2014 Worldwide Wave of Action: So what exactly are people doing? (2 of ?)

The 2014 Worldwide Wave of Action (and here) begins ~April 4 on the anniversary of Martin King’s assassination by the US government (civil court trial verdict), with this operation completing ~July 4.

Purpose of this operation (more details here):

What people are doing: suggested actions here for consideration how to lead/participate in your own best way:

“On April 4th, we will launch the first phase of the Worldwide Wave of Action by gathering at Zuccotti Park and former occupation sites throughout the world to honor the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  At 6:05 pm CT, the time of his assassination, we will host vigil ceremonies and resurrect his spirit of nonviolent direct action.

People with opinions across the political spectrum are invited to unite and find common ground against corruption.  We will overcome divide and conquer propaganda by forming communities of support and compassion.  Together we will fight for freedom and begin engaging in a relentless campaign of nonviolent civil disobedience.  People will pledge to take part in whatever tactics they are interested in throughout a sustained three-month cycle.  Here’s a basic list of tactics…

> Mass gatherings, demonstrations;
> Marches, parades;
> Flash mobs, swarms;
> Shutdown harmful corporate and governmental operations;
> Worker Strikes;
> Hunger strikes;
> Sit-ins;
> Strategic defaults, debt strikes;
> Foreclosure prevention;
> Boycotting corrupt corporations;
> Move your money out of the big banks and the stock market;
> Use alternative currencies and economic systems;
> Cancel your cable television and support independent media;
> Use independent online tools that don’t sell your info / protect privacy;
> Online civil disobedience, Anonymous operations;
> Leak information on corruption;
> Use alternative energy;
> Build urban and hydroponic farms, or get your food from them;
> Support local businesses;
> Join local community organizations;
> Take part in food banks and help develop community support systems;
> Start or join intentional and autonomous communities;
> Experiment with new governing systems, Liquid Democracy;
> Host teach-ins;
> Organize socially conscious events;
> Make conscious media;
> Guerrilla postering, messages on money;
> Help inspiring groups and organizations spread their message;
> Random acts of kindness and compassion;
> Mass meditations, prayer sessions and spiritual actions.

You know what you can do to play a part. Do whatever you feel inspired to do. Amplify what you are already doing. Think about what you are willing to do to be the change we urgently need to see in the world, and then do it.

We look forward to seeing you in action!”

My recommendation for your action: Do what is both interesting/fun and what you feel strongly for. In any area you are effective, you will be opposed by the 1% oligarchs’ minions. This is part of the game, so be prepared to respond with fun and passion. Do not expect any visible results; Faith might be helpful.

And why do this? Simply, you seem to have these choices:

  1. Engage in Truth, Justice, Freedom that ends the crimes noted above in the operation’s purpose.
  2. Want the above, and hope someone else does the work.
  3. Accept your servility to the psychopaths who lie, loot, war-murder and use you as a stupid work animal.

Choose carefully. Life acts with justice (in the long term) and humor to give what you earn.

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Tonto

    You are like a guy standing on the street corner yelling at the traffic. People are going out of their way to ignore you.

    • Carl_Herman

      tonto again speaks for the public to ignore the facts that might cause public response, which is exactly what the oligarchs want – business as usual.

      Instead, tonto addresses the messenger, and without addressing the facts, pretends they are both unimportant and that somehow magically the public understands these issues and agrees with tonto.

      tonto demonstrates our choices that I use to close the article:

      1. Engage in Truth, Justice, Freedom that ends the crimes noted above in the operation’s purpose.

      2. Want the above, and hope someone else does the work.

      3. Accept your servility to the psychopaths who lie, loot, war-murder and use you as a stupid work animal.

      Choose carefully. Life acts with justice (in the long term) and humor to give what you earn.

      • Tonto

        Carl, incessantly portraying your strange and contorted myth demonizing the 1% is never going to catch on and light the fire of revolution you keep predicting. Face it. Your view of the world is delusional tripe.

        “Choose carefully. Life acts with justice (in the long term) and humor to give what you earn.” If this is true, then you’re in for a big disappointment, Carl. Life is what you make of it, not what your bizarre and immaturely altruist sense of justice would seem to predict for it. The world is not just. Altruism is an widely varied and rarefied belief system.

        Spending a lifetime trying spark a socialist revolution is an age-old obsessive compulsive disorder as common as that which afflicts those who spread the word that the Second Coming is at hand. Even were socialist revolutionaries to arise, they would do things and act in a manner that would bring about grave disappointment for all those who share your idiocy about the world.

        It’s all just drab, kookie silliness on your part.

