getting screwed over are the bottom half- simply by the acquisition of that much wealth by the few (to the point that they never have to think about working for their food and housing, ever- doesn't even cross their minds) there's only so much of the pie to go around (we're told). 3.5 billion people are denied a decent existance. .

 

Kimmio in this item you said people could not make that money honestly. someone had to get screwed over.

 

So, yes, you are tar & feathering them.

 

You seem to be quite willing to demonize everyone at one end of the scale, and to hold everyone at the other end as angels

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

No. Nobody's perfect. Money and the relentless pursuit of it is kind of like a drug addiction- might as well be. Those 85 are mainlining. But the the rest of the world is "chasing the dragon" too. The world is ill, seriously unbalanced and it's a sad state of affairs. I'm not demonizing anyone. We can't take money with us if the world falls apart and we don't earn extra credits for acquiring tons of it. That's all. WWJ say about it?

UnDefinitive's picture

UnDefinitive

image

 

Minimalism to start ...

+ active participation in the conspiracy to create a

New Moneyless World Order ! 

 

Following are excerpts of interview with Daniel Suelo The Man Who Quit Money ...

Sometimes I tell folks to imagine something really silly: what if somebody offered you a million dollars to live without money for a year? I guarantee most people would figure out how to do it, skilled or no. This is about finding a determination, a motivation greater than a million dollars!

7) What are the practical steps individuals can take to free themselves from their pursuit (and bondage) to money – even if they will never live entirely moneyless?

People get overwhelmed unless they realize that all the tools they have are here and now, and steps can be taken right here and now.

Everybody, no matter how entrenched they are in the money system, can freely give and freely receive. Freely giving and freely receiving is our true nature, is true human-ness. And everybody is human. As I said earlier, it’s about being real, cultivating our true nature, and everything else falls into place, and all the falsehood drops away, no matter what station in life people are in. Even if somebody is totally skeptical about what I am doing, I challenge them to make it their goal to be totally real, with themselves and with every human interaction, and I propose they will then know whether or not I’m living a pipe dream.

Somebody once commented that our cities and towns could not function without money. But I say they and the world can not function right now in the present system.

Take classic American suburbia, for example. People don’t know their neighbors, and everybody has their own cars, computers, TVs, lawn mowers, washing machines, etc, etc, as well as stockpiles of food and land they could grow food on. All we need is right here, but the only thing that’s holding us back is not physical reality, but belief, dogma. What if we actually spoke to our neighbors and agreed to share, like we learned in kindergarten and in church? What if we realized we could share cars, computers, washing machines, have dinners together, etc, which would not only save us expense, but would save expense on the environment, and, as a bonus, put smiles on our lonely faces? Then cities and technology would start serving us, rather than us serving them. But what’s holding us back? Not reality, not scarcity, but only our thinking!

As far as going all the way and living without money, people often ask me to teach them survival skills. Often I feel like I don’t know many skills, that it’s really about determination and getting up the confidence more than actual skill.

Sometimes I tell folks to imagine something really silly: what if somebody offered you a million dollars to live without money for a year? I guarantee most people would figure out how to do it, skilled or no. This is about finding a determination, a motivation greater than a million dollars!

8) I’m curious how concerned you are about spreading this message of living free from money. I know you had the book written about you, you maintain your website, and you have agreed to this interview and various others. Is there a message you believe you have inside that is important to get out? And do you look forward to your story continuing to spread?

Yes, I now have a strong urge to spread the message. At first I just wanted to live my own life, whether or not anybody else took notice or not. Then I realized a message was errupting in me that I could no more suppress than an erupting volcano. Our society is not sustainable and we are not only heading rapidly into, but most the world has already reached disaster, due directly to our being trapped by our own beliefs. I want to shout this out to the world. But talk isn’t enough. It must be talk with action, right now.

We could debate whether or not Paul Revere was trying to gain attention for himself, or we could simply take notice that the British are invading and we have to get off our butts!

 

chansen's picture

chansen

image

Kimmio, this is an incredibly complex matter that I really don't feel comfortable making claims about because I don't know enough about it. However, if I wanted to learn, there are good places to start. I'd probably pick up The Economist and start reading.

 

This isn't a case of simply grabbing the money of the rich and giving it to the poor. No system like that is going to fly, or the rich will. They'll just take all their money and go. And not all rich people screwed others over. They often beat competitors, but to what extent they did so with unscrupulous tactics, I have no idea. I doubt you do, either.

 

The world is polarizing. This much is obvious. The reasons, and how to fix it, are not. Sweeping generalizations do not help here. The rich blaming the poor does not help. The poor blaming the rich does not help. There are compelling specific examples - Walmart comes to mind - where companies should do better by their employees, reducing employee dependence on social services and promiting working people to middle class. But Costco, to name one competitor, does pay a livable wage. So I, for one, shop there. We can each do a tiny little bit. But most do not do even that.

