BIS: Bailouts contribute to a worsening financial crisis

last SG · 2008-12-16T21:03:54+00:00

I don't think anyone seriously fully understands the problem now. It's a runaway crises. The problems of course can be traced to the lack of regulation, and...

16/f/lonely SG

That, is precisely the problem.

The majority of people on this forum are obsessive about the pipedream of freedom, that somehow our problems are going to go away once the PAP is kicked out of office, that LKY and LHL suddenly croaks..etc.

In the end, what they really want is the freedom is consume more by having cheaper stuff. What they fail to understand, is that the supposedly "First World" is built on the exploitation of the Third World. That their vaulted freedom is because of the abundant resources robbed from others, not because of a free democractic society.

That, i believe is why democracies has never worked well in Asia. We never had the influx of resources from robbing others. Japan's probably worked because of the influx of funds from America, as well as their cultural tendancies for reduced consumption and conservation. But it left them constantly vulnerable when the banks in America decides to "shave the sheep".

To my knowledge, Japan also never had to return the gold and treasures it looted from conquered territories. Instead it was used to fund their rebuilding.

Without that influx of resources, the country would never had enough to create the neccesary amount of jobs to close the poverty gap enough to generate the neccessary well educated middle class for a healthy, functional democracy. In this regard, LKY has done an excellent job, though he has possibly sealed his own end as well.

To my understanding, democracy does not work well in Asia, simply because most countries don't have the institutes to support the principles of democracy. Again, that's subjective......what does democracy really mean?

If we say that capital liberalisation is a sign of democracy and we should follow, should we all dash into that blindly? Sure.....Wall St is a damn good sign of that (so says capitalists). But even up to the 70s, the US capital market is strictly regulated and only in the 80s, and more in the 90s, were the capital controls lifted by and large.

Yet, many proponents for liberalisation fail to see that. They would see Wall St and exclaim: Oh! Look at the free market at work! We should get everyone to do the same!

As you have pointed out, opening up your market leaves you vulnerable. But it depends on how much and just as importantly how fast you open up.

China is a very good example. It emphasises on growth AND stability. By opening up their markets slowly, they have managed to mantain high growth and a fairly stable one at that. They were barely touched by the Asian Financial Crisis.

Look at Russia which tried the "shock therapy" at the recommendation of the western powers. It privatised practically everthing less natural resources without having even the regulations and institutions it needed. With oil prices now at a low, I think they can put their aircraft carrier construction on hold.

Japan, China etc can afford to ignore western influences to a certain degree. Can others do so? Can you imagine IMF condemning you just because you refuse their "prescriptions"? It would be tough then to do things your way, because it takes 2 hands to clap and where then would be the other hand?

Democracy can happen in Asia to the extent of the west. Because they did it the slow way. Why can't we? Don't tell me democracy happens overnight? Sadly, proponents always overlook this.

freedomclub SG

Why do we even think of democracy as the ideal? Democracy is just mob rule where 51% of the people dominate over the rest.

The ideal should be the Constitutional Republic founded in 1776 where the rule of Law was supreme and rights were recognised as inalienable, not privileges that government extends to people.

16/f/lonely SG

Why do we even think of democracy as the ideal? Democracy is just mob rule where 51% of the people dominate over the rest.

The ideal should be the Constitutional Republic founded in 1776 where the rule of Law was supreme and rights were recognised as inalienable, not privileges that government extends to people.

But.....exactly what rights should there be?

Gay rights? To quote a controvesy? (No offense)

Democracy is not without flaws. But indeed, which system can't be abused? Including the above, if you read the highlighted....all it takes is a twisted and influential mind.

freedomclub SG

Read the US Bill of Rights. Those are the rights, not guaranteed by government, but recognised as inalienable to life. If there ever was an ideal, it was the constitutional republic created in 1776.

Just dont give those twisted minds a chance. Thats where the separation of powers come in. But then, controlling the money and information flow turn the tide in favour of the inhumane bastards.

16/f/lonely SG

Read the US Bill of Rights. Those are the rights, not guaranteed by government, but recognised as inalienable to life. If there ever was an ideal, it was the constitutional republic created in 1776.

