Fw: 6 Major Media Conspiracies Happening Right in Front of Your Eyes.
Subject: 6 Major Media Conspiracies Happening Right in Front of Your Eyes. 6 Major Media Conspiracies Happening Right in Front of Your Eyes Sigmund Fraud, Staff Writer By WakingTimes October 5, 2016 Woven into the ever-evolving narrative of the mainstream media are key plot lines, hidden in the sub-text of so-called current events, going for the most part unnoticed by the public. We could say this happens by chance but since we already know the structure and purpose of corporate media, this would be naive and dangerously forgiving of an organization that plays an authoritative role in manufacturing reality. And since political, economic, social and environmental reality is an affront to our greatest human potential, to say the least, it serves us well to acknowledge and expose the directives we are being provoked into accepting and acting on. “This complete utter and total connection between perception and experience is understood by that hidden hand, and that’s why the human mind is bombarded 24/7 with downloads of perception.” ~David Icke Conspiracy. An abused word, but one with tremendous relevance today, as no other word in the english language adequately synthesizes the concepts of plot, motive and wicked intention. Love or hate the word itself, when an examination of media in its relation to reality is given proper due with respect for historical and philosophical truth, it requires willful ignorance to dismiss the fact that there are conspiracies at play in our world, and therefore theories are required to understand and expose them. There a handful of major conspiracies driving the mainline media’s direction of our attention onto whatever nonsense, propaganda or disinfo happens to be soup du jour for public consumption. Awareness of these disrupts the pattern of top-down, in-your-face control, offering the freedom to consume media without unconscious obligation to the subduing and pacifying world view being forced down our throats by our information overlords. Here are five of the most important and prominent media conspiracies constantly at work on the public psyche. All are absolutely essential to support and maintain the status quo. 1. The Conspiracy to Make You Love the State Indoctrination into the nurturing womb of the state is essential for our society to function as it does. As children, we are taught the state’s version of national and international history, we pledge allegiance to the state flag, and we learn a superficial version of how state government works while being told the only alternative is destructive chaos. This theme of state indoctrination carries on into the mainstream media as state worship is embedded into news, infotainment and entertainment. The most important people are those in public office. The most important opinions come from state employees turned pundits. The most important decisions are those made by the government. Heroes are soldiers. There is no issue or concern which does not warrant action from the state. 2. The Conspiracy to Conceal the True Powers in the World There is an invisible unelected power which controls government and industry around the world, yet no matter how many warnings we receive from even the most credentialed individuals, the media will never genuinely report on the shadow government, the deep state, secret societies, or the Zionist neocons, opting instead to direct our attention onto government, maintaining the impression that major decisions are made democratically. Consider how many years it has taken for even basic, propagandistic coverage of Bilderberg to make it to the mainstream. The Bilderberg Group is a gathering of the world’s most powerful private, corporate, and state actors, yet the media still wants you to believe their influence in our world is but a theory. Furthermore, the banking institutions which have monopolized world currencies into private hands charging every interest for the ability to trade, are fully misrepresented by the media as benevolent and ‘too big to fail,’ ie., too big to prosecute. For a recent example of this, look to CNN Money who put together a shoddy segment on the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States, explaining to the audience how it was not at all political, but rather an independent group intentionally designed in 1913 for our benefit. Why the Federal Reserve isn't political 3. The Conspiracy to Cover Up the Corporate Rape of the Planet The rape of the planet physically, economically and spiritually by corporate power and greed is escalating on a global scale, yet the mainstream refuses to give this issue its proper due. Corporations are presented as society’s saviors, bringing us the jobs and conveniences that make life bearable, yet, while we may profit in material terms in the short term, corporate exploitation of the world and its cultures is quickly pushing us into unknown territory where the world’s wealth will be given over to the 1%, and the world’s eco-systems are laid waste. The Dakota