 

You're passionate about this, I get that. So read up on it. For heavy subjects like this, where you're really passionate, I'd like to hear what you've learned, instead of what you think.

 

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

You're assuming I haven't learned anything in my lifetime unless I back it up with what the economist has to say. My own mind on the matter doesn't count. Okay. Well. If that's what you think. I just think the world is fubar and most of the extremely rich have no interest in doing much other than making more money- and they pull the strings in the world. There is no real functioning democracy as long as unelected anonymous rich and powerful dictate that life be a money and power game. You don't recognize that just by observing how things are going in the world these days? As to what to do about it- I have no idea, really. Undefined's post above is hitting on something. There's a 'sharing' movement going on. I posted about it on another thread a couple of weeks ago. Can't remember which one.


As for the MIC- it is big business and war profiteering disgusts me. It's people at the top playing big dangerous games with people at the bottom for their own power and material gains and acquisitions. No question. A war is heating up that NATO is getting involved in and it's no joke- all the companies that will benefit from that are excited. And how interconnected are all these multinationals with all the elements that go into building a war...ahem...these 'job creators' (and I don't mean they conspired, but they have no choice- they are interconnected, with mergers and contracts, etc.) And how truthful is 'corporate social responsibility'? Really? Honestly. I think we've been fed a crock of you know what- with corporate globalization.

Pinga's picture

Pinga

image

Again, Kimmio. you state huge wide embracing statements with no backup.

 

There is no democracy as rich and powerful dictate -  really?

Tell that to the countries who have risen up recently overthrowing the rich and powerful.

 

Tell that to Canada, which has stability in part because of our middle class, and the infrastructure of police, banking, government and law that a peaceful society requires.

 

I get you see inequities, I do too.  

 

What I can't do is huge sweepign generalizations about people, politics or global items.

 

 

GeoFee's picture

GeoFee

image

Hi Pinga...

you wrote:
...in fact the middle class is increasing in developing world.

Indeed. The UN article you cite describes this as a power shift. It notices that the middle class in our context is declining. This is quite in keeping with my observation in the opening post.

 

Our social economy is being vacated by capital seeking the maximization of profit, the logic of capitalism. China, India and Brazil are producing the robots which everyday replace another percent of our work force.

 

Whose advantage is in view with this strategy?

 

What is the long term objective?

 

A key insight is provided by UnDefinitive's notice of "the banality of evil" above. What is approaching has no explicit malevolent rational. It simply expresses the logic of competition by which some will win and others will lose.

 

We do not imagine that our neighbour, who is in management at the bank, is evil because our neighbour on the farm has a mortgage foreclosed and is left without a home. It is just business and nothing personal.

 

That this is happening with increasing frequency in our context signifies something, does it not?

 

George

 

 

 

 

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

I'm sorry you feel that's what I am doing Pinga. I won't argue with you anymore this time.

UnDefinitive's picture

UnDefinitive

image

What I think I have learned ...

  • money is created out of debt and has no basis in reality
  • money divides
  • there can be no equality in a money governed society
  • usership with respect for natural and personal space in an abundant society would work better than ownership
  • open source to technology with community sharing of tasks would allow all of creation access to abundance on earth
  • status should become obsolete with everyone free to be their creative best
Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

War is a permanent business. And it's a multibillion dollar business Companies that make the elements involved hope for war and threats of war because it drives production and sales or they'd go bankrupt. And the companies don't want to go bankrupt. And they need all the things that go into the things that are required for war.

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

UnDefinitive wrote:

What I think I have learned ...

  • money is created out of debt and has no basis in reality
  • money divides
  • there can be no equality in a money governed society
  • usership with respect for natural and personal space in an abundant society would work better than ownership
  • open source to technology with community sharing of tasks would allow all of creation access to abundance on earth
  • status should become obsolete with everyone free to be their creative best

That sounds wonderful to me.

GeoFee's picture

GeoFee

image

Nicely put UnDefinitive...!
.
George
.

Pinga's picture

Pinga

image

GeoFee wrote:

Hi Pinga...

you wrote:
...in fact the middle class is increasing in developing world.

Indeed. The UN article you cite describes this as a power shift. It notices that the middle class in our context is declining. This is quite in keeping with my observation in the opening post.

 

Our social economy is being vacated by capital seeking the maximization of profit, the logic of capitalism. China, India and Brazil are producing the robots which everyday replace another percent of our work force.

 

Whose advantage is in view with this strategy?

 

What is the long term objective?