Just dont give those twisted minds a chance. Thats where the separation of powers come in. But then, controlling the money and information flow turn the tide in favour of the inhumane bastards.

But.....exactly what rights should be considered rights?

Ok....I have read up on your advice. But I also found out I'm not the only one to raise that.....

It can't be ideal, but then what can ever be completely ideal?

Stevenson101 SG

Rights? Rights are what the people in power chose to give you, yes?

freedomclub SG

I thought they were privileges.

Rights refer to ideas like freedom being inherent in human beings.

freedomclub SG

But.....exactly what rights should be considered rights?

Ok....I have read up on your advice. But I also found out I'm not the only one to raise that.....

It can't be ideal, but then what can ever be completely ideal?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

That is, and should be, the ideal.

Stevenson101 SG

Ah.

But i think the problem in this whole Bill of Rights is the pursuit of Happiness.

Though i don't think the guys who wrote this ever knew how much technology could warp that right. As far as the US government is concerned, everything they've done is to secure those rights which actually makes sense in a way.

I guess the road to Hell is truly paved with good intentions.

freedomclub SG

I don't buy that.

If they truly sought to pursue "Happiness", then there is no need for all the police state developments taking place in the US today. It is the people that want happiness. These in power only want more power. The object of power is power. Unfortunately, the American people as well as all human beings on this planet are neglecting our duty:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Stevenson101 SG

I don't buy that.

Maybe i just want to still retain some hope for the human race.

But i don't think people knowingly pursue power as an end. They pursue it as a mean to obtain a desired end, believing what they do justifies the means.

Much the same way you desire a change to a resource based economy, a lot of blood is probably going to be spilled but you believe that it's going to be for the best yes?

Much the same way as Atobe, Poh Ah Pak, AndrewPKYap believe that the removal of the PAP will be good for Singapore in the long term yes?

Any problems in the process, well that's just the pain of change. It's quite chilling when you realise how close you get to the mindset of the people who cause all this when you just slot out a few words here and there.

freedomclub SG

Maybe i just want to still retain some hope for the human race.

But i don't think people knowingly pursue power as an end. They pursue it as a mean to obtain a desired end, believing what they do justifies the means.

Much the same way you desire a change to a resource based economy, a lot of blood is probably going to be spilled but you believe that it's going to be for the best yes?

Much the same way as Atobe, Poh Ah Pak, AndrewPKYap believe that the removal of the PAP will be good for Singapore in the long term yes?

Me too. Funny how a few threads ago you were the one being realistic while I was the one being idealistic. Let me quote from Orwell:

You understand well enough how the Party maintains itself in power. Now tell me why we cling to power. What is our motive? Why should we want power? Go on, speak,' he added as Winston remained silent.

Nevertheless Winston did not speak for another moment or two. A feeling of weariness had overwhelmed him. The faint, mad gleam of enthusiasm had come back into O'Brien's face. He knew in advance what O'Brien would say. That the Party did not seek power for its own ends, but only for the good of the majority. That it sought power because men in the mass were frail cowardly creatures who could not endure liberty or face the truth, and must be ruled over and systematically deceived by others who were stronger than themselves. That the choice for mankind lay between freedom and happiness, and that, for the great bulk of mankind, happiness was better. That the party was the eternal guardian of the weak, a dedicated sect doing evil that good might come, sacrificing its own happiness to that of others. The terrible thing, thought Winston, the terrible thing was that when O'Brien said this he would believe it. You could see it in his face. O'Brien knew everything. A thousand times better than Winston he knew what the world was really like, in what degradation the mass of human beings lived and by what lies and barbarities the Party kept them there. He had understood it all, weighed it all, and it made no difference: all was justified by the ultimate purpose. What can you do, thought Winston, against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself, who gives your arguments a fair hearing and then simply persists in his lunacy?

'You are ruling over us for our own good,' he said feebly. 'You believe that human beings are not fit to govern themselves, and therefore --'

He started and almost cried out. A pang of pain had shot through his body. O'Brien had pushed the lever of the dial up to thirty-five.