        • WrenchMonkey

          Just out of curiosity, what words of wisdom would you offer for those who want to put an end to the rapacious consumption of our vital resources, bring a halt to the destruction of our environment, prevent the imposition of a totalitarian, global plutocracy and bring to justice the small minority of psychopathic criminals that is pushing the human species toward self-destruction?

          Or are you content with such a “civilisation” as long as you feel personally secure living in it?

          • Tonto

            Carl,

            Science and the credit economy are to blame. Both are real world gambles, dangerous pragmatic cheats that attempt to create something bigger and better than that which can sustainably exist, and both which always and consistently blow up in the faces of their expositors creating and ever worsening human condition due to overpopulation and repeated collapses of the temporary fixes made necessary by the use of these two pragmatic schemes that wage gambles against the future that invariably are losers for humanity’s ever more tenuous future.

            Mankind is simply never going to make a better world by the application of pragmatism. Every incremental pragmatic fix, is another step toward war and Armageddon. Every incremental pragmatic fix puts more strain on the reality that sustains all. Every incremental pragmatic fix is a step in the wrong direction.

            Every incremental pragmatic fix only causes in turn yet another failure that is the enticement for more pragmatists to try more strenuously to play god. And indeed, that is what you are doing, Carl. You are attempting to play god with your own hackneyed pragmatic solution for what you see is the biggest and most current problem to date.

            The incremental pragmatic fixes you advocate would only create yet more and greater problems. This is already widely known, and amply demonstrated by the failed histories of socialism and varied peace movements. That is why your supposed solutions, are nothing but an easily identifiable and named obsessive compulsive disorder.

            Anyone can easily discover through reading history that your solutions have been tried before, and that they will not really provide relief from the problems of the world. In fact, your incremental pragmatic fixes will, like all pragmatic solutions, will only make matters worse.

            Your pseudonyms are annoying, Carl.

          • WrenchMonkey

            To begin with, I am not Carl. According to the byline, someone
            named Carl is the author of the article above. I have never submitted
            anything for publication on Washington’s Blog. It’s generally not a good idea to begin any discussion by making assumptions.

            I have been published a few times elsewhere, most recently here and here. Just to confirm that I am, in fact, not “Carl”.

            I’ve read some of your comments here at W’s Blog with a modicum of interest and there’s a certain amount of what you have to say with which I agree. Your response to me, who you mistakenly identify as “Carl”, is a case in point.

            However, your confrontational, sometimes vitriolic and generally arrogant attitude greatly reduces the effectiveness of your offerings. It’s usually quite pointless to enter into discussion with anyone who already knows they’re “right” and doesn’t mind saying so in what is often an insulting, arrogant and belligerent tone. Belief is a deadly narcotic. It can cause the addict to be marginalised and ignored. On the other hand, if the “belief” is preposterous enough, it can bring the believer the comfort to be found in the popular mass delusion we call “religion”.

            But back to you observations about “pragmatic fixes”. The basic laws of physics dictate that this industrial civilization we’re being consumed by is neither sustainable nor redeemable. No matter how many “adjustments” we make, no matter what sort of magical “technology” we come up with, anything we do in an attempt to “fix” or “save” this system will only serve to further ensure its collapse and guarantee consequences even more dire than their absence would produce.

            The false “progress” that severed humanity from the natural world at the “neolithic revolution” has been counter-evolutionary. If this ostensible progress goes on too much longer, near term human extinction is not unlikely.

            Industrialised civilisation is inherently expansionistic. It is physically impossible for such a culture to endure indefinitely on any finite landbase, up to and including a single planet.

            Just my opinion

            By the way, with regard to pseudonyms, you might want to reconsider the one you have chosen. It doesn’t seem to convey the sort of image you’re apparently attempting to project.

            tonto, -a
            adjective
            1. stupid (persona) (estúpido); silly (menos fuerte)
            pero ¿seré tonto, -a? otra vez me he vuelto a confundir -> I must be stupid or something, I’ve gone and got it wrong again
            nos toman por tontos -> they think we’re idiots
            ¿estás tonto, -a? para qué me pegas? -> don’t be stupid! what are you hitting me for?
            ponerse tonto, -a -> to be difficult; (pesado, insistente) to get awkward (arrogante)
            tonto, -a remate -> daft as a brush

            2. dim, backward (retrasado)

            3. mindless (sin sentido) (risa); pointless (esfuerzo)
            a lo tonto, -a -> without realizing it (sin notarlo) masculine or feminine noun

            4. idiot
            el tonto, -a del pueblo -> the village idiot
            hacer el tonto, -a -> to mess around; (juguetear) to be stupid o foolish (no actuar con inteligencia)
            hacerse el tonto, -a -> to act innocent
            a tontas y a locas -> without thinking

          • Tonto

            Here, I’m fine being the village idiot and excessively confrontational. Regardless, I am not anonymous.

