[onlooker]

Wow, Vox. Thanks. Their online security must be state of the art. I am wondering though if they may be vulnerable to some actual physical threat.
Anyway, my humble self has long ago resigned myself to the fact that Big Brother is monitoring all electronic/online information. The Bin Laden man in a cave setup actually makes sense

[Newfie]

So with all this, do they need a warrent to wire tap Trump? Or is the Warren's an after the fact device to provide a veil of legitimacy? Where is our right to privacy here? Which brings me to a bigger issue.

I was thinking is starting a new thread on the below idea but decided to put it here.

While we worry about the organized TPTB the country, and maybe western civilization is gradually crumbling in prosaic ways.

There is a general and increasing disregard for law at all levels.

The import of this, to my mind, is that the foundation of our country is that we are a nation united by our laws. That we honor our laws. That we are all equal before the law. That fairness is a rather human emotion, pre human actually, hills will rebel if treated unfairly, so it is a very basic and fundamental part of us.

When we violate such a fundamental element to our national being we are attacking the very core of what it means to be a country.

TPTB may or may not be a threat to us. But that threat pales in comparison to the rejection of shared values exhibited by the various special interest groups.



Some Texas contractor comes out in support of the Houston sanctuary city ordanance because most of his work force are illegals. But hiring illegals is ILLEGAL, so he is openly flouting the law.

Sanctuary city movements are prima facia acts against Federal law.

The courts strike down laws that require folks to prove they are citizens. Even though the Constitution says only citizens can vote.

While all these examples relate to illegals one way or another I'm pretty sure that there are any number of examples across the board.

[Tanada]

9 years ago, as the aftermath of the global housing/credit bubble and oil bubble collapse played out, I would never have believed that in 2016 house prices would have equaled --much less surpassed-- their 2007 peaks. I would also have never believed that oil production would have exceeded the late 2000's peak, or that fracking would drive U.S. oil production to a second peak (something Hubbert could not have foreseen), or that we would be experiencing an oil glut with prices ~$35/BBL.

I know this goes against the grain here, but the fact of the matter is, central banks are far more powerful and capable of kicking that can than anyone here imagined. People here --including me-- have routinely underestimated the ability of the .1% to maintain the status quo and keep the game going.

Yes, physical limits to growth will inevitably eventually impose themselves and "oil" production must eventually crest and fall, but... getting the exact timing right is a real b-tch, and you underestimate TPTB at your own peril.

As JMK famously said, "In the long run, we're all dead". It's very hard to maintain a state of constant vigilance for a Collapse that never comes (and may never come in my lifetime). If the collapse hits 10 years after I'm dead and buried, then really, what's the point? Why prep for a Doomsday/reckoning that keeps on getting deferred indefinitely?

Indeed TPTB remain in control because they maintain at least some variation of BAU that leaves them in control. This is after all the whole point of their personal existence, they are on the top of the social structure and they wish to remain on top.

So far the skilled petroleum geologist and technologists have always managed to pull yet another rabbit out of the hat and keep things running. Personally I don't see this continuing forever, but that also doesn't mean we will have overnight collapse and its spouse permanent doom guiding us next year or even next decade.

We still have a few more rabbits in that hat, the question is will the magician be able to get a firm grip and yank them out for the rest of us or will they wriggle free and remain elusive for a long time into the future?

[onlooker]

I would submit that the principle rabbits that TPTB have been deploying is to delay and push consequences into the future. From the relentless drawing down of limited resources ie fossil fuels, top soil, fresh water aquifers, minerals etc. To the relentless Debt buildup. To the failure to really marshall a vigorous response to energy depletion via a robust Renewable/Alternative energy buildup or really attempt to halt population growth. So yes, they have postponed the Days of Reckoning and prolonged BAU. But this failure to deal NOW with problems has made them in a way worse and accumulated them into the Future which one day will become the present.

[Ibon]

What would a lawyer, accountant, sales executive, software engineer, production engineer, CEO or CFO actually be able to fall back on regarding the skill sets required if ever the playing field would level out due to severe consequences? Their expertise is in the world of financial transactions, contracts, taxation, executing business plans, JIT logistics, etc. Their world is to simply pay for all the services they need. Outside of business and financial transactions most can hardly negotiate changing a light bulb.

Socially, TPTB live in a totally separate social world and have very little interaction with common folks except in their ability to pay them for their services. For this reason TPTB are actually almost always inherently insecure about any consequences that will level the playing field and consequently they are invested out of both POWER and FEAR to maintain the status quo.

You have to understand how POWER and FEAR are two sides of the same coin for TPTB and how this results in a powerful conservative force to do everthing possible to preserve the status quo.

When you understand this you then understand the resiliency of the status quo.

Allowing too much disenfranchisement among the minions and wage slaves is a threat actually so TPTB also have to shore up the defenses with a balanced combination of a strong police state and basic social services. In the sense that parasites have to keep their hosts resilient enough to continue to feed off of them.

This is cynical but accurate.

[GHung]

What Ibon said.....