'That was stupid, Winston, stupid!' he said. 'You should know better than to say a thing like that.'

He pulled the lever back and continued:

'Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?'

Stevenson101 SG

Actually idealistic would imply that i'm making a decision without observing the stituation. Being realistic means i'm willing to accept the possibilities of factors that's outside my normal field of belief or control, even if i feel that field already covers alot of ground.

I like your quotes, they're very interesting to read. But i think you might get better responses if you posted more of your own opinions instead of posting quotes and links. You post the link or quotes, it gives a reader the sense of insincerity like you expect the reader to come to the same conclusion as you did and it feels rude somehow, like you're not willing to give the reader any room to come to different conclusions.

But now to actually respond to your quotes.

I find that the opinions of Orwell very typical of the Western mentality. Because of their influence by the Bible, they believe that there can only be good or evil, God or Satan. I believe that humans are ultimately social creatures, they do not knowingly pursue a socially destructive path because they still want to benefit from that society.They are neither evil or good, they just function on what they perceive as a need.

A person working hard in order to buy his 3 storey bungalow, a nice garden and 2 cars is doing nothing wrong. He wants to provide for his family and give them a good life. But when you put it into perspective that the infrastructure and resources (Water, Electricity, Waste disposal, Road repairs, Police) to support thousands of families, you realise what a gross abuse of resource it can come to be.

That is why the current state of affairs on this planet is so difficult. How do you convince people who see how much comfort the guy next to them is having that such an enjoyment is grossly impossible to support if everyone lives like that? How do you tell the Third World that you can't live like the First World, there isn't enough resources for all of us to live like that.

It's equivalent to the First World eating at a fancy restaurant , finishing the food letting the Third World have dessert and then telling them they can't ever order the main course again. Then, the First World would laugh at the Third World for having poor table manners for not knowing the proper way to eat something they never ate in the first place

How would you tell the First World that pursuing such a comfort when they have already come to accept such a way of life as standard and normal for them?They want the freedom to enjoy, but do not understand the amount of responsibility it takes to support their lifestyle. But how could you expect people to understand things outside of their experience? it's equivalent to asking a IT person to understand Picasso.

That Orwell quote you used is very suitable to use in a movie or drama. Because we've come to believe that there is only 2 polarities in the world. Good and evil, immoral and moral. It is this thinking that has brought the human race this far, because the concept of good and evil makes it easy to incite populations to conquer or survive difficult circumstances

If we talk to every single one responsible for the current crisis, i doubt you will still think they are power hungry individuals but humans not far removed from you and I. They are victims of legacy, circumstances and the foolish need to stand out. That's how insidious that i feel the problem is, every individual has done what they feel is correct but cannot see the damage they can do when all of it connects to one big boom.

Actually i'm far more pessimistic than you realise about humans. I do not see a monolithic intention to take over the world, i see a mass of individuals doing what they each feel is right but a massive disaster when it all comes together. I see frightened children in the power hungry men, you can at least try to reason with a power hungry man but you cannot with a frightened child.

With the power of the Internet, we now know more of men like Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong outside of what the Western media has chose to tell. We know that if the circumstances were slightly different we might have called them friends and comrades or they might have been hailed as visionaries in a slightly different setting.

I believe that it takes multiple factors to create what we see and understand as an effect, not only one single reason or cause. Rather than think of it as a single stone hitting the water to create the ripple,i feel it's more of a mass of ripples hitting other ripples to create new and unexpected ripples. The stones that created the original ripples, being too ancient for us to do anything about it.

freedomclub SG

But now to actually respond to your quotes.

Alright, then what is your opinion of Orwell's quote? By the way, I suggest reading 1984, you can easily get it online. Orwell's 1984 is usually described as a warning against totalitarianism and in my opinion, that piece which I quoted is some straight talk that describes those in power.

By your reply, I assume that you deny the existence of people like O'Brien? You think that no one can be that inhumane. You think that governments will never kill their own citizens to further their own political ambitions. You believe that people will never do anything that would intentionally harm another human being. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

That is idealism. Granted, that is the mentality of most of society, but not of its rulers. If only those in power shared such a mentality, the world would truly be better off because we have all the technology to solve the most pressing ills of the world. It only takes an understanding of the history of government false-flags to shatter that illusion. You may feel that seeing things in absolute terms is a wrong approach. Even if the ones implementing a decision may feel that it would benefit society, or some group, perhaps the ones that made the decision sought to pursue a selfish and inhumane goal.