            While you recognize something of what is transpiring, you also need to consider the rank idiocy of human beings. We are not gods. We are not even created in the image of gods. As long as we are in the hands of the fools who advocate more pragmatism, we are as finite as the Dodo or the Mastodon.

            If that doesn’t portend our common idiocy, I don’t know what will, Carl.

          • WrenchMonkey

            You seem pretty anonymous to me. Carl, agree with him or not, is certainly less so than either you or I.

            Who said anything about being gods or even created in their image? It certainly wasn’t me. Gods, as anyone being honest would admit, were created by humans.

            One of the most idiotic ideas humans have decided to embrace is anthropocentricity and, in all probability, it was organised “religion”, at the beginning of the Neolithic, that instilled and nurtured that rank lunacy.

            As far as our finitude is concerned, ultimately, regardless of what “hands” we are in, our fate is and always will be the same as any other animal on the planet.

            The name is Richard and I am not Carl in any sense, including metaphorical.

            Anon

          • Tonto

            Well, as I have said here before, I was raised an atheist. Still I have to defend religion, for moral reasons. Religion is part of the attribute of humanity. It fulfills a role, and a portion of the lifetime of a human psyche. So. I don’t want to agree with your statement that, “One of the most idiotic ideas humans have decided to embrace is
            anthropocentricity and, in all probability, it was organised “religion”,
            at the beginning of the Neolithic, that instilled and nurtured that
            rank lunacy.”

            The rank lunacy about which I speak is genetic, and only enhanced by the beliefs of mankind, in which I would include the religion of science and pragmatism. Empirical thought is a religion. Trial and error are inherently dangerous, as are the idea that anyone can fathom enough of the infinite complexity of reality to beneficently alter it without unforeseen consequences that doubly negate any preconceived benefit.

            Anthropocentricity, as you call it, is part of the human perception of things, and less so learned, than it is ingrained from human/animal genetic psychological inheritance. If a human being were raised by wolves, that human being would still see the world in anthropocentric terms, expanded somewhat to include wolves as humans, and constrained somewhat to leave out a lot more human beings. The me-centricity is really what you are talking about, and that cannot be laid at the feet of religion exclusively. We are not blank slates.

            We’re all like that to some degree though, centric about ourselves. Almost every white person worldwide looks at B. Obama and sees something less than human, and many see something that makes their skin crawl. That’s just human nature. If you go to Jamaica and visit the wild countryside, I am told, you will experience the juxtaposition of that phenomenon.

            You see then, your anthropocentricity is in fact, me-centricity. And that’s just a natural condition of the mind, and impossible to slough off. It’s the me-centricity that allows individuality to exist. And it is great diversity of the often fatuous me-centricity of human beings, that makes life so wonderful.

            The soul is best described is that about our psyche that differentiates us from the rest of humanity. It’s a fine balance.

            But life is short, and what is important is not our own me-centricity, so much as it is the continuity of sustainable human life, not for the all inclusive everyone or “the most people” of humanitarianism, but for the human experience we recognize as human. Humanitarianism alone leads directly to an overpopulated, shoulder to shoulder, shit up to our eyebrows, surveillance in everything we do, hell.

            For the far more important moral edict of saving what is wonderful about the human experience, humanity seems to require wars, racism, ethnocentricity and a long litany of anti-humanitarian attributes, while it is rapidly becoming apparent, what humanity cannot withstand is ever increasing technology, which is threatening everyone with rapid extinction at almost every turn.

            In this technological threat I would include the Internet which is spreading dangerous me-centric lies worldwide, and has the potential to perpetuate and falsely justify ideologies that would destroy the wonderfulness of being a human being.

            That’s why I land so heavily on Carl. Carl is an obsessive compulsive fruitcake out to destroy the world, without even knowing what he is doing, because his me-centricity has taken over his persona. Carl is as much an ideological zombie, as I have ever met.

            I don’t like what Richard Dawkins is doing either. These kids who crowd the Internet with their neophyte atheism are a plague upon humanity.

            I read a short essay by some 19th century philosopher once, in which he briefly mused about having met a man who said he had had a dream in which he had a conversation with God. It was a turning point for me in my understanding of this infinitely complex reality. I had long realized -everything- we can think is just bullshit, like songbirds chirping on a telephone wire at dawn. BUT, this story about a conversation with God in a dream, led me to believe, in my entire life, -that- would be a fulfilling experience, I would likely never have.

            And I have forever after pinched myself, to feel my remorse.

