Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Frostbite Falls Newz / Re: Doomstead Diner Pics
« Last post by K-Dog on Today at 09:54:52 PM »
2
Geopolitics / Re: Global Systemic Geopolitical Crisis
« Last post by RE on Today at 09:45:48 PM »
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48406.htm
The U.S. is Not a Democracy, It Never Was

I dropped this link on r/collapse earlier this afternoon.  It's currently ranked #1 with 93 upvotes.  :icon_sunny:

https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/7jmvw6/the_us_is_not_a_democracy_it_never_was/

RE
3
Science, Inventions & Techology / Re: Fibonacci Sequence: The Spiral of Life
« Last post by RE on Today at 09:40:04 PM »
Quote
RE:  Life grows this way.

Oh, thank you. Now I know.

If you know, why did you make the comment in the first place?  ???  :icon_scratch:

Being Snarky with me does not earn you Brownie Points.  :emthdown:

RE
4
Quote
RE:  Life grows this way.

Oh, thank you. Now I know.
5
Geopolitics / Re: Global Systemic Geopolitical Crisis
« Last post by Palloy2 on Today at 08:31:32 PM »
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48406.htm
The U.S. is Not a Democracy, It Never Was

By Gabriel Rockhill

December 13, 2017

One of the most steadfast beliefs regarding the United States is that it is a democracy. Whenever this conviction waivers slightly, it is almost always to point out detrimental exceptions to core American values or foundational principles. For instance, aspiring critics frequently bemoan a “loss of democracy” due to the election of clownish autocrats, draconian measures on the part of the state, the revelation of extraordinary malfeasance or corruption, deadly foreign interventions, or other such activities that are considered undemocratic exceptions. The same is true for those whose critical framework consists in always juxtaposing the actions of the U.S. government to its founding principles, highlighting the contradiction between the two and clearly placing hope in its potential resolution.

The problem, however, is that there is no contradiction or supposed loss of democracy because the United States simply never was one. This is a difficult reality for many people to confront, and they are likely more inclined to immediately dismiss such a claim as preposterous rather than take the time to scrutinize the material historical record in order to see for themselves. Such a dismissive reaction is due in large part to what is perhaps the most successful public relations campaign in modern history.

What will be seen, however, if this record is soberly and methodically inspected, is that a country founded on elite, colonial rule based on the power of wealth—a plutocratic colonial oligarchy, in short—has succeeded not only in buying the label of “democracy” to market itself to the masses, but in having its citizenry, and many others, so socially and psychologically invested in its nationalist origin myth that they refuse to hear lucid and well-documented arguments to the contrary.

To begin to peel the scales from our eyes, let us outline in the restricted space of this article, five patent reasons why the United States has never been a democracy (a more sustained and developed argument is available in my book, Counter-History of the Present). To begin with, British colonial expansion into the Americas did not occur in the name of the freedom and equality of the general population, or the conferral of power to the people.

Those who settled on the shores of the “new world,” with few exceptions, did not respect the fact that it was a very old world indeed, and that a vast indigenous population had been living there for centuries. As soon as Columbus set foot, Europeans began robbing, enslaving and killing the native inhabitants. The trans-Atlantic slave trade commenced almost immediately thereafter, adding a countless number of Africans to the ongoing genocidal assault against the indigenous population. Moreover, it is estimated that over half of the colonists who came to North America from Europe during the colonial period were poor indentured servants, and women were generally trapped in roles of domestic servitude. Rather than the land of the free and equal, then, European colonial expansion to the Americas imposed a land of the colonizer and the colonized, the master and the slave, the rich and the poor, the free and the un-free. The former constituted, moreover, an infinitesimally small minority of the population, whereas the overwhelming majority, meaning “the people,” was subjected to death, slavery, servitude, and unremitting socio-economic oppression.

Second, when the elite colonial ruling class decided to sever ties from their homeland and establish an independent state for themselves, they did not found it as a democracy. On the contrary, they were fervently and explicitly opposed to democracy, like the vast majority of European Enlightenment thinkers. They understood it to be a dangerous and chaotic form of uneducated mob rule. For the so-called “founding fathers,” the masses were not only incapable of ruling, but they were considered a threat to the hierarchical social structures purportedly necessary for good governance. In the words of John Adams, to take but one telling example, if the majority were given real power, they would redistribute wealth and dissolve the “subordination” so necessary for politics. When the eminent members of the landowning class met in 1787 to draw up a constitution, they regularly insisted in their debates on the need to establish a republic that kept at bay vile democracy, which was judged worse than “the filth of the common sewers” by the pro-Federalist editor William Cobbett.

The new constitution provided for popular elections only in the House of Representatives, but in most states the right to vote was based on being a property owner, and women, the indigenous and slaves—meaning the overwhelming majority of the population—were simply excluded from the franchise. Senators were elected by state legislators, the President by electors chosen by the state legislators, and the Supreme Court was appointed by the President. It is in this context that Patrick Henry flatly proclaimed the most lucid of judgments: “it is not a democracy.” George Mason further clarified the situation by describing the newly independent country as “a despotic aristocracy.”