For instance, GM companies like Monsato purport to increase crop yields, resistance to diseases etc. Its employees likely believe that its actions are benefiting the world. However, the reality is different. Organic crops out-field GM crops. More importantly, GM crops act as mobile copyrights that are regularly used to sue non-GM farmers when they land on non-GM fields. In addition, the cost of GM seeds and related chemicals usually bankrupt farmers such that 1000 farmers in India commit suicide every month due to desperation. Of course, Monsato could solve this problem. But then, its goals are monopoly and profits. Knowing that they are causing massive suffering, the heads of Monsato sweep it all aside in the name of profits and monopolisation of the food industry.

You may think I'm being arrogant, and its likely I am. But when a certain level of understanding has been reached, everything appears in black or white.

Stevenson101 SG

Well, i read through the quick introduction for 1984. It does have some very interesting concepts and it is likely what we could head towards such a future. But for such a system to exist, the war needs to be fought for quite a few decades, long enough for the next generation to be borned and grow up without knowledge of the world before them.

I don't deny that such a scenario would evolved, the more we continue to exhaust our natural resources such a future would only become more and more likely, even neccessary. Because there won't be enough natural resources left for us to live as luxuriously as we do now, rationing would become the rule not the exception.

You misunderstood me, i do not deny the existence of people like O'Brien. I'm sure there are more than enough sociopaths out there like him running around in the governments of the world.

I believe a government is essentially a gang occupying a territory. They could chose to terrorize the populace, demand excessive protection money and beat others into submission. Very soon, people will start to flee from their territory leaving them nothing to subsist on.I'm sure this logic is hardly difficult to believe.

Alternatively, they could demand a small amount of protection money (taxes), provide security from other gangs (the police), help settle problems between the inhabitants (court, justice system). By giving access to electricity, water and decent housing to attract more people to live here, they get more tax money and naturally they will also benefit more.

In this world of globalisation, great and creative minds are just as valuable as gold, oil and military strength. If you intentionally chose to brain wash your people, you are shooting yourself in the foot because you're denying yourself an advantage.

China has practiced what is basically totalitarian rule for milleniums, but yet they still put so much emphasis on education, yes?

Even in the world of 1984, by denying your people proper education you lose the edge of gaining that one General, that one Scientist, that one Politician of ending the war in the first place.

I do not deny that occasionally there would be sociopaths that would think nothing of killing his own country for political advancement. However, i believe the vast majority are basically looking for what they can hope to gain from the system and will avoid socially destructive policies as much as possible (that is, if they can actually identify it as a socially destructive policy in the first place, like the War on Terror)

Oh i believe any politician would gladly see you and i slowly die in agony in an acid pool if it saves their own skin. But i doubt they would do it for the power, only for tangible benefits. Even for O'Brien the benefits come from being able to do whatever he wants to you without persecution.

Yes, i've heard the stories of genetically modified crop companies using their technology to extort farmers. Monsato can do that because it is a company, with no social obligations whatsoever and answering only to its shareholders and if the people gets upset that's the problem of the Indian government, not them.

No, no i don't think you're arrogant. If you're arrogant you won't be having these discussions i enjoy so much, you would be saying that i'm delusional, licking the assdogs or "feeling sad that you don't understand the truth but it's ok i'm still willing to sacrifice myself to kill the terrorists."

Arrogance i feel is a demonstration of ignorance. Something a person does when they are no longer capable of understanding more of the world and foolishly guard what little they know like some holy grail. They blare aloud of what they know because they are afraid the world does not agree with them.

I merely wish to speak out my logic and see if others could poke holes into it. Because i see it as an advantage to know the flaws in my logic, i can only be a better person by knowing more of my flaws not by denying they exist.

