:: Re: [unSYSTEM] The end of history h…
Kezdőlap
Delete this message
Reply to this message
Szerző: Penny Gaff
Dátum:  
Címzett: System undo crew
Tárgy: Re: [unSYSTEM] The end of history has ended + *NEW* Islamic State video about Gold currency and the FED
I was hoping the reference to democracy and america a bastion of freedom in
the original post was a sarcastic one
On Sep 1, 2015 5:32 PM, "Sam" <unsystem@???> wrote:

> Why do you call it a democracy? Let us not kid ourselves.
>
> With the absolute spying that the state agencies now openly admit that they
> do, we have to be real, with ourselves and with the world. Such spying is
> not
> about the individual so much as it is about spying on the mind of the
> organism
> that is each nation, state, county, any power structure. What they really
> have
> and employ is the real time feedback of how their lies and manipulation
> tactics are working on the people! Think about it. Realize this: The
> teleprompters of obama controlled by the NSA in real time based upon the
> real
> time feedback of data mining every twitter post, ever facebook like,
> dislike,
> comment, Etc. Same for harper. Same for cameron. Same for every such
> puppet.
> Think about it. The real time feedback of every bug everywhere at ever
> level.
> This is them adjusting their message (lies) in real time based upon how
> well
> their lies are fooling people! The puppets they groom to put into
> cheerleader
> (President, Etc.) positions are provided with exactly what to say, when to
> say
> it, and when to keep their mouth shut -- all enabled by this real time feed
> direct from the populations mind.
>
> This is fucking obvious. You (not speaking to you here Amir) are ignorant
> if
> you do not see this. Do not kid yourself. Snowden already proved that what
> they can do, they were already doing, and you were a fool to think
> otherwise!
>
> So, if we want democracy, then we have to make this spying absolutely
> illegal!
> Since the implication is that it cannot be made illegal, because that would
> put us at a disadvantage to other countries (Chinese hackers, Russian
> hackers,
> whatever the justification), then we have to at least do one thing then:
> stop
> calling what we have a Democracy! It is a fucking dictatorship by those who
> have such ability! To fool ourselves that we have anything even remotely
> resembling a democracy is disingenuous at best and fucking stupid lies in
> reality. It is admitted the agencies do this, then it is admitted that it
> is
> absolutely not a democracy. Let us develop this conversation so our
> countries
> can no longer be called a democracy by anyone. That will obliterate what
> vestige of moral high ground these tyrants have left.
>
> Sam
>
> On Monday, August 31, 2015 12:37:52 PM Amir Taaki 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-la
> > bour-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
>
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
>