          • WrenchMonkey

            Thank you for sharing your views in a relatively civil fashion. I appreciate it.

            Although there seem to be a few points of convergence, or at least some incidental tangency, I think our fundamental conclusions re the inherent nature of humans are more or less bipolar.

            Atheist, deist, theist, whateverist. It’s all the same to me. Choosing a “belief” is, ironically and ultimately, an act of free will, though that choice may be profoundly influenced by pervasive forces of acculturation, indoctrination and propaganda or, in a word, marketing.

            Your coinage of “me-centricity” is excellent. I’ll certainly remember it. You haven’t gotten a copyright yet have you?

            Whilst I agree that it’s a very real condition, I do not agree that it’s a fundamental, intrinsic or genetic trait in all humans. I maintain that, in its essential form, it is naturally present in only about four to six percent of the species and mostly in males. That’s not to say that such essential psychopaths cannot “infect” otherwise “normal” humans.

            As I see it, the paramount idiocy of the human species has been to willingly surrender control of its destiny to such abhorrent creatures.

            Arising from sleep every day means embarking upon an inescapable process of trial and error. The more complex the social environment, the more trials and potential for errors.

            What makes you so sure that the chirping of birds, at any time or in any place, is just bullshit? Is your name Dolittle perchance?

            Anyway, what I come away with from your words is a sort of cynical fatalism; that this is just human nature, that things will play out as they must and there’s really nothing to be done about it. It seems as if you feel, having attained this level of enlightenment, you are somehow above the fray and somewhat disdainful of those who still insist upon seeking ways to intervene in the ecocide so clearly being perpetrated by a, relatively, very small number of “me-centric” psychopaths.

            Enough! Speaking only for myself, the exchange has been an interesting one. However, I see nothing to be gained from a prolonged exchange of lengthy argumentation. We can agree to disagree. It is incumbent upon neither of us to “convert” the other.

            One last question, if I may. Which is it you feel remorse for; that you “believe” you will never be able to have a conversation with “god” or that you actually consider it possible for such a conversation to somehow take place?

            May you fare well on your journey, whatever road you chose to follow.

          • Tonto

            Okay, Richard. Now let me deliver the big step. Let’s see if you can really hang on until the end of my long journey.

            You say this, “Anyway, what I come away with from your words is a sort of cynical fatalism [...]” this along with your having briefly touched on free will.

            I am neither cynical nor a fatalist. The cynical fatalism you perceive in what I say however, is entirely intentional. I want people to think as they retract from my coarse manner. I want people to think -better- than I think. Your see where I am going with that.

            I believe in free will. Free will arises from the infinitely complex reality we share. There really is no choice but free will, because every choice is a choice to turn in one of an infinite number of directions, and to chose from an infinite number of choices. But there is cynicism to endorse. There is fatalism to bemoan. How so?

            Because most people miss the big choices. The example already given is a good one. I endorsed atheism as soon as I began thinking about such things. This was true in part because I had older siblings who also were atheists. But I really would like to have a conversation with God in my dreams. There are questions I would like to ask God, even if the answers came only from a believing subconscious imagination in my dreamworld.

            I recognize your level of understanding. You are on a path that will allow you to easily surpass my own level on understanding within your lifetime. So, let me explain where I am right now.

            I grapple with logic. Logic is funny thing that is really only valuable in the sense that one can gain a very good understanding of the failure of logic. And all logic is fallible. One can definitely prove all logic to be completely fallacious. This leaves us in a very dark place. But in dark places it is easy to recognize when the light starts to shine.

            First of all, let me say, we do not know Socrates, nor what a man is, nor even what mortal means, nor that all men are mortal. So therefore we cannot know that Socrates was a man, nor that he was mortal. That syllogism is exactly how stupid logic is.

            Now here comes the light in the darkness.

            For logic to be even slightly credible instead of just a sleight of hand parlor trick, it must always start out in one very special place, and always in the same place, where there are no assumptions, or even, assumptions about logic. Zeno was a master of this dark place.

            Now, about that place where -real- logic must begin, it must begin with a categorically true statement that encompasses all with a very broad sweep of things. And from that categorically true statement, a new logic arises. This new logic requires that 1) logical attempts must always begin with this original categorically true statement, and, 2) that original statement is then take to lead step-by-step to similarly categorically true statements, which are held true by a methodology that requires at every other step in the logical process, the logical inquirer must go back to make sure there are no contradictions arising with previously asserted categorically true statements.

            In other words, while we cannot know what is true in every instance, we should be able to decipher what is -not- true based on our understanding of what is asserted to be categorically true. We must then proceed in logical fashion as just described. Thus the light shines. And anything short of this logical format, must be mere unreliable guesswork.