Sioux protest over the Keystone XL pipeline offers a recent example of how corporate media treats important environmental issues resulting from corporate dominance. Silence. Although organic resistance to this is huge and widely covered by the alternative media, only natural disasters that stoke irrational fears make the nightly news. When was the last time the mainstream news ran an expose of the Athabasca Oil Sands project, or of the widespread destruction of the Amazon rainforest? These issues are vastly critical to our survival, yet never explored by corporate media. Even something as crucial as Fukushima, which is still dumping radiation into the Pacific Ocean five years after the earthquake and tsunami of 2011, gets nary a mention. This disaster is put off as a local Japanese issue and all attempts to bring closure to this are left the hands of TEPCO, the Japanese energy corporation, even in the face of mounting evidence that Fukushima is already affecting life in North America. 4. The Conspiracy to Encourage Self-Destruction In order to create and maintain the culture of top-down rule, it is mandatory that the populace suffers interminable disunity, widespread apathy, infighting and senseless division. This is fomented by the mainline media’s assistance in the destruction of the individual; for our own self-destruction is the most economical solution for the elite in their quest to destroy us. The vibration of the news is always as dense as possible, a continual flood of violence, hate, gore and madness, ever refusing concepts and ideas that enlighten, focusing instead on the repetition of insanity. Corporate media, especially from Hollywood, is a non-stop psychic assault serving to color darkly our souls, driving us into inner despair, suggesting to us that we self-medicate, guiding us into the hands of modern psychology for relief from the onslaught. When the individual is useless to himself, he is useless to his community and to society as a whole. When this is accomplished it is easy to corral us into narrow frames of mind and widespread division, working against ourselves rather than for ourselves. READ: In 2013 a Rothschild Insider Warned of an Elite Planned Race War in America 5. The Conspiracy to Arrest Consciousness The war on consciousness is real. It is a concerted effort to prevent the individual from understanding the true nature of the self, from gaining critical self-knowledge, and from maturing beyond childish naivety and intelligence. The prosecution of the war on drugs, heavily promoted in corporate media, is a key strategy, for it inhibits our willingness to explore our own sovereign consciousness, cutting us off from ancient and natural tools of self-exploration, limiting our understanding of what is possible in this human experience. As researcher and author Graham Hancock states: “There can be no more intimate and elemental part of the individual than his or her own consciousness. At the deepest level, our consciousness is what we are—to the extent that if we are not sovereign over our own consciousness then we cannot in any meaningful sense be sovereign over anything else either. ” ~Graham Hancock 6. The Conspiracy to Prevent Revolution We are quickly entering a time when the only way for the elite to prevent revolution is to enact the strict social controls only possible in a world war type scenario, which is presently unfolding before our sleepwalking eyes. The mainstream media participates in the conspiracy to prevent revolution by constantly reinforcing false state narratives about security, privacy and the need for more control, and by continually manufacturing consent for the oligarchy. The main objective is to prevent disbelief in official government stories and narratives, regularly engaging on the trigger term ‘conspiracy theory‘ to deflate curiosity of the unknown and misunderstood workings of our government. The media are moulding us into self-monitoring, self-policing gatekeepers who are trained to reject revolutionary ideas before they are duly investigated. Final Thoughts When so much of the information we intake is controlled by so few organizations, and the messages we most receive combine to transform us into dis-empowered non-actors in a world being taken over by untouchable global powers, we can safely call it a conspiracy. The solution, of course, requires us to tune out of corporate media and engage self-education, self-knowledge and in participation in community. About the Author Sigmund Fraud is a survivor of modern psychiatry and a dedicated mental activist. He is a staff writer for WakingTimes.com where he indulges in the possibility of a massive shift towards a more psychologically aware future for humankind. Follow Sigmund on Facebook here. This article (6 Major Media Conspiracies Happening Right in Front of Your Eyes) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Sigmund Fraud and WakingTimes.com. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement. http://www.wakingtimes.com/2016/10/05/7-major-media-conspiracies-happening-r...
