in terms of free market economies, it's funny because govts & economists
think they can model an economy...yet they fail to include 30% corruption
in their market models, which occurs mostly because of the bureaucratic
controls their systems impose. what a loop.







For the secrets and lies, my PGP key:
https://libbitcoin.dyne.org/julia_tourianski.pgp.asc

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 8:37 AM, Amir Taaki <genjix@???> wrote:

> Foucault was interested not only in historical analysis, but the history
> of how historical analysis has changed. The process by which historians
> look for trends claims a kind of neutrality. They are merely exposing
> the timeless unseen forces driving history. But historians are not
> scientists, and even scientists are humans. Foucault showed that this
> analysis by historians is shaped by their values and ideology, and the
> role of institutional power on development of knowledge.
>
> So can we truly have a neutrality? Or is this a lie? If everything is a
> power, then what is this power advocating for? Power is not only at the
> point of the gun. Maybe in the beginning when one side is weak, but as
> they grow, they become institutionalised, embedded in societies'
> consciousness and become the new status quo merely defending themselves.
>
> Now civil war has broken out in Southern Turkey, and everyday police and
> army are being killed by guerillas and city self defense forces. This
> was after the mayors of towns in Southern Kurdish areas of Turkey
> declared autonomy - that they no longer want to participate in the
> Kurdish elected state. Self defense councils run by the community, and
> organised with help from guerillas were formed. The mayors of the towns
> were elected through the Turkish state.
>
> Everyday though Turkish television is broadcasting scenes of crying
> parents. Coffins draped with the Turkish flag, a state funeral and
> shouting from the mother or father in anger over their son killed by the
> vicious terrorists. The state propaganda is relentless. An Islamist
> state ruled by Erdogan, a dictatorial fascist, who was good friends with
> Hekmatyar, a vicious Islamist terrorist. And the terrorists?
> Libertarians following the strategy of Bookchain's municipal autonomism
> aiming to create a society of direct democracy, gender equality,
> political pluralism, economic cooperatives, and preserve ecology.
>
> America, the great bastion of global freedom, spreading the values of
> democracy and freedom now stands with the Islamist Turkish government
> against the libertarian PKK terrorists. A Turkish government which has
> also supporting Islamist groups in the Syrian civil war. Why has it
> become so fashionable to compromise on our ethics in global politics?
> Has the world ruling class become so paralysed with nihilism that the
> only was forwards that they see is making huge ethical compromises so
> the bad guys don't take their throne? Or worse even is there a
> conspiratorial plot to suck the world dry before the inevitable collapse
> from an unsustainable system? Or is it that we've all blindly bought
> into an anti-ideological managerial belief of neutrality, driven by
> blind selfishness labouring under a globalised tragedy of the commons
> like autonoms in a giant machinery of slavery tearing ourselves apart.
>
> Whatever the cause, it's clear there is a seething hatred of discontent
> bubbling below the surface. The inability for the system to adapt is
> only antagonising this force which is unlike anything we've seen in
> history yet. The transhumanists talk of a magical technological horizon
> we'll cross which will suck us deep into the well of acceleration which
> they worship as the transcending era of humanity. I instead see it more
> like an age of warfare, starvation and death from the ashes of which
> something new will soar and that we are participating in this.
>
> I wonder sometimes, how do the bureaucrats view this? These young
> wild-eyes idealists and whipper snippers who know nothing of the world,
> that want to rebel and reject politics. There's often a competing
> narrative on the one hand of a young electorate that has decided to
> reject voting because they're absorbed in iPads and PlayStations, and
> the other of a young people that do not appreciate the great democracy
> that their great great grandparents fought to defend. "If only we can
> get them to engage in the system" they tell us, a system which doesn't
> want to listen to the inexperienced voices of new blood, or allow them
> to make mistakes.
>
> Audacious politicians even propose making laws to force people to vote.
> And so politics has sunk into the guttertrash of spin and shoddy ethics
> for the greater good of tweaking the establishment:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z19W8uunIsw
>
> The rise in the last few years of opposition parties or people such as
> Ron Paul, UKIP, Podemos, SYRIZA and HDP is part of a new trend in which
> identity politics is on the rise. Although these parties or groups
> supposedly come from different parts of the spectrum, they share a lot
> in common in terms of form and not simply content or policy. Although
> they are still analysed through the classic lens of left/right politics,
> they together represent a new class of politics which is different from
> before. And really, I believe they are more similar than different
> because of how they engage the electorate.