....and Harm said, above;

It's very hard to maintain a state of constant vigilance for a Collapse that never comes (and may never come in my lifetime). If the collapse hits 10 years after I'm dead and buried, then really, what's the point? Why prep for a Doomsday/reckoning that keeps on getting deferred indefinitely?

For me it isn't so much about maintaining 'a state of constant vigilance" or prepping for collapse as it is forming new habits for not being as much of a contributer to our future demise, avoiding the traps that TPTB set to reinforce their captive base, and becoming comfortable with the idea that we don't need all that stuff in the first place. Readjusting to what makes sense under most circumstances, makes sense. People speak of a powered-down lifestyle and "prepping" as if it's some kind of purgatory. Once one makes that adjustment, one realizes that purgatory is following TPTB's lead. Debt slavery, over-consumption, blame, and all that. Helluva way to waste a life.

Purgatory is watching one's children and grandchildren fall into those same traps. Generational change takes time, and has to start somewhere. Lead your tribe by example.

[asg70]

People speak of a powered-down lifestyle and "prepping" as if it's some kind of purgatory. Once one makes that adjustment, one realizes that purgatory is following TPTB's lead. Debt slavery, over-consumption, blame, and all that. Helluva way to waste a life.

The problem with this is it suggests a one-size-fits-all lifestyle. While it's true that most people lock into conformity and never question it, it's not true that everyone who lives a conventional lifestyle is miserable and would be better off scaling back to some austere or rustic existence.

When you then wrap it up in a bow by saying people who live conventional lives are "wasting" them, it's oozing with judgment. In the end all anyone can ever say is that you stand for this and against that. You can't really judge what constitutes a wasted life or not because that's their assessment to make, not yours.

It's this attitude of superiority that some doomers strike, that they are doing life better, and everyone else is (by definition) doing it wrong, that gives doomers a negative reputation.

[Ibon]

When you then wrap it up in a bow by saying people who live conventional lives are "wasting" them, it's oozing with judgment. In the end all anyone can ever say is that you stand for this and against that. You can't really judge what constitutes a wasted life or not because that's their assessment to make, not yours.

This is a good point, actually when you are actively judging you are still "in relationship" with the issue you are judging. In other words you have most likely not yet completely emancipated yourself from what it is you are judging.

I have shared in other posts an insight I had whereby instead of judging all those who are so willing to tow the consumption line and enslave themselves it is better to be grateful that they are so easily harnessed and stuck in the consumption and debt mode. This actually opens up much more room for those of us who have emancipated ourselves from this.

If I had the time I would explore this with a separate thread.

[asg70]

Politics is all about people trying to project a value-system or way of life on others. It's a power thing. Like right now the tax bill is going through which is yet another validation of trickle-down economics with a short-term giveaway to the middle-class in order to make it go down better.

When your value-system is in the minority, let alone fringe, you're going to have to deal with a sense of impotence. And the internet encourages people to deal with it by whining and complaining about it. Of course, none of that is going to change the situation, but it provides an emotional outlet.

People are pretty simple. In times of plenty, they live more hedonistic lives. In times of scarcity, they relearn how to be frugal. A very very small minority buck those trends by intentionally living more modestly. This is why I think doomers prior to 2008 were sort of pinning their hopes on collapse to force people to powerdown and plant gardens like in Cuba during the special period.

People just don't do this until they have to. To be frustrated over this is to be at war with human nature itself. What's the point?

I don't like the fact that after the shale boom people rushed out and started buying SUVs again, but that's just how people behave. Part of going through the grief cycle is to accept this.

I think the small number of strident posters here still can't move on from the anger stage of the grief cycle.

[GHung]

People speak of a powered-down lifestyle and "prepping" as if it's some kind of purgatory. Once one makes that adjustment, one realizes that purgatory is following TPTB's lead. Debt slavery, over-consumption, blame, and all that. Helluva way to waste a life.

The problem with this is it suggests a one-size-fits-all lifestyle.....

Not at all, but as usual, you read your own biases into others' comments. But I'll play along. Where, exactly, did I say that?

There are likely thousands of lifestyles that don't involve overshooting our planet's ability to sustain some level of civilization in the future. I never suggested otherwise.

[onlooker]

Ghung, you don't need to defend your assertions. Whether some people feel more "happy" with a high consumer lifestyle or not is beside the point. The point is a high consumer lifestyle must end for the sake of everyone and the future and in fact at some point will end because it is not going to be accessible or available.

[GHung]

Ghung, you don't need to defend your assertions. Whether some people feel more "happy" with a high consumer lifestyle or not is beside the point. The point is a high consumer lifestyle must end for the sake of everyone and the future and in fact at some point will end because it is not going to be accessible or available.

Yes, thanks; you and Ibon are right in a sense. I just get tired of some people here who constantly mis-characterize what others have said, then go on to attack those strawmen as truth. Goes completely against my grain. Is defending ones assertions a bad things when those assertions have been intensionally corrupted?

Probably a waste of time, and if the rain ever stops, I have chores..