1. The Conspiracy to Make You Love the State Indoctrination into the nurturing womb of the state is essential for our society to function as it does. 2. The Conspiracy to Conceal the True Powers in the World There is an invisible unelected power which controls government and industry around the world, 3. The Conspiracy to Cover Up the Corporate Rape of the Planet The rape of the planet physically, economically and spiritually by corporate power and greed is escalating on a global scale, 4. The Conspiracy to Encourage Self-Destruction In order to create and maintain the culture of top-down rule, it is mandatory that the populace suffers interminable disunity, widespread apathy, infighting and senseless division. 5. The Conspiracy to Arrest Consciousness The war on consciousness is real. It is a concerted effort to prevent the individual from understanding the true nature of the self, 6. The Conspiracy to Prevent Revolution We are quickly entering a time when the only way for the elite to prevent revolution is to enact the strict social controls only possible in a world war type scenario,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/10/2016 08:01 AM, xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:
1. The Conspiracy
Explained in full: http://pilobilus.net/CGBSpender3.jpg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJX+5jBAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqqvoIAKMU7SfsK803RTV5GNtrgvyB FFWOechlVIK4FMbqL8/F6aPMlwbJR5IaaYPdTLXhK/pRs6NbST7TLJsusbqqlvWO iMHCvS8ddpdMH/ALuZclCOSa2ronPVlqrHzHC6gFooPJ/Zqmq3r4JuDRX4V5oi0U H3v1MlDitKsBsg95bKiVx/+Zmou7JMgWn5x3pTsg0UBVnTqcvNB2C2M77SzPJGCm owpaQh03qoAlOrzuxyQ11Ydypf+COHSxaKca+JqTo3sAyNuUIoqv2zIW6rCnhVj7 jrrGnzOVSwf0/Jq0dru5xaG0C52xTLELptBmOGXsnxURAP2qVGdnuefFa8nQrLM= =nQpN -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
1. The Conspiracy
Explained in full:
Such can only be the case if you're looking to play 'their' game. The very creation of such 'organizations' is what leads to the associated chaos in the first place. Rather, I favor a free association of individuals - with no organization, just people working towards individual goals; each taking a small chip out of the establishment. Consume it like a disease. Like piranha. Not by doing eyeball-to-eyeball combat on equal terms.
On 10/10/2016 07:58 AM, xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:
1. The Conspiracy
Explained in full:
Such can only be the case if you're looking to play 'their' game. The very creation of such 'organizations' is what leads to the associated chaos in the first place. Rather, I favor a free association of individuals - with no organization, just people working towards individual goals; each taking a small chip out of the establishment. Consume it like a disease. Like piranha. Not by doing eyeball-to-eyeball combat on equal terms.
Sounds good to me :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/10/2016 09:58 AM, xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:
1. The Conspiracy
Explained in full:
Such can only be the case if you're looking to play 'their' game. The very creation of such 'organizations' is what leads to the associated chaos in the first place. Rather, I favor a free association of individuals - with no organization, just people working towards individual goals; each taking a small chip out of the establishment. Consume it like a disease. Like piranha. Not by doing eyeball-to-eyeball combat on equal terms.
I'm not quite that stupid. Only a sucker deliberately engages in "eyeball-to-eyeball combat on equal terms" in real life. There is no such thing as a fair fight, because the only reason to fight is to shut a violent aggressor down. If it's a fight, fairness is already off the table. Teaching people to confuse fighting with a game or contest is a psychological weapon used by ruthless, vicious "winners" to create weak minded, self defeating losers and keep them in their place. Bullies and losers demand that people "fight fair." I can't afford to care very much about people who insist on proving themselves by "fighting fair." In a real fight the only rule is to end it by the fastest, safest means available. Those who insist on proving themselves the better man have a name, we call them cannon fodder. Winners create and exploit every possible advantage: They lie, cheat, take every advantage and the fewest risks possible while giving their adversaries no chance at all. Fighting is an ugly business, a grim necessity to be avoided when possible. There is nothing glamorous or heroic about it and nothing to brag about afterward. On the subject of "people working towards individual goals; each taking a small chip out of the establishment," I understand that's a popular idea. I believe that "chip" is usually a paycheck. But in politics loners are by definition losers. Popular fiction in the Rebel As You Are Told genre would, of course, disagree with this assessment - did someone mention media conspiracies earlier? A plan to destroy the Leviathans of society the same way krill destroy whales is no plan at all - because krill can't destroy whales, except by dying off en masse and starving the whales. Check your geophysics - - that plan is already underway, literally /and/ figuratively, courtesy of the Industrial Revolution. The whole point of radical politics is to change that plan as fast as possible. Individual, uncoordinated acts of sabotage and non-cooperation can not defeat a criminal gang that owns and controls a neighborhood. It can only weaken the gang, which results in a stronger, more predatory gang moving in. Kicking a gang to the curb takes an organized, united front of uncompromising resistance: In short, the regular folks in that neighborhood need a gang of their own. In today's domestic political warfare battle space, the effectiveness of organizations opposing State and Corporate agendas are determined by four factors: Relevance - how much do how many people already WANT to obtain the result the organization aims for? Agility - how fast can you stand up an organization, and capitalize on rapidly shifting opportunities? Cohesion - resistance to division, sabotage and hijacking in the organizational and network battle space. Scalability - how fast can your organization propagate clones of itself across existing communities? When these four factors are present, Shit Happens. They all require voluntary cooperation, a.k.a. organization, and the relevant skill sets and base of experience don't just happen by themselves. Propagating the tools and experience necessary for political action is a unifying theme and larger purpose of issue-oriented activism. To paraphrase George Carlin, "It's a big club and they want you in it." :o) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJX+9VVAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqFFYIALlweJqO+NLkZ0v+5PKNuZ93 uqZ0DNSvF/Av8oYVqpB16VlOGv4SyGOVtUti+NV6OZ5wkc8BXTjdiascvMPUHLiD QKGooTljCFCpXGmUYLC/GX4bp1/hCrGqkXr4NCtkStvQ3IoQRqNEGwmsmlAcRa9b 5+JQ1GLqGC/rlWhgDx2f9ipNwdb2BOMIkiRft1cCoWj6WX0iliM3einjLcgqtJ+w W/5PS5gEWgu1+AmDEt4w8EsDvBkXSGC8IYrcYw77vSNrwSoJbMW+hVmohsUqZS6q cvFNHsHJmQy941dPUPS93gVA2TsXTrnRdv714T49HKfV63iQ6ufEgaqzEe0whQ4= =3/Vc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
In a real fight the only rule is to end it by the fastest, safest means available.
Safest for whom? I assume that, finding yourself in a fight, and knocked about the jaw a few times, that you'd choose not to simply grab your adversary by the head and crack his skull onto a fence pole or something to immediately kill him? Fast, and surely safer for you than messing about. But then we have..
Winners create and exploit every possible advantage: They lie, cheat, take every advantage and the fewest risks possible while giving their adversaries no chance at all.
So you would just crack the dude's head on the fence pole then? That's what "winners" do? I suppose it depends on what you're trying to win. This certainly the way the players look at thingson a battlefield, and in finance. It probably, even, scales down to the board game Monopoly. But there are other games. And your contention about it NOT being a game, just shows you're not acquainted with games. Doesn't mean people aren't playing for keeps. It might be a zero-sum game. Still just a game. And there are still better ones. And in any event, with an attitude like that I certainly wouldn't want to join an 'organization' that you're at the helm of. How you 'win' is as important as 'what' you win. This is not some namby-pamby point of moralism on my part. It is a matter of strategy for attaining the goal. Because an organization of people that worked, and operated, according to the principles of "winning" that you're espousing -- if successful, would simply become the new gang in town themselves.
Individual, uncoordinated acts of sabotage and non-cooperation can not defeat a criminal gang that owns and controls a neighborhood.
Coordination is one thing. There is no 'organization' needed to coordinate a flash mob. Send out the email or txt message alerts. People show up, or don't. Creating organizations, as implied in the quote in your pic, is something altogether different. _An_ organization, to me, implies not just some coordination / communication amongst freely associating individuals, but a system of control, which dictates from leaders to subordinates. Little fish do things they don't want to do in order to climb the ladder and get to boss around little fish. There is a flow of information, and orders, from top to bottom. *THIS* is _an_ organization. There is no way to go rid of "criminal gangs" by creating more criminal gangs. Which, is all such organizations can, or will become. All organizations, companies, governments and so on, once they get large enough, become effectively organized crime. Power corrupts. Create powerful organizations? You're just creating effective mechanisms for corruption.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/10/2016 02:52 PM, xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:
In a real fight the only rule is to end it by the fastest, safest means available.
