Lots of compelling quotes in that blog. Thanks for linking it.

You have my vote. Definitely. I vote we rebel as well.

However, we must make sure that we move forward with the right kind of rebellion - a rebellion that is as absolutely intelligent as possible; one that doesn't have as its focus guns and bombs and knives and violence (though we shouldn't be afraid to use those if absolutely necessary to protect ourselves). Instead, it should be a rebellion that focuses on discipline, unity, togetherness, intelligence, and a communal cooperation that works together in so concerted a manner that it makes our need for a government "Big Brother" above us absolutely moot and obsolete.

This involves a fundamental paradigm shift amongst all of us - one that causes each of us to put down the false racism and prejudiced indoctrination that's been built up in all of us from birth. We have been kept apart, divided, and separated on purpose, and for a reason: We are much more easily ruled over when we're kept apart, separated, divided, and antagonistic toward each other. This is the very reason why we must come together first.

If we do that, a rebellion will likely never be needed, for we will already have won.

Matter of fact...THAT is what our real rebellion needs to be actually. The real rebellion that will REALLY bring TPTB down is the one that unifies all of us as the one people and species which we are and have forgotten/have been made to forget. Nothing short of this will allow us to do away with the manipulation over all of our lives.

And no. I'm not talking about some New World Order. I'm not talking about some horrible PTB-imposed false flag that scares the shit out of everyone and that causes people in society to put down their problems (for a temporary moment) and work together. No. Fuck that. Hell, that's what 911 was. So many Americans came together only so they could then go to wage more wars of aggression abroad and kill thousands more people. smh

No. I'm talking about REAL togetherness that doesn't need any artificial prompting by an external, clandestine power manipulating society.

we must keep the importance in self-defense.

I don't disagree with this. I see no reason why we couldn’t both work toward the unity that I spoke about above here and remain militarily diligent within ourselves and against any possible attacking force.

No matter what we do, there is a small percentage of people that will be born that are incapable of considering others in their actions.

On this particular planet, that does seem to be the case.

These are called "sociopaths". and they are the human flaw.

Some may not be human at all, actually. However, those humans that are sociopaths do seem to be more flawed than not.

We're going to give birth to these people. and because of this we need to allow every person the ability to defend themselves, their home, and their loved ones.

I wouldn’t disagree with this, and I don’t think this necessarily invalidates a society’s ability to still come together as one people and species.

Interesting thing that I just noticed after the fact, by the way: The user who made this good point in this very thread here is the same user that just made other good points on this particular thread here. :)

There's really not much to say here on my part other than that I fully agree with what you're saying. Noam Chomsky's brief comment on anarchism here is, I think, very relevant to some of the things you talked about.

Thanks for the Larken Rose link. Will listen to it soon.

Ha. Crazy right? He understands the deeper implications of what that system really and truly propounds independent of all the marginalizing tripe the MSM prattles on about as they try to demonize the Anarchic system. This is no big surprise, however, as Chomsky's a significant political scholar.

It's like he's completely unbrainwashed and just calmly and matter of factly just reveals the truth

Ha. Exactly. The way he just so casually and matter of factly responds to the questioners marginalizing question was at once completely casual and un-offended, yet entirely poignant and very difficult (if possible at all) to argue against.

Yet somehow people just nod their heads and then go back to being complicit with whatever.

Yep…such is the dilemma which is humanity to a large, large extent, it seems. This is the problem we have with almost every area of life here in this civilization. We are, essentially, ants whose hill gets trampled one minute, resulting in immediate mass chaos across the entire colony, only to go right back after not more than an hour or so to doing exactly the same thing they were doing before the calamity hit as if nothing ever happened at all.

He tries hard to be calm and not let his emotions drive his thought but I think people are so used to people like Alex Jones yelling their thoughts at them, that his opinion has less of an impact somehow, even though I have never disagreed with a single word he has spoken thus far.

While I have come across comments that he has made stating that 911 “was not any sort of false flag attack” - letting me know that Chomsky on a deep, deep level is likely controlled opposition - the fact of the matter is that he is a renowned political scholar, and a decent amount of what he has to say is very relevant where it regards an understanding of the political climate of the day and age.

Sounds like even he is afraid to tackle that issue.

Yep. He’s also Jewish, which means that even though he is very understanding of and speaks against the crime against humanity which most definitely is Zionism, and he is very aware of the Israeli apartheid against Palestine, he still has a loyalty to (if not a fear of) that very Zionist regime he is often enough critical of.

In one of the previous interviews I've seen (if I recall correctly) he built a fairly strong argument for why most if not all presidents since vietnam should be treated as war criminals.