 

A key insight is provided by UnDefinitive's notice of "the banality of evil" above. What is approaching has no explicit malevolent rational. It simply expresses the logic of competition by which some will win and others will lose.

 

We do not imagine that our neighbour, who is in management at the bank, is evil because our neighbour on the farm has a mortgage foreclosed and is left without a home. It is just business and nothing personal.

 

That this is happening with increasing frequency in our context signifies something, does it not?

 

George

 

 

It signifies we are globalizing .  It signifies tha the person in India is no longer as much the "other" . they are the person who is on the other end of the phone, who has a mortgage, who is putting their kid into university.  They are like you, like me. 

As the standard of living increases, you find an equilibrium will be developed as they become less of a bargain.

 

If you ask the folks who are my coworkers in India, the ones that I trained and helped them to leave to even better jobs.....they are winning.  

 

Their long term objective?  to have better working conditions. To have better power, more just society , less corruption.  As a workforce, they can move and do move to places tha ttreat them better.  The economy was booming, it resulted in their standard of living and work environment improving. 

 

Just like the folks in Bangladesh who say 'don't pull your textitle out of here just help us be safer, help us have your standards, help us to force compliance in the industry". 

 

It is easy to be protectionist and say, hey, we are going to keep all our jobs.  Nothing should go overseas.  We can deprive folks globally of having a middle class, ....I would prefer not to.  I see great benefits to democracy of building a strong middle class in other previously underdeveloped countries.

 

It is easy to be elitist and say "i would never have a servant".  (had a friend who said that before moving to tanzania and she found out she was actually hurting the economy and doing people out of jobs who had regular shifts...ie the guy who circled their home at night to kill snakes, the person who did laundry, and so on).  Placing our expectations of cultural right/wrongs and employment on other lands without understanding the context is a problem..

 

 

Pinga's picture

Pinga

image

UnDefinitive wrote:

What I think I have learned ...

  • money is created out of debt and has no basis in reality
  • money divides
  • there can be no equality in a money governed society
  • usership with respect for natural and personal space in an abundant society would work better than ownership
  • open source to technology with community sharing of tasks would allow all of creation access to abundance on earth
  • status should become obsolete with everyone free to be their creative best

 

UnDefinitive, how did you learn what you consider truths.

 

Money is just a bargaining tool.  You can use what ever you want for exchange, you are still bargaining, whether it be sharing or not....there is a decision to value something and then find out a way to exchange.  Underground economies are still economies, barter is still assigning a value to something.   Someone is deciding what hte haircut is worth that you got. Someone is deciding what that apple is worth.  

 

Money unites.  It drives people to make agreements.  Honestly, what do you mean "money divides".

 

How do you see equality in any society?  Can you name a society that you see equality in?  What do you call equality? Is someone doing hard labour for 8 hrs equal to someone who studied for 10 years and then did easy labour for 8 hrs? is one's labour hour worth more or less?  If you can give me a simple answer to that, regardless if money is involved or not, I would be interested.

 

Usership would be better than ownership?  hmm, how does that apply to housing?  Do you wish the government ot own all houses?  Do you feel we should all have the exact same house? who woudl define what kind of house you would have?

 

open source to technology does provide some advantages; however, it also introduces risk regarding vulnerabilites introduced by folks who can....coz no one is watching or managing the ultimate deliverable.  plus, how does open source to technoloyg equal total access to all riches on earth? really? to the potato int he ground in PEI?

 

status should be obsolete?  what do you mean by that?  should I no longer identify who is a licensed lawyer versus someone who gives legal advice?  shoudl the brain surgeon not be identified as same?  or are you referring to the uality of the brain surgeon? should I not care if someone is known as a quack? how does status become irrelevent in any society, whehther money is at play or not?

Kimmio's picture

Kimmio

image

People are inherently valuable to one another because they are people and that's it. There is no dollar value for a persons character, integrity, soul- they're invaluable. It is a bargaining tool to assign a monetary value to what a person does for a vocation or how long they studied or what their status in society is. But human beings have placed an arbitrary monitary or material value on persons' worth- for I don't know how many millenia. Doesn't make it right, but there isn't a large consensus to the contrary these days- we "can't serve two masters, God and mammon (money, wealth)." I get that. It makes absolute sense in the context of what's going on in the world today- it's a 'mammon' ruled world. Serving mammon has been devestating to humanity- but here we are where a person's worth is only as good as their purchasing power- according to the status quo. A nation's wealth is only as good as their GDP- blah, blah, blah. But that's not true.

Pinga's picture

Pinga

image

Kimmio

Can you tell me a time when people did not barter for items or assign value to labour?

Can you tell me a society where no value is assigned to what people produce and that everything is free?

Back to Religion and Faith topics