>
> General UK elections are Labour ('left') and Conservation ('right')
> punting the ball between each other every decade with the Liberal
> Democrats usually controlling a usual 10% minority. However in the last
> 2015 UK election, a new party, the UK Independence Party which campaigns
> for UK sovereignty and an exit from domination from Brussells gained
> 12.7% of the vote, and the LibDems gained only 7.9%. A surprising
> result, yet because of the crappy vote counting system in the UK (First
> Past the Post), UKIP got only 1 seat in parliament while the 2 main
> parties got 330 and 232, and the SNP with 8.6% got 56 seats in the
> national parliament.
>
> Now there is the Labour leadership elections. There's the usual
> predictable riff raff of plastic clones that say whatever they think is
> popular, but another guy Jeremy Corbyn has become very popular among
> youth and re-energised Labour politics. He talks about crazy things like
> taking on the corporations, shutting down the nuclear program, or
> boosting the health service. He has a history of voting against most
> Labour policies including the war and is portrayed as a crazy old
> leftist and Marxist.
>
> Inevitably what all the talk about why he has suddenly become popular is
> still framed as left and right but misses the fundamental crucial point.
> He talks like a human being. He doesn't flip flop to curry favour. He
> has an ideology and a belief that guides his own thoughts and talks with
> conviction and charisma. He shows a humbleness, dressing modestly, and
> says that:
>
> “I have this desperately old fashioned point of view that policy making
> and decision making should not come from the top, passed down the food
> chain for the foot soldiers to go and knock on doors and release it on
> the unsuspecting public,”
>
> This is not a backing of a political candidate. I simply want to better
> understand the forces guiding change here. Watch that YouTube video I
> posted above, and compare it with the stark contrast of the Jeremy
> Corbyn campaign. You have the professional politicians wish an
> established way of creating election campaigns, spreading their
> marketing message, making spin campaigns, carefully controlled and
> managed public appearances. And it stinks, everybody knows it stinks of
> garbage. This system only serves the ethically devoid:
> Liz Kendall profile: 'I don’t want to protest. I want to get into power':
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/10/liz-kendall-profile-power-labour-leadership-election
>
> Then Corbyn is this old man in a sweater that is not caring to answer
> critics who attack him, simply pushing his ideas, doing interviews on
> YouTube and making large public rallies that are packed and a campaign
> funded by donations through the internet.
>
> Quote from the Guardian:
>
> "Long-Bailey described Corbyn as “everything a stereotypical careerist
> politician isn’t.” She said she had encountered two kinds of MP in
> Westminster: conviction politicians and “consensus” ones. She had no
> time for the latter, describing them as the sort of people who think
> changing the world “is all a very good idea in principle but they like
> to put their efforts into tweaking an existing consensus and appealing
> to what’s popular in the media at the time.”"
>
> His appeal has even made Tony Blair, universally despised and hated in
> England, come out against him, as well as all of the current Labour
> leadership in the pockets of corporations.
> Corbynmania is ‘Alice in Wonderland’ politics, says Tony Blair in final
> plea
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/29/tony-blair-corbynmania-alice-in-wonderland
>
> Their argument is that for the good of the Labour party, and being able
> to make real change, the general election is God. And that unless the
> Labour party is a party of appeasement, they will not win. Therefore
> they must play the game. This is the crux of the main argument, and one
> which rests on "the means justify the ends". Among all the excitement
> and energy which is revitalising the youth and giving them hope, are
> bureaucrats from the dead age clinging to what they know and calling on
> them to listen to logic. Tony Blair says Corbyn’s supporters are
> operating in a “parallel reality” which rejects evidence and reason, and
> says their leftwing choice for leader will be an electoral disaster.
>
> It goes further, and something is let out which betrays who morally
> bankrupt and corrupted these snakes which hold our chains actually are.
> As Tony Blair goes on to validate himself and why plastic politicians
> desperate for power willing to sell themselves to power are a good
> thing, Blair admits that he does not fully understand the forces that
> are stoking what he calls “Corbynmania”.
>
> As in, he does not understand what are the forces behind this. We'll
> have to keep an eye on exactly his intent behind this phrasing. As
> another Labour candidate said Corbyn’s popularity “reflects a deep
> disillusionment” with Westminster politics. But I'm sure that Tony Blair
> already understands this. And that his opposition has more to it, than
> simply winning an election.
