Allen

[Paul Brancato]

4 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

I have never seen this until now.

I'm speechless.

How?

How could I not have ever seen this?

Exactly. I hope you watch the entire movie. It’s available somewhere. I know Criterion has it. I’ll bet YouTube does. The film prepares you for this moment. Classic scenes, like Hitler’s ballet with the globe, or his meeting with Mussolini, are priceless. He confronts the Jewish question directly, unlike the governments of the US and GB. By 1952 he is considered an enemy of the state, Hoover and McCarthy going after him. Apparently Modern Times was enough to label him a Communist. Such crap. Such a great artist. He’d be cancelled these days though, not for politics but for marrying a 16 yr old. Ah well … 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

I have never seen this until now.

I'm speechless.

How?

How could I not have ever seen this?

The reasons we like JFK are the same reasons we like this powerful scene. If we indeed have a soul, this speaks to it, it connects with our deep sense of compassion and humanity. 
 

The sad part I feel is this; why have our fellow researchers or JFKA forum enthusiasts not found this video powerful? Why have they not commented? Are they different to you, Paul and I? What have they in their hearts? 
 

I find Orwell’s final warning, equally stirring. 😞 

 

[Paul Brancato]

3 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

The reasons we like JFK are the same reasons we like this powerful scene. If we indeed have a soul, this speaks to it, it connects with our deep sense of compassion and humanity. 
 

The sad part I feel is this; why have our fellow researchers or JFKA forum enthusiasts not found this video powerful? Why have they not commented? Are they different to you, Paul and I? What have they in their hearts? 
 

I find Orwell’s final warning, equally stirring. 😞 

 

Never saw this, thank you. I think this is why I now self identify as an anarchist. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Never saw this, thank you. I think this is why I now self identify as an anarchist. 

It’s a big discussion to have with a few glasses of red and some decent minds. I have had this one a few times as two good friends are anarcho-capitalists and are fans of Milton Friedman. I have some pals who are staunch believers in the necessity of government structures. William Rees-Mogg’s “The Sovereign Individual” is a fantastic read on how he saw the future unfolding and how free-markets are the answer to our problems. I was at a government meeting tonight and I saw all of the good and bad characteristics of people. The struggle that is as old as time is human nature. It doesn’t matter the system, if people are not willing to fight for high ideals, to maintain the highest standards, valuing things like fairness, then we ultimately seem to slip into the grasp of tyrants. In terms of historic catastrophe’s, its always collectivism / the greater good that takes us there. Communism, nationalism, fascism and socialism are all collectivist ideologies. They often start by using compassion, the greater good, or encouraging a tribal mentality, telling us the group is more important than the individual. Organised religion uses that too. Human beings are so vulnerable to being conditioned and falling into a group or tribal mentality, because it was their ancient survival mechanism and also why we look up to leaders unquestioningly. This presents the greatest danger to us all.  The truth is that typically most of the wrong people are attracted to politics, narcissists, those seeking power over others, or the greedy self interested types. If 90% of those in congress or parliament are that, then I don’t see how any system can flourish. If there was no money or mechanism for bribery/self gain in politics, would we get a better outcome? I also point out the way some people live in the emotional brain, as opposed to the rational, logical, neo-cortex. We simply cannot succeed if those in power are ruled by their emotions and primal instincts. 

[John Cotter]

44 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

It’s a big discussion to have with a few glasses of red and some decent minds. I have had this one a few times as two good friends are anarcho-capitalists and are fans of Milton Friedman. I have some pals who are staunch believers in the necessity of government structures. William Rees-Mogg’s “The Sovereign Individual” is a fantastic read on how he saw the future unfolding and how free-markets are the answer to our problems. I was at a government meeting tonight and I saw all of the good and bad characteristics of people. The struggle that is as old as time is human nature. It doesn’t matter the system, if people are not willing to fight for high ideals, to maintain the highest standards, valuing things like fairness, then we ultimately seem to slip into the grasp of tyrants. In terms of historic catastrophe’s, its always collectivism / the greater good that takes us there. Communism, nationalism, fascism and socialism are all collectivist ideologies. They often start by using compassion, the greater good, or encouraging a tribal mentality, telling us the group is more important than the individual. Organised religion uses that too. Human beings are so vulnerable to being conditioned and falling into a group or tribal mentality, because it was their ancient survival mechanism and also why we look up to leaders unquestioningly. This presents the greatest danger to us all.  The truth is that typically most of the wrong people are attracted to politics, narcissists, those seeking power over others, or the greedy self interested types. If 90% of those in congress or parliament are that, then I don’t see how any system can flourish. If there was no money or mechanism for bribery/self gain in politics, would we get a better outcome? I also point out the way some people live in the emotional brain, as opposed to the rational, logical, neo-cortex. We simply cannot succeed if those in power are ruled by their emotions and primal instincts. 