Safest for whom? I assume that, finding yourself in a fight, and knocked about the jaw a few times, that you'd choose not to simply grab your adversary by the head and crack his skull onto a fence pole or something to immediately kill him?
If my assailant can reach my jaw, I can reach his eyes, trachea, gonads, knees, shins and metatarsals. Why should I let him hit me at all, much less over and over, is a bit of a mystery...
Fast, and surely safer for you than messing about. But then we have..
Winners create and exploit every possible advantage: They lie, cheat, take every advantage and the fewest risks possible while giving their adversaries no chance at all.
So you would just crack the dude's head on the fence pole then? That's what "winners" do?
In a real fight, the winners are those who walked away intact - and ideally that includes the aggressor. I have only been assaulted three times; and three times, both myself and my assailant walked away physically unharmed. Just lucky I guess.
I suppose it depends on what you're trying to win. This certainly the way the players look at thingson a battlefield, and in finance. It probably, even, scales down to the board game Monopoly.
But there are other games. And your contention about it NOT being a game, just shows you're not acquainted with games. Doesn't mean people aren't playing for keeps. It might be a zero-sum game.
Still just a game. And there are still better ones.
In a game there are agreed rules, and participation is voluntary. In an assault, there will be one or more assailants, and one or more intended victims who did not agree to participate. In a game, the object is to win. In a fight, the object is to stop the assault. Game theory is a branch of mathematics that attempts to model natural processes; it has numerous applications in combat, but combat is not a game: At any scale, combat is the process of an assault in progress. " I prefer terms like "systems dynamics" rather than "games" in this context, because the word "games" has way too many loaded connotations.
And in any event, with an attitude like that I certainly wouldn't want to join an 'organization' that you're at the helm of.
In the political organizations I participate in, decisions are made by consensus and specific tasks necessary to carry out those decisions are delegated to volunteers. A trusted facilitator has some influence but no real power. The 10/90 rule states that in voluntary organizations, 10% of the participants do 90% of the work; it's a fairly accurate estimator. If enough of that 10% gets pissed off and walks out, the organization falls over; that is the real power structure I have seen in the field, and it is a reasonably healthy one.
How you 'win' is as important as 'what' you win. This is not some namby-pamby point of moralism on my part. It is a matter of strategy for attaining the goal. Because an organization of people that worked, and operated, according to the principles of "winning" that you're espousing -- if successful, would simply become the new gang in town themselves.
If the neighborhood committee should happen to turn predatory, oh well, at least the other locals will have a fresh historical example of how to deal with the problem.
Individual, uncoordinated acts of sabotage and non-cooperation can not defeat a criminal gang that owns and controls a neighborhood.
Coordination is one thing. There is no 'organization' needed to coordinate a flash mob. Send out the email or txt message alerts. People show up, or don't.
I can't remember an example of a flash mob that accomplished a political political objective. Flash mobs garnered some publicity when the fad was still going on, but publicity is a tool, not an objective. All wishful thinking aside, knowing better does not make things better - just "getting the word out" accomplishes nothing in politics unless followed up immediately with organized action. Maybe that's why the "flash mob" thing came, saw, and left.
Creating organizations, as implied in the quote in your pic, is something altogether different. _An_ organization, to me, implies not just some coordination / communication amongst freely associating individuals, but a system of control, which dictates from leaders to subordinates. Little fish do things they don't want to do in order to climb the ladder and get to boss around little fish. There is a flow of information, and orders, from top to bottom. *THIS* is _an_ organization.
An organization is an instance of "organic" cooperation toward shared goals, with coordinated division of functions among the participants. The definition as a system where dictates flow from leaders to subordinates seems pathological to me. Homey don't play that.
There is no way to go rid of "criminal gangs" by creating more criminal gangs. Which, is all such organizations can, or will become. All organizations, companies, governments and so on, once they get large enough, become effectively organized crime.
Power corrupts. Create powerful organizations? You're just creating effective mechanisms for corruption.