[ROCKMAN]

I still gives me a big smile to see folks who don't believe the consumers/voters determine the status quo. Just let "TPTB" try to reduce the amount of motor fuel available to the public by 30% and watch how the "P" in TPTB don't mean shit. LOL. Just one more example of individuals trying to duck their share of their responsibility of many of society's problems by blaming it on some "invisible hand". Just so f*cking convenient. LOL.

[asg70]

In this case I side with Rockman. This finger-pointing upstream ignores that human beings always opt for the most comfortable lifestyle they can afford and turn a blind eye to externalized costs, whether it's the whole "Shock Doctrine" stuff or the cost to future generations. We vote with our wallets.

[GHung]

.... human beings always opt for the most comfortable lifestyle they can afford and turn a blind eye to externalized costs....

Pity the fool who insists on assigning his values and behavior to everyone else.

[asg70]

Pity the fool who insists on assigning his values and behavior to everyone else.

I don't need to. I only need to assign those values and behaviors on enough people to kill the planet, which is what's happening. The rest are merely outliers. We're not smarter than yeast and there will be no zeitgeist style epiphany of people shoveling their dollar-bills into bonfires in slow-motion.

[GHung]

Pity the fool who insists on assigning his values and behavior to everyone else.

I don't need to. I only need to assign those values and behaviors on enough people to kill the planet, which is what's happening. The rest are merely outliers. We're not smarter than yeast and there will be no zeitgeist style epiphany of people shoveling their dollar-bills into bonfires in slow-motion.

[onlooker]

https://www.theguardian.com/global-deve ... poorest-50
Oh but this is just conspiracy eh. Every country has tgese huge wealth disparities, the rich are getting richer and nothing has been done to improve the lives of the masses. But its okay because Capitalism is working just fine. It is working as intended, concentrating ever greater wealth in fewer and fewer hands.

[KaiserJeep]

An op-ed piece by a noted Libertarian which is DIRECTLY ON POINT in this thread:

John Stossel: Get real about capitalism
2020 Dems, liberal media want you to believe it's wrong to be rich

Presidential candidates and the media keep telling people “it’s immoral” that a few rich people have so much more money than everyone else.

They talk as if it doesn’t matter what the rich did to get the money. Instead, the fact that they are rich is itself immoral.

Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute says this is lunacy. “They want to condemn the people that actually have moved civilization forward,” Brook complains. “People who improved the standard of living for everybody on the planet.”

Everybody? How is that possible? Isn’t there a certain amount of money in the world, so that when rich people grab a lot there’s less for everyone else?

No. Because wealth can be created.

But for thousands of years, that barely happened.

“We basically made about $2 a day for 100,000 years -- in other words, we could eat what we farmed,” recounts Brook. “Then (250 years ago) something amazing happened.”

That “amazing” thing was capitalism.

For the first time, ordinary people were allowed to profit from private property. Specialization of labor created efficiency that let people produce more with less. Then they traded to get more. That created wealth.

“Two-hundred and fifty years ago, we suddenly discovered the value of individual freedom,” says Brook in my new video. “The value of leaving individuals free to think, to innovate, to produce without asking for permission, without getting the state to sign off on it -- and we call that the Industrial Revolution.”

But ever since, politicians have complained about the profits. In the movie based on Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged,” state officials demand that steel magnate Hank Rearden justify his wealth.

“I do not owe you an answer, but I could tell you in a hundred ways,” replies Rearden. “Thousands of jobs, billions in revenue, fueling our economy despite your efforts.”

Rearden was very right. Capitalism created new wealth.

“We got much, much, much richer, it’s hard to imagine,” explains Brook. “We got electricity, running water, things we all take for granted today but we didn’t have 150 years ago. And yes, some people complain about inequality, but everybody got richer. Even the poor got richer.”

Much richer. That’s the key point.

Capitalism’s critics imply that rich industrialists “took” money from others -- as if the world’s wealth is one pie. If Amazon founder Jeff Bezos takes a big piece, then the rest of us have less.

But that’s not how life works. Bezos got rich by baking thousands of new pies. He created new wealth.

Capitalism creates wealth because under capitalism, unlike socialism, transactions are voluntary.

We see this every time we buy something.

At the coffee shop, I give a clerk a dollar and she hands me coffee. Then there’s a weird double “thank you!” moment: We both say “thank you.” Why?

Because both of us felt we were better off.

Under capitalism, we both must like the deal, or the transaction doesn’t happen. She wanted my dollar more than the coffee; I wanted the coffee more than the dollar. It’s a win-win.

The only way to get rich under capitalism (unless you cheat) is to serve your customers well.

We live with that kind of winning every day in capitalist countries, and it’s made almost everyone better off.

Since the Industrial Revolution, recounts Brook, “We have more than doubled our life expectancy. We have dramatically increased the quality of our life, and we are wealthier than anybody could have imagined.”

Today’s “democratic” socialists say government must aid the poor and sick because capitalists will only help themselves. But Brook points out, “the weak and poor under capitalism have done better than in any other system!”

Very true.

Capitalism, he concludes, “is a fantastic system that is fundamentally moral because it allows individuals to pursue their own happiness. Your pursuit of your own well-being -- a virtue in and of itself -- also helps the world be a better world.”