Oh man I looove that retelling of his. It’s awesome.. This is why Chomsky is a badass when it comes to a lot of information against TPTB. However, he is a limited hangout because he only “sticks in the tip”, so to speak, and does not go balls deep into what he REALLY knows about the bullshit that is going on. He knows he’d end up in a pine box if he did, and I understand that fear, but people need to understand even more so that Chomsky is NOT telling everything he knows about what’s going on in this world sociopolitically, so he should not be regarded as the “world leader in all sociopolitical things!” as so many often think.

so for me it seemed an easy assumption that he would be able to see through 9/11 as a false flag event.

Yep - which makes his constant and abject denial of its being the false flag attack that it was all the more blatant and criminal on his part.

I ultimately feel very ambivalent about Chomsky because of this.

Government, the state, and power. It all starts looking the same no matter what you call it.

Certainly seems that way.

Every aspect of life will end up regulated and have a price on it

While I personally wouldn't go that far, I do understand that there are some individuals in power that would certainly like this to take place.

whether the price is set by the "market" or the state starts to look irrelevant when they are the same thing.

In some forms of government, the market is the state - or at least controlled by it.

In some forms of government, the market is the state - or at least controlled by it.

…Fascism

Exactly.

Now, I am all for rules by which the market place should be regulated to protect the environment and the population, to reduce corruption. But that is not how the rules work when the most powerful players are calling the shots and owning the politicians.

Cannot agree more with everything you said here. This entire sentiment is how I feel as well. Nothing wrong with rules, but everyone must follow them.

The closest thing we have to democracy is the kind of polling that could let the politicians know when the serfs on the plantation are about to revolt.

Unfortunately, A) I don’t think they have a great deal to worry about right now, and B) I think TPTB have a lot of methods to deal with a possible pleb revolt. Look at what happened with Occupy Wall Street and how that was quickly and greatly infiltrated, co-opted, marginalized, and it just kind of puttered out after a short while.

Polls are used to help guide policies. Which includes keeping the serfs focused on so called divisions between themselves.

So true, and so fucked up… :/

The more we unite as a people, citizenry, and as a species, the less power TPTB will have over us. Most of us simply don’t seem to get it and are just too busy finding ways to keep hating and fighting one another to realize that this is the exact way TPTB want us to be so that we don’t realize it’s they that are inordinately responsible for the problems, issues, and conflicts going on. We realize that, and we might end up (rightfully) turning our efforts on them.

The closer you are to the center of empire, the greater the rewards, and the higher the penalties.

Well it depends on what kind of “rewards” you’re referring to. If you mean “material and power” rewards, then perhaps. Rewards in the emotional and spiritual spectrum can exist and take place entirely independent of empire, however.

Near the center of empire, the most ambitious and psychopathic gather to duke it out for the potential rewards, and bystanders are totally dispensable.

Sounds like a pretty dismal, despicable place - one where I don’t think really too many real rewards exists, and a place I personally wouldn’t want any part of.

They can most definitely keep those kinds of “rewards”.

So, for trends that reveal what will replace the existing model of the nation-state, it would be wise to look at the fringes of empire, not at the center.

Seems about right, as the center is the old guard that will likely get replaced by whatever the new guard (on the fringes) is/might be.

At the fringes, the new technologies of communication will allow for alternative arrangements between people that bypass the control of the nation-state. And the propaganda of the nation-state is more ignored.

That’s certainly what has been happening since the internet came out and the MSM became less and less potent, with alternative media and web content becoming where some types get most if not all of their information.

The nation-state is going to invest their money elsewhere. So, a different kind of community can and will emerge. By the time the empire realizes it, the model will have gone viral. Old leaders will become increasingly irrelevant. People will figure out that in dealing with the nation-state, there is no way to win, only to lose. The only thing that will count will be to stay out of sphere of influence of the state. This will leave only the hard core state people, who are incompetent and non productive. How long will the state last when the productive elements of society realize that they can only lose in a state controlled environment?

This seems like a decent summation of what can happen/is somewhat happening already. Thing is, however, that TPTB will indeed make one last, strong push to retain power as it sees its influence irrevocably slip away. The beast is most dangerous when it is wounded and making its last effort to keep from entirely falling away. For this reason, even though it does indeed seem that there is an alternative element beginning to take the fore, we must still be very disciplined and focused - and make sure that A) the beast doesn’t get one last swipe or claw in and take us down as it’s falling, and B) we must make sure that the new system that comes up is actually BETTER than the old one. Don’t want to go from one problem into another or an even worse one.

There will still be many forms of government, which is "social orders" that serve the common interests.

We just need social orders that serve the common interest much more representatively, for such is not the case right now at all really.

Look for human links that start off with a voluntary basis, that are very responsive the the populations they represent. See if they can continue on a voluntary basis, or if they turn to coercion and manipulation to affect their agendas.