When an organization's power is established and maintained by violent means that organization is already terminally corrupt. It may grow larger and more powerful, it may deploy more overt and larger scale forms of violence, but it will not become more corrupt. When an organization's power is established and maintained by mutual aid in unified resistance to violence, that organization will be inherently resistant to corruption, more so if it proves itself competent by acquiring real power by using nonviolent force successfully . Humans are, collectively, a major pain in the ass. If you insist that any organization with humans in it must be foolproof, you must insist that there BE no organizations - as apparently stated above. But no organization means no power. No power means no results, and no push-back from violent institutions protecting their turf from competitors. And it seems to me that the potential push-back is what keeps people glued to their sofas watching stage managed political events on TV, rather than turning out to create political events of their own in real life. :o/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJX/AwNAAoJEECU6c5XzmuqEj4IAJH0sp8g/vLG/bQyS7cSj116 CjGtGSld6318bSns3DW3Epsz1thT3IOOwtJ1Fc7An6kauP4KpxaosMNN7O1PAJ22 ZxgCLnKzOR4b4zjIU0YTlrkJAaEzs2PU0CkGyvjnRlps0G+PYHizZ7Ca+DlGFgCP hsmI/PwD7879+rcyBzJJvwzMKPjMxfHLGkk1WrxSHtLc8aXJlLJUyKo9tRSneB01 9KSKUEBIdsmkSqJq+wXAExAxV/4itAcWxr+K3yRB3L0eS9Mkm5IFiOjPHPM9zpbV yW0Bi/5xHp3IRXI+5kIJveXCM6KEYJa+GKstx7puTRBY3MEz4Mq++VQtQaqQrU8= =w9hS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
In a game there are agreed rules, and participation is voluntary.
Warfare meets this criteria, no? There are rules of war, like the Geneva convention. Participation is largely voluntary, and even with nations that have forced conscript armies, one can argue that - for example with Israel, or Sweden, the citizenry has structured their society so that everyone must play and its "voluntary" in that way. If you take the "participation is voluntary" bit absolutely, then no child is playing a game in gym class, for instance. I think I understand what you're getting at, and there is something to it, but I don't think this formulation gets quite at the core of it.
In an assault, there will be one or more assailants, and one or more intended victims who did not agree to participate. In a game, the object is to win. In a fight, the object is to stop the assault.
Stop the assault = stop the game? Most games end when someone wins.
I prefer terms like "systems dynamics" rather than "games" in this context, because the word "games" has way too many loaded connotations.
Yes, I agree that "game" has some unwanted connotations. I am not using the term to imply a lack of seriousness, or to indicate triviality. Even with actual games of sport, one may take them quite seriously. Football hooligans are perhaps the most insane example of this. Some games of sport involve death, like hunting.
And in any event, with an attitude like that I certainly wouldn't want to join an 'organization' that you're at the helm of.
In the political organizations I participate in, decisions are made by consensus and specific tasks necessary to carry out those decisions are delegated to volunteers. A trusted facilitator has some influence but no real power.
That's fine and well. I'm not even commenting here on how decisions are made, as such, but on the outlook towards competitive "systems dynamics" wrt "winning" as you stated before. I'd not want to be involved in an organization that has that view of competitive behavior. Clearly, coldly, there is something to it. It's obviously a rampant view, and quite successful. I'd rather fail.
How you 'win' is as important as 'what' you win. This is not some namby-pamby point of moralism on my part. It is a matter of strategy for attaining the goal. Because an organization of people that worked, and operated, according to the principles of "winning" that you're espousing -- if successful, would simply become the new gang in town themselves.
If the neighborhood committee should happen to turn predatory, oh well, at least the other locals will have a fresh historical example of how to deal with the problem.
Yeah. I'm not interested in perpetuating the cycle of abusive history known as "revolution." I don't care one iota if its "my team" or "their team" that has power, because I firmly believe that within a few moments, "my team" will start looking a lot like "their team." Animal Farm, and all. That said, I am involved with entirely voluntary groups myself. Your 10/90 rule seems about right. But nonetheless, I am skeptical of such organizations in principle, if not in practice at a small scale. At some point, as they grow, voluntary organizations will get big enough to pay people. That's when shit will fall apart.
I can't remember an example of a flash mob that accomplished a political political objective.