Seeing things in black and white is only the result of absorbing information at face value. The shareholders of Monsato also see their numbers in black and white no? If you want to be better than such men, you need to be able to see things in more colors than them.

I would recommand Macolm Gladwell's Outliers to you, an excellent book. You'd be surprised at how much external factors centuries old can play to shape us.

Shotgun SG

No seriously, our USD based economy is really quite messed up. I mean, like wtf is the greenback but a piece of "IOU" these days? Its hardly even backed up by gold reserves these days, and the only thing giving it value is cos countries are keeping a huge reserve of it.

The rest of the world may not trade on credit, but their reserves are made up of bloody IOUs. Kinda strange eh? I thought people are supposed to keep reserves in gold bullion or something.

freedomclub SG

You misunderstood me, i do not deny the existence of people like O'Brien. I'm sure there are more than enough sociopaths out there like him running around in the governments of the world.

China has practiced what is basically totalitarian rule for milleniums, but yet they still put so much emphasis on education, yes?

Even in the world of 1984, by denying your people proper education you lose the edge of gaining that one General, that one Scientist, that one Politician of ending the war in the first place.

I would recommand Macolm Gladwell's Outliers to you, an excellent book. You'd be surprised at how much external factors centuries old can play to shape us.

Let's just put the discussions about seeing things in black or white on hold first. I believe that human beings are emergent, that they have to constantly change, and in the process, upgrade their beliefs. Its not progressive to hold on to certain preconceptions about the world that have been obviously conditioned into people.

The world that Orwell wrote of, an extreme form of totalitarian is, in my opinion, outdated, because other more efficient forms of governance have been developed. For Orwell's world to develop, a state of war has to be maintained to focus the peoples' hate on an external enemy, maintain a low standard of living (using up productive resources for war) and to provide the psychological basis for the despotic leadership to stay in power. As I said, while I find that Orwell's world is outdated, it holds certain elements of our society. In this regard, a constant state of war is a characteristic of our world. Think about it, in the last 50 years, we have the Cold War and numerous other relatively short conflicts. Post-Cold War, this state of war has persisted, in the Balkans, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, giving rise to the so-called War on Terror. Our society is constantly in a state of war. If they were sponstaneous, then I wouldn't be making this point. However, the fact is that (using the example of) the Cold War was engineered for exactly the same reason that Orwell envisioned.

Outside of the mainstream explaination of Cold War, which I hope you wouldn't call lies or "conspiracy theories", author and researcher Antony Sutton has exposed the fact that before, during and after the 1917 Russian Revolution, the US, giving tacit approval to corporations, have funded and built up the Soviet Union's military-industrial complex. Simply put, the US was merely creating an external enemy to focus society's hate for Orwellian purposes. Likewise, that situation was the same for the Afghan mujahedeen- the creation of an external enemy. While no one, as far as I know, has denied the accuracy of Sutton's work, this view has been ignored and shunned as "conspiracy theories", even in so-called 'academic' institutions in 'free' societies.

When you say "education", there are different connotations to it. For me, "education" in society follows the mainstream path, which is usually indoctrination of untrue beliefs and knowledge. In countries like China, as you mentioned, how much of it is indoctrination or worker training than real education? By real education, I mean the objective presentation of facts without any motive to conceal or promote the so-called "mainstream" version. In the same breath, real education would never mock any "conspiracy" versions of an event, such as the example of the Cold War which I mentioned above. Unfortunately, your concept of education is grossly wrong.

In our society, so-called "education" is mostly conditioning to accept certain ideas and to reject others, without giving much thought in it at all. Look up the Orwellian word "crimestop". I'm sure this forum has provided some good examples of that. In addition, our education system is designed, not to produce thinkers, but workers. To do this, the entire social system is always promoting consumerism and materialism through uncontrolled advertising, which after some time, conditions people to react emotionally rather than rationally. Why are people constantly competing to dress up better than another person? Why are peoples' worth as a human being measured by the clothes they wear and their material possessions? The ideal society should always treat another person as a fellow human being regardless of status. However, in today's society, not all men are created equal.