Such seems to be what all societies and systems have to be diligently careful and on guard for. Things might start off nice, but once the honeymoon’s over, you have to make sure things don’t turn sour.

I think that coercion and manipulation are orchestrated in secrecy.

Depending on what kind of coercion and manipulation you’re referring to, this can be very correct. Some types of coercion and manipulation are VERY overt and in your face - done in front of the population for purposes of inducing fear and subservience.

The existing nation-state models must be terrified of the open source movement.

And this is the very reason why they DO sometimes resort to open and overt violence and manipulation. This government has been doing this very thing more and more in the past years since 911.

Open source seems to hold promise in maintaining voluntary cooperation. Full disclosure.

Yes. There is a great struggle going on, however, between the “open source” forces, and the covert PTB.

Ultimately, good points made, sir. Good points.

Well, you might not like riding in private jets or staying at luxury resorts. But I can assure you, some people do.

Some obviously do. Most don’t understand the real costs that come with those “rewards” in the long term, however.

In other words "I would sell my soul" to (fill in the blank) win the lottery, be a billionaire, etc.

Yeah. I totally understand that some (many, perhaps) have this type of mentality, but those who think like this for the most part don’t have an understanding of how fleeting, temporary, and ephemeral this life is, and how insignificant are the material things we strive for and make so many efforts to accrue while here.

the reality is that you can't win, and even if you did, it would be a loss.

Yes. Exactly this.

50 years ago, winning still felt like winning. Now, its starting to look more like a loss from day one

And that, I would say, is because what most of us are striving to “win” in this life are actually the wrong things.

Its just a prison with golden chains anymore.

For the bird in the golden cage…

is still caged.

You used to make great arguments about jet air speeds, didn't you?

That doesn’t ring a particular bell, honestly, but I have indeed said a lot of things, so maybe I did talk about it and I just forgot. :)

True Capitalism is an ideological impossibility just like true Communism.

From the admittedly little I know about either, they don't seem like impossibilities per se. Nonetheless, however, the versions of these forms of government that have been practiced on this planet have met with generally dismal results for the overall population and have been, as a result, generally unsuccessful - at least as far as I've been able to assess.

Both are Utopian ideas, that do not account for the human variable.

Sounds about right in that the human variable does seem to make almost any theory much more complicated (and sometimes untenable) in actual practice.

One can lead to cronyism, the other can lead to dictatorship.

...which can sometimes be two sides of the very same coin. I think this was a great part of the point Bramley was making.

So yes, they are the same in that way.

We are ultimately in agreement, sir. Yes.

Thanks for responding.

A look at history and how Russia and other communist countries have ended up give one a good idea of how Communism and Capitalism work in actual practice independent of what any book says.

No state that has attempted communism has achieved the structure Marx & Engels outlines, just as the U.S. was never a free market unfettered by command economy regulations.

While I agree that no state has ever reached the goal of Communism or Capitalism, I would site for that failing little else other than the design of those very figures who instituted the systems in the first place.

in a communist setup, the bankers are the state, the state are the bankers. Within a capitalist system, the banks maintain autonomy.

This is correct, but the end of pleb control is very much accomplished in both systems just the same.

This has huge implications for the use and availability of capital to speculators.

Not if the private sector (corporations in capitalism) gets and exercises power no less ubiquitous than the state (as is the case in communism). Then they’re both effectively the same.

Additionally, within communism, there are no owners of companies, there are no companies, just various state ministries and project managers who receive the same wages as the other proletarians.

A corporation that becomes so powerful that it can take over a state can do exactly the same thing you described a communist state as doing here.

we all live under central banks, which are communist institutions.

And there you go. We are ultimately not that much in disagreement.

Scarcity - whether natural or (more likely) artificially-induced - is indeed a big problem, but the proper and intelligent management of resources can greatly curtail any scarcity that might happen.

The ideal of the moral of the story is certainly a good one, but the cartoon is relevant here in the sense that it amply illustrates what we no longer have in this country, and, in reality, what we never had - not for all people irrespective of race, creed, class, color, or gender anyway.

it gives a very good illustration for what we could work towards in modern times.

Well yeah, but we are faaaar, far away from getting to it right now. There are a LOT of hurdles that need to be jumped over before we even get close to what the cartoon illustrates.

Of all the ways to live on this world this IMO is the most realistic.

What way? Equality irrespective of class, creed, color, race, religion, etc, etc? Well yeah.

It certainly doesn't seem we've ever had that in recorded history, however.

The ideal of the moral of the story is certainly a good one, but the cartoon is relevant here in the sense that it amply illustrates what we no longer have in this country, and, in reality, what we never had - not for all people irrespective of race, creed, class, color, or gender anyway.