            Here’s an example of categorical logic.

            1) Reality is infinitely complex. (always true)
            2) Life is good. (always true)
            3) Morality in the ideal is a guidepost system of sustaining the goodness of life within our infinitely complex reality. (always true)
            4) Life seems to measure up as short, but life is indefinitely maintained and sustained by other humans who follow in our metaphorical footsteps. (always true)
            5) The moral imperative of life then, must be, to live a life that detracts not at all from the lives available to those who will follow us into this world. (always true)

            It is the infinite variety of sixth steps in this logical sequence that cause me to take a cynical and fatalist stance as I address others. I am expressing my disappointment in them, because they are doing things, or espousing ideas, that in my categorically logical approach seems to me to be completely immoral, an idiocy, and often suicidal.

            As you say, and I concur, my best to you.

            http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00HI1BXEQ

            http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002EVPYDQ

            http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00HI5OLM8

            http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00HI1PQRQ

          • WrenchMonkey

            I will not be able to respond to this with a brief comment. It may end up being longer than what the moderators here will allow. When I’ve found the time to compose a meaningful response, I’ll post it and see what happens.

            Meanwhile, your book list offers the suggestion that you are no longer “anonymous”. I’ll go ahead and buy the first one and use Calibre to convert it to PDF so I can add it to my library. If it proves useful, I’ll get the others.

          • WrenchMonkey

            I’ll need to respond by section so I’ll use italics to differentiate my responses from your comment.

            Okay, Richard. Now let me deliver the big step. Let’s see if you can really hang on until the end of my long journey.

            Since it is your journey, I think it’s unlikely I’ll be on it til the end.

            You say this, “Anyway, what I come away with from your words is a sort of cynical fatalism [...]” this along with your having briefly touched on free will.

            I am neither cynical nor a fatalist. The cynical fatalism you perceive in what I say however, is entirely intentional. I want people to think as they retract from my coarse manner. I want people to think -better- than I think. Your see where I am going with that.

            That may work some of the time but it’s more likely that it will just condition readers to skip over your comments once they become familiar with their abrasiveness. Flies, honey, vinegar and all that.

            I believe in free will. Free will arises from the infinitely complex reality we share. There really is no choice but free will, because every choice is a choice to turn in one of an infinite number of directions, and to chose from an infinite number of choices. But there is cynicism to endorse. There is fatalism to bemoan. How so?

            I do not agree that there are infinite number choices that could be made for any given situation. While it may be true that that there are an infinite number of alternate universes or dimensions wherein there may be some that offer such unlimited options, the one that we occupy at this moment does not.

            I’d like to visit Africa this afternoon. I think I’ll just dematerialise myself here in america and rematerialise myself instantly in the Great Rift Valley. No. There are a very limited number of choices for me in that scenario and that’s true for any situation one can imagine.

            Fatalism As I said earlier, it seems you imply that things are what they are and that there’s really nothing to be done about it. It’s human nature after all. That could certainly be faulty interpretation on my part.

            Because most people miss the big choices. The example already given is a good one. I endorsed atheism as soon as I began thinking about such things. This was true in part because I had older siblings who also were atheists. But I really would like to have a conversation with God in my dreams. There are questions I would like to ask God, even if the answers came only from a believing subconscious imagination in my dreamworld.

            The preceding paragraph, especially the last two sentences, lead to more questions than understanding. Somniloquous conversations with an imaginary super-being are a chance occurrence that could as easily happen for you as anyone else. Perhaps you’ll get your wish in due course. Of what use such a dialogue would be I cannot imagine.

            I recognize your level of understanding. You are on a path that will allow you to easily surpass my own level on understanding within your lifetime. So, let me explain where I am right now.

            I don’t mean any offense but that sounds just a bit presumptuous. How does it happen that you can certify your level of understanding as a benchmark for me to achieve or surpass? Beyond that, at my late age, I have little time left to increase my woefully meager level of understanding in any case.

            I grapple with logic. Logic is funny thing that is really only valuable in the sense that one can gain a very good understanding of the failure of logic. And all logic is fallible. One can definitely prove all logic to be completely fallacious. This leaves us in a very dark place. But in dark places it is easy to recognize when the light starts to shine.

            Logic is a pride of lions or a pack of wolves hunting, killing and consuming prey. Logic is certain types of “farmer” ants herding aphids and protecting them form predators in order to obtain the sugar-rich excretions the aphids produce. Logic is not consuming more resources than the environment can provide.

            But I’m not being “philosophical”, which is where we seem to be going.

            First of all, let me say, we do not know Socrates, nor what a man is, nor even what mortal means, nor that all men are mortal. So therefore we cannot know that Socrates was a man, nor that he was mortal. That syllogism is exactly how stupid logic is.