Depends on what you consider "political" I suppose, but I understand your point. But that isn't really what I'm getting at. My point was more that spontaneous organization is possible. How it is leveraged (whether for art, fun, or something else) is largely not my point. Most large protests have some form of art / music component. There is an effort on the part of organizers to make them fun. In the end, that is what is necessary to actually get people involved.
An organization is an instance of "organic" cooperation toward shared goals, with coordinated division of functions among the participants. The definition as a system where dictates flow from leaders to subordinates seems pathological to me. Homey don't play that.
You must admit that hierarchical organization is the most common formation, and if I were to put the names of random "organizations" in a hat and let you pick one out, chances are going to be quite good that it is run along hierarchical lines. I don't see it as "pathological" to accept the fact that "firm", "company", "corporation", "institution" are all synonyms for "organization" and that one is rather hard pressed to find examples of any scale that are not hierarchical.
When an organization's power is established and maintained by mutual aid in unified resistance to violence, that organization will be inherently resistant to corruption, more so if it proves itself competent by acquiring real power by using nonviolent force successfully
I'm not sure I agree with this. Seems to me one can find any number of corporations which are certainly corrupt which don't use any form of real violence at all. Google started out in a garage with a couple guys and "do no evil" as their corporate motto. Charities routinely get corrupted. The list goes on and on. What happened? Money. Influence. Power. When you're small, you'll have that unified core of "true believers." Then you get big, and soon the people that are getting involved aren't quite on the same page. Then you start hiring people to do the work, or you get well known and the donations are just pouring in and it gets easy to skim off the top. And so it goes.
Humans are, collectively, a major pain in the ass. If you insist that any organization with humans in it must be foolproof, you must insist that there BE no organizations - as apparently stated above.
Foolproof? No. And again, at small scale, such things can be useful certainly. But I am skeptical of the ability to scale such organizations in a way so that they are capable of ridding us of the threat of government, corporations, and so on -- without becoming threats themselves.
But no organization means no power.
I suspect we're having a difficulty with terminology here more than anything else. If you're talking in terms of truly decentralized organization where the decision making mechanisms are expressly insulated from the effects of the cult-of-personality .. I can get behind that, and have.
No power means no results, and no push-back from violent institutions protecting their turf from competitors.
I get what you're saying, and to limited degrees, it might be OK - but I don't see it as scaling. I mean, Ttis statement right here, can be read as dripping with every bit as much power-envy as some CEO somewhere: "No power means no capital, and no means to edge out our competition and assert market dominance." The desire for power, no matter how that power is supposedly to be used, is a problem in itself. Approaching the system this way is like trying to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. To paraphrase Einstein, our problems won't be solved by using the same mindset that created them. Why must we buy Mayfair and Park Lane to stop playing Monopoly and switch to a more fun game? Shouldn't it be possible to simply convince the players to switch to something else? The difficulty here is profound, I think. Because, in a sense, you are right. In order to change the status quo, we must develop and create centralized structures of power to effectively challenge it. But if our goal is to create a society without such centralized power-structures, we've already defeated ourselves by becoming the enemy. How do we bridge this divide? I don't really know, but I suspect it is by creating very small, very limited organizations in this way. Lots of them. Tons of them. And we must get used to the idea of dissolving them, regularly. If none of them get too big, and if we're used to forming an organized body for a short time and a specific, written-in-stone goal, and then dissolving it .. then, maybe we'd be in a position to take over the apparatus of society in a way that spontaneously orders itself without centralized structures of great power that are doomed to over-reach, abuse, self-serving ends, and so on.
OK, here's an enjoyable one - how the US political and media machines interoperate: Newsweek Journalist Claims US Intelligence Fed Him False Putin-Trump Conspiracy https://sputniknews.com/us/201610191046476430-newsweek-journalist-claims-int... (Alt http://russia-insider.com/en/newsweek-journalist-claims-us-intelligence-fed-... ) (If anyone doubts the outcome of the upcoming USA election, this article should remind you that the USA is a network operated by entities that are not beholden to "the people" who are actually "Americans".) Interesting times ... in a black humour kind of way ...
participants (5)
-
Mirimir -
Steve Kinney -
xorcist＠sigaint.org -
Zen H. -
Zenaan Harkness