When the American republic slowly came to be relabeled as a “democracy,” there were no significant institutional modifications to justify the change in name. In other words, and this is the third point, the use of the term “democracy” to refer to an oligarchic republic simply meant that a different word was being used to describe the same basic phenomenon. This began around the time of “Indian killer” Andrew Jackson’s presidential campaign in the 1830s. Presenting himself as a ‘democrat,’ he put forth an image of himself as an average man of the people who was going to put a halt to the long reign of patricians from Virginia and Massachusetts. Slowly but surely, the term “democracy” came to be used as a public relations term to re-brand a plutocratic oligarchy as an electoral regime that serves the interest of the people or demos. Meanwhile, the American holocaust continued unabated, along with chattel slavery, colonial expansion and top-down class warfare.

In spite of certain minor changes over time, the U.S. republic has doggedly preserved its oligarchic structure, and this is readily apparent in the two major selling points of its contemporary “democratic” publicity campaign. The Establishment and its propagandists regularly insist that a structural aristocracy is a “democracy” because the latter is defined by the guarantee of certain fundamental rights (legal definition) and the holding of regular elections (procedural definition). This is, of course, a purely formal, abstract and largely negative understanding of democracy, which says nothing whatsoever about people having real, sustained power over the governing of their lives. However, even this hollow definition dissimulates the extent to which, to begin with, the supposed equality before the law in the United States presupposes an inequality before the law by excluding major sectors of the population: those judged not to have the right to rights, and those considered to have lost their right to rights (Native Americans, African-Americans and women for most of the country’s history, and still today in certain aspects, as well as immigrants, “criminals,” minors, the “clinically insane,” political dissidents, and so forth). Regarding elections, they are run in the United States as long, multi-million dollar advertising campaigns in which the candidates and issues are pre-selected by the corporate and party elite.

The general population, the majority of whom do not have the right to vote or decide not to exercise it, are given the “choice”—overseen by an undemocratic electoral college and embedded in a non-proportional representation scheme—regarding which member of the aristocratic elite they would like to have rule over and oppress them for the next four years. “Multivariate analysis indicates,” according to an important recent study by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, “that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination […], but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy.”

To take but a final example of the myriad ways in which the U.S. is not, and has never been, a democracy, it is worth highlighting its consistent assault on movements of people power. Since WWII, it has endeavored to overthrow some 50 foreign governments, most of which were democratically elected. It has also, according the meticulous calculations by William Blum in America’s Deadliest Export: Democracy, grossly interfered in the elections of at least 30 countries, attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders, dropped bombs on more than 30 countries, and attempted to suppress populist movements in 20 countries.

The record on the home front is just as brutal. To take but one significant parallel example, there is ample evidence that the FBI has been invested in a covert war against democracy. Beginning at least in the 1960s, and likely continuing up to the present, the Bureau “extended its earlier clandestine operations against the Communist party, committing its resources to undermining the Puerto Rico independence movement, the Socialist Workers party, the civil rights movement, Black nationalist movements, the Ku Klux Klan, segments of the peace movement, the student movement, and the ‘New Left’ in general” (Cointelpro: The FBI’s Secret War on Political Freedom, p. 22-23). Consider, for instance, Judi Bari’s summary of its assault on the Socialist Workers Party: “From 1943-63, the federal civil rights case Socialist Workers Party v. Attorney General documents decades of illegal FBI break-ins and 10 million pages of surveillance records. The FBI paid an estimated 1,600 informants $1,680,592 and used 20,000 days of wiretaps to undermine legitimate political organizing.” In the case of the Black Panther Party and the American Indian Movement (AIM)—which were both important attempts to mobilize people power to dismantle the structural oppression of white supremacy and top-down class warfare—the FBI not only infiltrated them and launched hideous smear and destabilization campaigns against them, but they assassinated 27 Black Panthers and 69 members of AIM (and subjected countless others to the slow death of incarceration). If it be abroad or on the home front, the American secret police has been extremely proactive in beating down the movements of people rising up, thereby protecting and preserving the main pillars of white supremacist, capitalist aristocracy.

Rather than blindly believing in a golden age of democracy in order to remain at all costs within the gilded cage of an ideology produced specifically for us by the well-paid spin-doctors of a plutocratic oligarchy, we should unlock the gates of history and meticulously scrutinize the founding and evolution of the American imperial republic. This will not only allow us to take leave of its jingoist and self-congratulatory origin myths, but it will also provide us with the opportunity to resuscitate and reactivate so much of what they have sought to obliterate. In particular, there is a radical America just below the surface of these nationalist narratives, an America in which the population autonomously organizes itself in indigenous and ecological activism, black radical resistance, anti-capitalist mobilization, anti-patriarchal struggles, and so forth. It is this America that the corporate republic has sought to eradicate, while simultaneously investing in an expansive public relations campaign to cover over its crimes with the fig leaf of “democracy” (which has sometimes required integrating a few token individuals, who appear to be from below, into the elite ruling class in order to perpetuate the all-powerful myth of meritocracy). If we are astute and perspicacious enough to recognize that the U.S. is undemocratic today, let us not be so indolent or ill-informed that we let ourselves be lulled to sleep by lullabies praising its halcyon past. Indeed, if the United States is not a democracy today, it is in large part due to the fact that it never was one. Far from being a pessimistic conclusion, however, it is precisely by cracking open the hard shell of ideological encasement that we can tap into the radical forces that have been suppressed by it. These forces—not those that have been deployed to destroy them—should be the ultimate source of our pride in the power of the people.
6
Fibonacci Sequence: The Spiral of Life