            Reductio ad absurdum we don’t really know anything. Therefore, non-mathematical logic is much more subjective than logicians would like to admit.

            Now here comes the light in the darkness.

            For logic to be even slightly credible instead of just a sleight of hand parlor trick, it must always start out in one very special place, and always in the same place, where there are no assumptions, or even, assumptions about logic. Zeno was a master of this dark place.

            It seems we have only second hand knowledge of Zeno. I’m given to understand that none of his writings are extant.

            Now, about that place where -real- logic must begin, it must begin with a categorically true statement that encompasses all with a very broad sweep of things. And from that categorically true statement, a new logic arises. This new logic requires that

            1) logical attempts must always begin with this original categorically true statement, and,

            2) that original statement is then take to lead step-by-step to similarly categorically true statements, which are held true by a methodology that requires at every other step in the logical process, the logical inquirer must go back to make sure there are no contradictions arising with previously asserted categorically true statements.
            In other words, while we cannot know what is true in every instance, we should be able to decipher what is -not- true based on our understanding of what is asserted to be categorically true. We must then proceed in logical fashion as just described. Thus the light shines. And anything short of this logical format, must be mere unreliable guesswork.
            Here’s an example of categorical logic.

            1) Reality is infinitely complex. (always true)
            2) Life is good. (always true)
            3) Morality in the ideal is a guidepost system of sustaining the goodness
            of life within our infinitely complex reality. (always true)
            4) Life seems to measure up as short, but life is indefinitely maintained
            and sustained by other humans who follow in our metaphorical footsteps.
            (always true)
            5) The moral imperative of life then, must be, to live a life that detracts not at all from the lives available to those who will follow us into this world. (always true)

            Once again, no offense intended, but if the entire thought experiment above (from Now here comes the light in the darkness”) is “the big step”, then little seems to be gained by taking it.

            While wrestling with philosophical zen puzzles is entertaining and may be good cognitive exercise, it doesn’t do much to address the very real and un-philosophical problems we face on the ground in the material world.

            As to steps 5 & 6, the only purpose of Life, as far as I can conceive, is Life itself. The focus of this example of “categorical logic” seems be exclusively upon human Life, as if no other sort matters. Even taking that as a given, what might be considered living a Life that is not detrimental to those who follow is necessarily a very subjective matter.

            If we were to bring civilisation to end in a manner that kept death and suffering to a minimum, those who immediately followed us would probably not think kindly of us for depriving them of all the luxuries and amenities we had enjoyed, despite the fact that not doing so would have meant far greater “detraction” from their lives or perhaps even the extinction of the human species.

            It is the infinite variety of sixth steps in this logical sequence that cause me to take a cynical and fatalist stance as I address others. I am expressing my disappointment in them, because they are doing things, or espousing ideas, that in my categorically logical approach seems to me to be completely immoral, an idiocy, and often suicidal.

            Once again, as I indicated earlier, I disagree with the concept of an infinite variety of choices in our mundane reality. I hope you can agree to disagree without rancour. If not, my regrets.

            As you say, and I concur, my best to you.

            I’ll be acquiring the first book on your list later today. Since it’s apparently quite short it shouldn’t take too long to read. Perhaps it will inspire me to go on to the rest on the list or perhaps even change my perspective regarding the usefulness of philosophical inquiry during times of extreme crisis.

            Now let’s see if Washington’s Blog admin will allow this post.

            Anon

        • timothyprice

          To many people, life is what they can get away with through theft, organized political crimes, fraudulent financing, lying media, and war … while feeding their limitless greed.

          • WrenchMonkey

            So, this is great news! All we need to solve all our problems is a good exorcist!

            Such magical thinking is one of the primary reasons we’re now teetering on the brink of extinction.

            Just my opinion

          • timothyprice

            Lots of people don’t get the video. Am delighted that some do, however… and eventually you might get better insight also. Not your fault. Maybe read some of the comments on the Youtube site.

          • WrenchMonkey

            Sorry timothy, if “Prince of Darkness” is intended as a metaphor with carbon-based fuels as the target then, for me, it is subtle to the point of obscurity.

            It simply comes across to me as a religious rant and the comments at Y-tube don’t really offer any insight for me.

            Then again, perhaps I’m just too dimwitted to “get it”.

            All that being said, the energy issue, while highly significant, is not paramount. Without industrial civilisation, which demands the energy in question, the issue would be null.

            Just my opinion

          • timothyprice

            “..Without industrial civilisation, which demands the energy in question, the issue would be null.”

            You just about have it. Why is this in the writings of a book nearly 2000 year old? How did this knowledge get there? Why?