And like you, I would wish to be proven wrong, not just condemned as a "conspiracy theorist", for I understand that being wrong allows one to be elevated to a higher level of understanding. However, our schools are designed to condition the mentality that being wrong, not producing results makes you worth less of a human being.

Finally, there are more sociopaths in power than you think. Just because they are never, if rarely, mentioned by the MSM, criminal governments that carry out terrorist attacks to further their own political ambitions, dont think they do not exist. Why should they genuinely look after their peoples' concerns if they could just put up a superficial front while exploiting the ruled class? The object of power is power. As the old axiom goes, "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Stevenson101 SG

Sorry to take this long, but it is a long post and i needed time to gather and organize a proper response.

I would not argue with you about the Cold War, because i do agree with you it's more about giving the military engine of the US more reasons to exist rather over communism and capitalism.

However, while i agree that it is a Orwellian characteristic i do not believe that is a part of a grand plan to create the totalitarian society. Too much factors have to come into play in order for that to be achieved. And if there is any group of individuals who are actually intelligent, disciplined and resourceful enough to actually make all this part of a grand plan then they rightfully deserve to rule the world.

Yes, you've heard me right. If the Illumanti truly exist and they are deliberately doing this to achieve the totalitarian society, i would say in a evolution perspective they are exactly what we need to make sure the human race endures. The human race is wasting too much time bickering about differences of religion race and nationalities. We need men who could plan in decades, not only for the time in office.

I do not believe that humans will ever coexist peacefully, we would never hold hands together and sing Kumbaya around a campfire unless there is someone with a big stick making sure that we do. We would not treat each other as equals if there is nothing making sure that we do.Because we are not.

Emergent is a new word to me. Thus i've check it up on wikipedia which i hope is accurate for me to base my opinion on. I hate posing quotes, but it's difficult to explain if i don't.

the stock market is an example of emergence on a grand scale. As a whole it precisely regulates the relative security prices of companies across the world, yet it has no leader; there is no one entity which controls the workings of the entire market. Agents, or investors, have knowledge of only a limited number of companies within their portfolio, and must follow the regulatory rules of the market and analyse the transactions individually or in large groupings. Trends and patterns emerge which are studied intensively by technical analysts.

that is what i feel the source of the chaos is from, groups of men with limited knowledge identifying a pattern or trend and doing everything in their power to make sure it happens. A self fulfilling Prophecy.

In the eyes of these men they are doing what they feel is correct, increase the earnings of their companies can't be wrong. Looking for cheap labour can't be wrong and neither is looking for cheap natural resources. It's when you put the actions of these men together that the horrible results would become clear.

I prefer to look at the results of history to make my judgement. China has culturally been the most advanced nation until the Ming Dynasty. When Zhu Di deployed his treasure ships to explore the worlds, Admiral Zheng He's men did not plunder, rape and burn every inferior culture they came across, they sought to open diplomatic ties and trade routes where ever they went.The West, however....

The problems i have with your opinions on education is that you feel consumerism and materialism is only a recent thing, that it suddenly just sprung up the past century to become a problem.

I believe that it is the survival instinct left over from our caveman ancestors. Even among animals there is a need to stand out in order to attract more mates. Females want to make sure their mate is capable of supporting offsprings while males look at the females "physical" capability to produce healthy offsprings.

It is this need to constantly compete that we're so obsessed about looking like the super stars, and so happy when we see these super stars fall from grace.

I don't doubt the existence of sociopaths in the governments of the world. It suits their need to dominate others. However, power is unlike material objects like oil, gold and weapons, it cannot be hoard it has to be shared. You only get more power when you have more competent people working under you.

There is no sense of morality influencing my logic, the competent people will only work under you if you satisfy their needs and wants, not just in the material sense. And you need their support to have actual power, that is politics because humans are social creatures and require a society to exist irregardless of whether it's totalitarian or democractic.

A government that do not look after their people's concerns would ultimately collapse, the same way an entire food chain will ultimately starve itself by overpopulation when you remove the main predator. If you deliberately make your population stupid you are ultimately going to weaken yourself.

You can't have a slave population if your slaves aren't having their needs taken care of and actually reproducing.

