dubmeup wrote:

I'm not ready for responsibility mrsg. I get the urge to take bait

If a see owt in ma ken I'll be reet chuffed.

Guevarista wrote:
You call that a 'conspiracy theory' Gue?
Its well documented. Even to the extent that fractional reserve banking is mentioned in wikipedia.
The bank of england have even released a book about it openly admitting all of it

but the basis of exchange was offering something for something of equal value......hence money being born as a measure

My view is that the society and culture is dominated by certain concepts that were articulated by Edward Bernays and discussed in the film "The Century of the Self". It can really be summed up by the following three snippets of information:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Engineering_of_Consent

"We must shift America from a needs- to a desires-culture. People must be trained to desire, to want new things, even before the old have been entirely consumed. [...] Man's desires must overshadow his needs".- Paul Mazer, an investment banker from Lehman Brothers in 1930s America.
From the start of "The Century of the Self" which can be viewed here:



If you're going to build a healthier society then you have to reverse these trends, or at least start to make some headway against them. We're all often confused why people can't see how upside-down things are. Actually, many people can. But because their desires are in control of their behaviour they are easily satiated, and we're steadily taught and acclimated to the idea that this is natural. To quote "The Century of the Self" again, "this is the story of the rise of an idea that has come to dominate our society. It is the belief that the satisfaction of individual feelings and desires should be our highest priority".

This is why people can't see how poor the behaviour of corporations is, and why they don't do anything about it, even making a small effort to boycott certain companies, because they see the satisfaction of their own desires as being more important. Let me give you an example. My mum shops at Tesco. Bloody awful company, obviously. I believe I've made this quite clear to her. I know that she understands this. But she always says to me that they Tesco run some sort of air miles scheme, and they get cheap or even free holidays out of it. Ultimately she views this as more important than her consumer behaviour, and I don't think is even remotely hesitant or ashamed of it. But why would she be? All her peers think the same way. She probably sits in front of the TV most evenings which chisels this concept steadily into your brain. The entire culture revolves around consumerism, and we're told that this will make us happy. The only time she ever comes into contact with anyone that would suggest otherwise is me, and while I'm by a considerable distance the most intelligent person she knows (not in itself a huge achievement) she doesn't ultimately pay any attention to me whatsoever.

I'm sorry for bagging my mum, who I do love, but this is an example on which I can be entirely objective. So this is why people don't rebel because the stuff that they should be rebelling against they actually view as improving their lives. Even though they're getting fucked by this commingled banking-corporate-fascist structure every day. Even though it's ensuring that there are more and more poor, desperate people every day, nothing changes not only on a physical level, but also in people's mental, intellectual and psychological response to socio-economic issues. Because Sky will always have a new 3D channel, or some posh clothes shop will always have another pair of shoes to buy, or God knows Apple will always come out with some new gadget. And they'll buy it, consume it, get a temporary boost from it for a bit like a sugar rush, and then think that this is what happiness, fulfillment and a high standard of living should be about. What do they call it? Retail therapy. It's a completely pointless form of therapy, the need for which is the result of living in a sick society to start with. And, additionally, all of these products tend to drive people further and further apart, they tend to isolate people, they tend to put up, not bring down, the walls of communication, so there is even less incentive for people not to follow their selfish desires as they don't even know the people around them anyway. This is before you go into the extent to which people compete (and are encouraged to compete) with each other.

So in my view the great failing of the 'alternative media' or whatever you want to call it, is not the fact that it goes into a lot of stuff that isn't helpful and you can't prove, it's that no-one that has a big following has done anything to organise people in a way that will begin to reverse these trends. It just becomes a different type of consumerism. Of course, these trends are not easy to reverse, but I have a few ideas, and I actually just came up with an idea the other day which I think would be really valuable. But it's really going to take people that have a huge public platform to actually make some tangible, practical progress if we're going to turn things around. And I would make this as much a criticism of, for example, Chomsky and Pilger as Icke. I've read lots of Chomsky, he has a massive public platform, he advocates anarcho-syndicalism, but he hasn't (as far as I'm aware) done one thing towards creating some sort of organisation of like minds. Now he could very well say to me, "why don't you do it?" Because I haven't got a massive fucking public platform! Everyone I know disagrees with me!

Anyway, that's all I can type now, I'm supposed to be working! You know, so I can make money, so I can eat and pay my rent!

dawnbreak wrote:
He/she who decides the 'value' controls all.

Guevarista wrote:
Everything I've mentioned is well documented as was the info in dubs OP

A lot of it actually comes from the established authority in the first place, I guess you just didn't bother to look?
A good example would be all the ways of avoiding taxation if you're self employed, most people just don't bother to look into it so they are quite unaware of it.
There's no 'conspiracy theory' there, just the expected stupidity of billions of people because education sucks.
You can completely take the piss out of all those people if they choose to remain unaware of it.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe themselves to be free

I think within the thread, we are still loosely accepting the use of money dawn. Just trying to see if we can basically agree a sound method of using money as a means of exchange. If we cant, i'll probably go back to the no currency rhetoric

I was a minute after you wub but we pretty much said the same thing

dubmeup wrote:
Kicked me out of your consensus huh?

dubmeup wrote:
Sound money would have to be present for sound method IMHO.

I should hope everyone can at least agree on that.

andyh wrote:
It dosen't matter that fractional reserve banking is well documented if it's only discussed in conspiracy theory subculture.

oioioi wrote:
Not at all oi, personally i am prepared to go with a consensus for keeping currency mid term as i've said, despite my ultimate evil agenda being to ditch currency as we evolve. Am equally prepared to go with a consensus to head straight for the currency ditch

So, perhaps then the question to try for consensus on at this stage should be summat like, are we all here in this thread to try and acheive a consensus.....as an experiment...

.......... wrote:
If its discussed in academia, the bank of england and in wikipedia then its not only discussed in 'conspiracy theory subculture' is it?

Do you see the total cognitive disconnect (brainfart) you had there?

dubmeup wrote:
I disagree.

oioioi wrote:
Oi you are just bloody hilarious, I'm half worried if we ever meet I'll bloody die laughing.

Tbf andy, i get ra's point. Discussion of such stuff is still pretty 'fringe'. Largely due to the msm putting a cloak on it.
The media only deal with real stuff when they have no choice. Usually through weight of public awareness and pressure. The word needs to spread a lot more yet.

dubmeup wrote: Then that is what RA should have said instead of using the 'conspiracy theory' tag that clearly does not belong to something that is factual.
At least its 'fringe' now, in the past there was no fringe
People are slowly getting educated.
Yep, with lots of help from people calling it 'conspiracy theory'

I'm half worried that the facade this evolutionary social medium has allowed me to evolve may disappoint.

Or just keep my glass full.