          • WrenchMonkey

            Please cite the specific writings to which you refer.

          • timothyprice

            Nearly all of Prince of Darkness is taken from Revelations.

          • WrenchMonkey

            And this is evidence of what? You seem to be reinforcing my impression that you are a deist who believes all this was foretold and that it’s all the work of “god”. (By the way, I’ve got no problem with that. You are entitled to “believe” whatever you like.)

            So now I’m force to resort to guesswork. If we obey god’s commandments everything will be OK?

            I wouldn’t be at all surprised if similar interpretations could be taken from the predictions of Nostradamus.

          • timothyprice

            Unfortunately, people make assumptions that are wrong and then speak, based upon their fallacies.

            You do not show enough general knowledge to connect any dots. But to speak directly to your “mistaken assumption”, what is said is that “someone or something gave the information to St. John. This certainly does not say that God did anything. But somebody gave the information, particularly accurately giving the atomic structure for carbon…. the beast. This is a wonderful discovery because it may mean that there is life beyond our understanding, and that it, or they, cared enough to try to warn humans of the eventually and absolutely predictable nature of carbon, and all carbon life, anywhere.

            What is it that you are having so much trouble understanding?

          • WrenchMonkey

            OK, so now we’re going for the ancient aliens scenario?

            I’m not making any assumptions.

            You don’t make yourself very clear when putting forth whatever “enlightenment” you’re trying to offer. That sort of vagueness seems evasive. State your position clearly and I assure you I have more than enough “general knowledge” to respond accordingly.

            If you think you know something that I’m missing, then just say plainly what you think that might be. If you can’t manage to do so then I can only conclude that you’re engaging in sophistry.

          • timothyprice

            It is not possible for me to make it any more clear than I have. Some people understand, and others may take a while longer. Giver yourself about 3 months to think about it, maybe ever do some reading, researching, that sort of thing. Good luck,

          • WrenchMonkey

            Thank you. You finally have, with this display of contempt, made yourself perfectly clear.

          • timothyprice

            Like CJ99 before you, you come across as a plant, a person who is here to discredit anyone who gets too close to the truth. Glad to expose you.

          • WrenchMonkey

            Like so many others before you, timothyprice is the one who knows the “truth”.

            Obviously, since I have no “beliefs” but only my opinions and
            conclusions drawn from more than fifty years of inquiry, whilst you
            possess the “truth”, I should never have dared to question you.

            Apparently resorting to groundless accusations is simpler for you than making the effort to explain your opinion to someone who simply sought understanding. So be it. Why don’t you just flag my comments if you are fanatical enough to “believe” I am a “plant”. Maybe you can get me banned from this site.

            The saddest aspect of this entire encounter is that, with my first inquiry regarding your video, I was genuinely seeking to understand exactly what your message was. Because, believe it or not, after scanning a number of the comments on your Disqus profile, I find our worldviews, while not completely in sync, are not insurmountably oppositional.

            It’s deplorable to allow a discussion to deteriorate to this degree and for that we share the guilt equally. I regret that I did not earlier follow my normal course of action when such vitriolic exchanges begin by simply agreeing to disagree. It is incumbent upon neither of us to “convert” the other.

            May you fare well upon your journey, whatever road you choose to follow.

  • http://conventionofstates.com/?gclid=COuhm9ucxbwCFQ_l7AodfHEAGQ Washington76

    Mark Meckler on Breitbart – Article V: An Emergency Solution, Hidden in Plain Sight FEBRUARY 12, 2014 Mark Meckler Some people don’t believe it. In school, we were taught, along with reading, ‘riting, and ‘rithmatic, how the Constitution is amended: an amendment must go before both houses of Congress and pass a two-thirds…

    http://conventionofstates.com/news/mark-meckler-breitbart-article-v-emergency-solution-hidden-plain-sight

  • http://www.subgenius.com/pam1/pamphlet_p1.html jesus_loves_you

    Too make the biggest impression, several high level, high profile politicians need to be executed.

    • mark

      in the name of jesus and love?

    • WrenchMonkey

      Even if assassinations were an effective tool, which they aren’t in this case, you’re choosing the wrong targets. To the ruling class, all “politicians”, no matter how high their level or profile, are nothing more than servants, expendable and easily replaced.

    • Carl_Herman

      No, dude. We’ll have them arrested under the law. You’ll be joining the criminals by threatening lethal force if you mean assassination rather than possible death penalty.

  • mark

    RS on WW1 said the tragedy is that they fought the wrong battle. The battle should be with the evil within, the dragon, the Hitler, the cynik. If we want to create a new world, a new society, fairness and justice, start with the inner war against ugliness then see how much it benefits our associates and fellows.