Quote from: RE link=to[u
[/u]pic=10448.msg142399#msg142399 date=1513216953]
Fib(n, T): Tn= T(n-1)   T(n-2)
for -∞ > n > ∞

The fingerprint, ear and cloud pics are CHOSEN to fit well.
Can a snail do addition?
Or a plant?
Or is it because Fib(n) is a rough approximation of k.en - a generalised exponential?

Of course the graphics are chosen because they are "best fit", but the spiral is quite ubiquitous through nature.  And yea, that is partly because it reflects exponential growth.  But that is the point here.  Once it begins, life grows this way.  Not always the perfect spiral, but as long as there is energy around it continues to grow.  There will be energy around in surplus in the Universe for quite some time to come.  I expect therefore numerous new spirals will also come into existence.


 :icon_sunny:

RE





Just tell Palloy that GOD did it . That always gets a very predictable reaction from him (and most other atheists).   


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/4VrcO6JaMrM" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/4VrcO6JaMrM</a>
7


December 13, 2017

Virtually No Economist Believes the GOP Tax Bill Will Generate Growth

The $1.5 trillion growth dividends that Republicans project on their tax bill remained the same at 20% and at 21% , this shows that they are picking the figure out of the air, and it is "pretty far-fetched," says economist Dean Baker


Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. He is the author of several books, his latest being "Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer".

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/Dn5uop0459Q" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/Dn5uop0459Q</a>

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=20695
8
Geopolitics / Re: WW3??
« Last post by Palloy2 on Today at 08:11:18 PM »
"The war game"
This video is archived at https://archive.org/details/TheWarGame_201405
It was made in 1965 for the BBC but not shown as it was deemed too scary.
46 mins - not many laughs.
9
Agelbert Newz / LOL!
« Last post by agelbert on Today at 07:25:40 PM »
I think the illusion evolved out of a new ability to use light and dark shading to interpret what we see - those who could do it survived better and those that couldn't died out. 

Quote
AG:
And you still owe me an apology for claiming I was wrong in stating that reality is even worse than the RCP 8.5 Global Warming scenario. RCP 8.5 is too conservative. Admit it!

No, far from being conservative, RCP-8.5 is much too high (extremist) and would require there to be a LOT more fossils fuels than exist, let alone would be profitable to extract and refine. I think RCP-2.6 is much too high too. I just listened to Guy McPherson talk where he bases his incorrect scenario on Sam Canara's writings, a trickster who knows how to fool people with biased statistics. Fooled Guy anyway, who is not strong on statistics.


You are delusional.


Palloy SAID:
Quote
No, far from being conservative, RCP-8.5 is much too high (extremist) and would require there to be a LOT more fossils fuels than exist , let alone would be profitable to extract and refine.  I think RCP-2.6 is much too high too.


You are also a liar. I posted a video here that PROVED the EMPIRICAL Climate DATA has us tracking MORE EXTREME than the RCP 8.5 scenario!
Here it is again.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/8PdM9_cDL5Y" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/8PdM9_cDL5Y</a>

Are you going to claim the scientist in the video doesn't "understand" statistics or math too? Are you going to claim the charted EMPIRICAL data is "incorrect"? How many BULLSHIT straws are you going to grasp at now?

You know, your detatchment from reality is getting rather severe. You can still read a graph, right? I do believe they show one in the video with the RCP 8.5 track and the DATA right next to it.  ;)


Yet you STILL keep wallowing in your denial of reality along with your la la land theories about how we "evolved" this or that. Your tired "the ones that didn't have it died out" straw gasping needs a rest too. The scientists pointed out (I guess you missed that part) that the illusion ONLY occurs on paper, not in nature, so NATURAL SELECTION, a purely SUBTRACTIVE PROCESS, obviously did not have BEANS to do with curve bias. They DID NOT HAVE paper hundreds of thousands of years ago, Einstein. Therefore, no DE-SELECTION process could have gone on where those who did not have curve bias  "died out". Therefore, your explanation is pure and unadulterated, groundless, and embarrasingly unscientific, speculation. But that's how irrationally you cling to your world view.



You still owe me an apology for claiming I was wrong in stating that reality is even worse than the RCP 8.5 Global Warming scenario. RCP 8.5 is too conservative. Admit it!
10
Frostbite Falls Newz / Re: Doomstead Diner Pics
« Last post by RE on Today at 06:04:11 PM »
The Shining.

I don't remember that scene.  I'll have to watch the movie again if I can find it for free.

RE
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10