That is why i feel the world is in such a mess is precisely because it is non deliberate, that a series of short term answers(diverting money from education to the military, causing regime changes in order to gain access to resources..etc) is causing the problems.

Humans still favor solutions that creates fast results and that problem is further made worse by the idea of Democracy because it gives in to the wants of the people, not the need. It does not install the competent, it install the more fluent speaking.

My ideal objective is the continued existence of the race, there is no point talking about equality and freedom if the growing human population continues to consume itself into oblivion.

Ironically, your idea of equality can only work in a totalitarian society under extensive social engineering. We can all only be equal in poverty or abundance and since abundance for 6 billion people is impossible, the answer is obvious.

freedomclub SG

Sorry to take this long, but it is a long post and i needed time to gather and organize a proper response.

I would not argue with you about the Cold War, because i do agree with you it's more about giving the military engine of the US more reasons to exist rather over communism and capitalism.

Emergent is a new word to me. Thus i've check it up on wikipedia which i hope is accurate for me to base my opinion on. I hate posing quotes, but it's difficult to explain if i don't.

The problems i have with your opinions on education is that you feel consumerism and materialism is only a recent thing, that it suddenly just sprung up the past century to become a problem.

It is this need to constantly compete that we're so obsessed about looking like the super stars, and so happy when we see these super stars fall from grace.

You can't have a slave population if your slaves aren't having their needs taken care of and actually reproducing.

My ideal objective is the continued existence of the race, there is no point talking about equality and freedom if the growing human population continues to consume itself into oblivion.

Don't mind. It only adds to an enjoyable debate.

It's not that I agree with you that totalitarianism is dead, but that a more efficient method of governance has already been developed that concentrates power in the hands of a power elite just like in a totalitarian society without the explicit appearance of slavery. Total control over most, if not all of the world does not require the grand strategy that you referred to. Funnily enough, I don't have a name for it so I request that you take a look at this clip- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P772Eb63qIY and consider this quote from Aldous Huxley (The clip will shed more light on this quote):

"There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution."
- Aldous Huxley, Tavistock Group, California Medical School, 1961

Just think of "pharmalogical methods" as today's entertainment, education, consumerism, fashion etc and the picture becomes clear. People can be slaves and yet, aren't aware of it. That's the beauty of the present system in creating a slave population. Free-range livestock is more productive than caged ones. This is our kind of freedom.

'Resistance is futile': Beware of Neuromarketing- http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=11500

I dont deny your logic that a group of "Illuminated" ones should rule the world. But as far as I can see, taking the example of the Bilderberg Group, this 'Illuminati' just happens to be well-connected with power and wealth. Their ability to rule is not of importance. True meritocracy doesn't exist. As it was, and probably is, connections matter more, especially when it comes to groups like the Freemasons. Conspiracy theories aside, there're more in power than you might think. Of course, the connection isn't really examined because it's looked upon like any other religion (It isn't).

If their goal is beneficial for the masses that they rule, then I have no issues with their secrecy. However, evil (stripped of its religious connotations) is usually committed in the dark. Not only that, but their aim is more power and wealth (not that they need more) for themselves. Whether its intentional or not, the point is that this kind of rulers do not serve the true interests of society as this thread has demonstrated time and time again

While you are right that due to sheer ignorance and disorganisation of the majority of the population, it is inevitable that this elite will rule over us, I find it absolutely galling that such an anti-humane approach to governance is being perpetrated. This tragic state of the world makes the situation more hopeless than ever. But then, I still feel when people discover the world outside the Matrix, all will be solved. Perhaps that's how I'm delusional.

In the context I used it in, "emergent" doesn't take on such a complicated definition that you think it is. Just like how seeds develop into seedlings and then mature plants, human beings change in the same way. By "emergent", I not only mean the physical aspect, but the intellectual dimension as well. Thats why I'm against using preconceived or mainstream beliefs to process new information. Rather than doing that, I prefer to let information form my beliefs. When one receives new information, beliefs can be updated. That is, and should be, the emergent nature of human beings rather than the static nature that society tries to impose on us through various institutions.