>
> The Guarian says:
>
> "Tony Blair sees Corbynmania as part of a trend across western
> democracies that has seen movements from right and left, including the
> SNP in Scotland, suddenly prosper off the back of disillusionment with
> traditional politics and a resulting desire to “fight back against the
> system”."
> ...
>
> "However, he says such movements provide a “refuge from reality” rather
> than a means of confronting it."
>
> Tony Blair:
>
> “It is a vast wave of feeling against the unfairness of globalisation,
> against elites, against the humdrum navigation of decision-making in an
> imperfect world. It persuades itself that it has a monopoly on
> authenticity. They’re ‘telling it like it is’; when of course they’re
> telling it like it isn’t.”
>
> Despite all the talk they bang on about democracy, you really sometimes
> get an opportunity to see deep into the soul of these people. It reminds
> me of an article I read when the Conservatives were campaigning against
> changing the UK vote counting system to a fairer method, one of their
> MPs said that the country needs to have someone with their hand on the
> steering wheel. For all their talk of free markets (the Conservatives),
> I don't think they actually believe in market economics steering
> politics. And when you have the guys in charge telling us no, this
> cannot happen because party X won't get into power which represents you
> better than party Y but then their actions show that on some deeper
> level they are even more compromised than they present to us. That we're
> being lied to by pretenders that claim to share our values. Pretenders
> that justify to themselves, they are experts and professionals to the
> throne, despite claiming not to fully understand the global forces at
> work. Against an inevitability of change, they are fighting against it
> claiming that the change will not happen therefore we need to stop the
> change.
>
> And why do we respect these people? Is it because they wear a suit or
> have good propaganda? We all know their technological legislation is
> rubbish, that they understand nothing. Why do we think they understand
> anything at all? If you watch the interviews of Ashton Carter or Obama
> on VICE News about the Islamic State, the things they say are hopeless.
> They still talk about eliminating 'the leadership' and haven't even
> begun to grasp the ideological aspect that gives this movement its
> power. They created the Iraqi government, with the best weapons but
> without an ideology, with a claimed neutrality that crippled it and they
> just run away from battle and corruption is massive. And yet IS which is
> the enemy of everyone is thriving with a strong court system that
> challenges corruption, and a successful economy. We can listen to the
> propaganda or study real sources.
>
> I can't find the article, but it was the Telegraph or some newspaper
> telling about how the IS raises $$ through 'extortion of businesses' in
> their terroritory. In other words: taxes. Funny the double standard from
> a press that pretends to be neutral.
>
> Jeremy Corbyn poses national security threat, says George Osborne
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/31/jeremy-corbyn-poses-national-security-threat-george-osborne
>
> An MP from the same Labour party now takes it to the next level. This
> guy is now an international danger which he calls "an unholy alliance of
> Labour’s leftwing insurgents and the Scottish nationalists" because he
> wants to scrap the UK nuclear weapon system. This is the power defending
> the power. With this also comes a new announcement to renew the program
> for £500m. That it will create thooouussands of jobs! There is many
> interesting things we can see here, about the formation of power and how
> the structure feeds itself.
>
> To put the icing on the cake, I'm going to leave you with the latest
> Islamic State video, titled:
>
> "Return of the Gold Dinar"
>
> Starring interviews from Ron Paul, information about the corrupt banking
> system that supports wars and control, and unveiling the release of the
> new Islamic State monetary system: gold, silver and copper coins.
>
> Much of the content of this video is libertarian philosophy.
>
> https://ia601503.us.archive.org/32/items/ROTGD_201508/ROTGD.mp4
>
> Pictures:
>
> http://imgur.com/a/LcAlj
>
> The dominations will be worth around: 640€, 130€, 10€, 5€, 1€, 10ct, 5ct
>
> Ron Paul:
>
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CNmVgtvUEAEsAfR.png
>
> So what happens after we bomb IS out of existance? The world will return
> to normality right?
>
> "There is no alternative" said Margaret Thatcher in the 80s, and in the
> 90s after communism fell, an author wrote a very popular book called
> 'The End of History and the Last Man' which said:
>
> "What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the
> passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of
> history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological
> evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the
> final form of human government."
>
> Idiot.
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>