  • RapidRay01 .

    What do you think the DHS and it’s toad agencies are for ? ( TSA , FEMA , ICE , Border Patrol , ATF , and the Militarized local police departments ) They are already for us ! The majority of the populace are clueless and could care less . Only after TSHTF will they begin to ask questions , which will be too late . America is about to experience the Second Bolshevik Revolution , similar to what the Russians experienced . Now , find out what ” Tribe ” was responsible for the 40 to 50 MILLION Christians being murdered during the Bolshevik Revolution . and you will understand who is behind the Rape of the West’s Civilization ?

    • coastx

      State judiciaries are starting to see the problem w/gun control and are relaxing their grip on conceal carry and the AIPAC is up in arms. Crypto judasm is at the core of these isues, and rhe snnoeryou learn who these snake-like politicians are in congress the sooner people can start recalling them. YOU HAVE TO RECALL. That is the ONLY way you’ll be rid of these monsters.

      • RapidRay01 .

        When I mentioned the ” Tribe ” responsible for most of America’s problems , Christian friends and family were fast on the draw to call Anti-Semitic and Racist ! That is until I had them read the Bible , Rev. 2:9 and Rev. 3:9 . This problem has been going on for thousands of years . Jesus and the money changers in the Temple ?

        • 2centsforyou

          You are NOT alone…..

    • Martin O’Malley

      DHS is not at all interested in protecting the American citizenry. The ultra elite believe they own this all so DHS exists to protect their drug import trade and carry on the phoney war on terror. Oh yes, also their useless minions are ecstatic because they get a job and brutal power whereas, ironically, under Margaret Sanger style Eugenics they would be the first ‘morons’ to be exterminated.

  • James

    Is George Soros behind this “movement”, just like the “occupy movement”? If so, count me out. This is a controlled opposition operation directed by the same criminal loons that they are supposedly fighting to bring to justice. It is designed to fail and put a lot of well-meaning activists behind bars. Dont be fooled, people.

    • Carl_Herman

      No, James. You are behind this movement. Do what you will with others who choose to engage with you.

      You open with a question, then answer it for everyone with factless claims of controlled opposition and its design. Really, and how do you know this?

      Yes, don’t be fooled into non-action, people. Do what you will.

    • Dagaan

      I won’t be fooled by YOUR controlled opposition James. Even failed organized actions get people in touch with one another and can lead to more actions. Fracking is a life destroying operation that has to be stopped emmediately – better to die on our feet than live on our knees!

  • florin n.

    9/11 is the key. And with every passing day the myth hardens into history, and the crime the mere birth pangs of a New World of Disorder.

  • coastx

    You’re going to have to be more motivated than this. Their Barbi Doll Playhouse is North Rule 911 Cobra/Saros. The founders gave you the tools for such a confrontation. You have chosen not to use them and to do theater instead. One of the biggest holes in your plan is TRUTH and RECONCILIATION for monsters that have been SKIRTING your female population at a rate of over 300K victims per 100 years for the last 200 years in the US alone. George Washington opposed this and you read about it in childhood and yet have no idea what this is, because you’re HA HA HA PEE stupid. The Cherry tree myth is child abduction, a phenomenon that colonial govt opposed and attempted to throw off. This myth is also reality against a back drop of deception that US government was a British experiment. It was not. Follow the myth and you will learn the truth. Your WWA is BS. You need well regulated militia and state leadership to handle this. YOU DON’T HAVE WELL REGULATED MILITIA AND STATE LEADERSHIP. You’re stupid.

  • JailBanksters

    Sounds like Martial Law starts on April 5 2014
    Well at least it’s a change in direction

  • Sliide

    To arrest the Criminals, first the Lawyer Aristocracy will have to face such a Revolt that they turn on themselves and reform or face public impaling, per the Magna Carta Article 61, of themselves and their entire families.

  • coolfishin

    Most soldiers have hearts too. Many will not tolerate force against the common citizenry for long. The ones without hearrs will ultimately ask for payment in gold. When the gold is paid out, when the mercenaries are neutral, then rule of law might return in large scale.

    Alternatively, there are two other routes. First develop global network organization that fulfills all of the roles of the bank-state that. Develop a philosophical and legal pseudocode based on first principles and natural justice that describes the crimes of the bank state. Apply that code to living individuals.

    The kingpins are the people that control the Bank of International Settlements (central bankers are their employees). Monetary malfeasance, wars, market and economic falsity rest squarely with them. Start a wiki whereby corroborated evidence reveals their identity. Start with the US Federal Reserve, find out who owns the big banks.

 

 

Twitter