Yes, freedom and equality could be achived in a totalitarian society. That was Orwell's world. But the elite class will always remain. Because of assymetrical information, the rest of society will always be at a disadvantage and will remain enslaved due to contributed, and their own ignorance. Classic divide and rule. Should they become aware of the fraudulent nature of presented reality, the elites will fall from power, something they will have to present at all cost. Moulding the future of our nation indeed.

Stevenson101 SG

The problem with the mentality is that it's hardly unique to just you, it applies to everyone here.

Preconceived and mainstream beliefs is neccessary for a society to exist, if we do not at least have a common view of history/language we are going to end up at each other's throats because of the human tendancy to hate those who are different.This is what history has repeatedly try to teach us, it is always easy to dehumanise something that doesn't speak the same language or share the same customs.

That is the reason why LKY insisted that English is to become the main language after Independence. It's much easier for the Chinese to hate the Malays or the Indians to hate the Chinese if there is no common channel of communications, so is the practice of allocating racial quotas for HDB flats and NS (Though i feel there is still racism in NS)

I believe the human brain is hardly an objective tool to process information like a computer. Imagine millions of different versions of Linux, Windows and Macs, each forming an operating system that's relevant to its unique geological and social environment and have each process the same piece of information. They are going to come up with radically different conclusions and ways of making use/dealing with the information.

To an outside observer, their base code may be extremely similar but because of milleniums of evolution in a different environment with different hazards, weather and resources they will find it difficult to accept each other as equals.

Why do i type all this long texts for? Because in a nutshell, we fail to recognize that how we process the graphical/vocal/electronic data is automatically shaped by the environment around us and the history that created our culture. Our idea of objectivity is going to be different from the Americans and African tribalmen, because we have different piorities shaped from our histories and the environment that shaped that history.

The Internet i feel is going to be the threshold point for the human race. Never before as a generation are we able to access so much information and perspectives. It is also a danger, because it's so much easier for us to fall into the pittrap of what i would call Self Fufilled Prophecy.

It is now a race to see which idea would take root first in our minds because it is now so easy for us to search for information that favors our viewpoints. It would become easier for us to favor a standpoint because we have already accumulated more knowledge that favors it rather than contradict it.

With the internet it has become easier for us to see Hitler, Stalin or Mao Zedong as more of the humans that they are, rather than the inhuman monsters that the media likes to portray them as.That terrorists are not as simple as we like them to be, but the product of historical / political / geological / economical factors. It is also easier because English is our main language and we are not exposed to history written by the Germans, Russians and Chinese.

If we continue to believe that some men are just going to be born evil and automatically monsters, instead of the creation of society and circumstances, we are just going to continue to create more monsters and continue to be shocked and surprised at why.

It has always become easier for us to dehumanise others with the wide spread of American movies, believing that there are humans who are just born evil rather than the victim of circumstances. We are exposed to a culture that believes good is the US way of life, anything that contradicts that way is stupid and evil. This, from a 233 years old culture.

Professionally i work in the creative industry. It is a professional neccessity for me to understand how the human brain interprets body language/colors/sound/camera changes. So to me the brain is hardly the mysterious well of knowledge and nobility that Western culture likes to foster but the accumulation of million of years worth of genetic traits that made our ancestors such excellent survivors.

That is why i hate Democracy.

Do you think it is a coincidence that Ma Ying Jeou( a lawyer) of Taiwan and Abhisit of Thailand are both attractive men? That Obama, a lawyer by profession is capable of delivering great speeches ? I do not see just a charismatic man in Obama, i see a man who had great PR consultants training him what/how to say and what gesture to use during a speech.

We believe that Democracy would automatically lead to a Meritocracy, then why are we chosing lawyers to lead, not scientists and engineers? Because they can't deliver great speeches? Because scientists and engineers cannot "inspire" us? If we need a government to inspire us to do things, to improve ourselves and to help others then we rightfully deserve any corrupted regimes we are getting.

If we cannot accept that our brains are an ancient system of piority management, the remnants of an era with radically different circumstances. If we believe without external pressure we could handle abundant resources in a responsible manner with a information processing system inherited from a time of scarcity, then the human society deserves to fail.

« Previous Page Next Page »