I agree with most of that, Chris.

The one point I have difficulty with relates to capitalism. Is not capitalism by definition centred on the accumulation of wealth?

And doesn’t this inevitably result in economic inequality, a hierarchy ranging from those who have literally nothing – for example, the 20,000 people globally who die from starvation every day – to the obscenely wealthy multi-billionaires.

That is the system of global capitalism that we have today. How is that system morally defensible?

[Paul Brancato]

I shudder to think what anarcho-capitalist means. Your points are well reasoned within the context of more recent human history. I strongly suggest you read a bit of the newish book The Dawn of Everything, which I’m pretty sure I mentioned a while back, to put my next observation in context. Collectivism is an essential part of human nature. Without it we would have collectively met a far different fate on planet earth. The problem isn’t, in my view, the natural human desire to achieve the common good. The problem begins when individuals are able to amass enormous power, and then manipulate the ‘people’ in service of maintaining that power. (It may seem to be so when we root for someone to get us out of this mess, such as so-called JFK fanboys like myself). When the ‘people’ are told that they will be rewarded for their faith not in this life but in the next, that’s a similar appeal to the goodness of human nature, cynically created by religious elites to amass and maintain power and prestige. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. (British Lord Acton apparently)
The question I ask, as do the authors of the book, is what happened in human societal evolution that made leadership so pervasive? Some scholars would say that the agricultural revolution set the stage for inordinate amassing of power. But city states predate this revolution. So maybe that’s only a part of it. Is the desire to accumulate power natural for all of us, or just for the sociopaths? I’d say the latter. According to the recent research by the authors of that book, many ancient societies in the New World and elsewhere created specific tribal mechanisms to prevent the privileged few from becoming a dominant force. But it seems obvious to me that the concept of private property, combined with modern banking, has tipped the scales completely.  
Anarchism has gotten a bad rap. The word is used in a way to make it indistinguishable from Communism. I giggled at the term ‘anarchy-capitalist because it so completely turns the concept on its head.

[Paul Brancato]

16 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

I agree with most of that, Chris.

The one point I have difficulty with relates to capitalism. Is not capitalism by definition centred on the accumulation of wealth?

And doesn’t this inevitably result in economic inequality, a hierarchy ranging from those who have literally nothing – for example, the 20,000 people globally who die from starvation every day – to the obscenely wealthy multi-billionaires.

That is the system of global capitalism that we have today. How is that system morally defensible?

We made a similar point, though yours was succinct. 

[John Cotter]

23 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

We made a similar point, though yours was succinct. 

I've just read your post now, Paul, and I fully agree with it.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

I shudder to think what anarcho-capitalist means. Your points are well reasoned within the context of more recent human history. I strongly suggest you read a bit of the newish book The Dawn of Everything, which I’m pretty sure I mentioned a while back, to put my next observation in context. Collectivism is an essential part of human nature. Without it we would have collectively met a far different fate on planet earth. The problem isn’t, in my view, the natural human desire to achieve the common good. The problem begins when individuals are able to amass enormous power, and then manipulate the ‘people’ in service of maintaining that power. (It may seem to be so when we root for someone to get us out of this mess, such as so-called JFK fanboys like myself). When the ‘people’ are told that they will be rewarded for their faith not in this life but in the next, that’s a similar appeal to the goodness of human nature, cynically created by religious elites to amass and maintain power and prestige. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. (British Lord Acton apparently)
The question I ask, as do the authors of the book, is what happened in human societal evolution that made leadership so pervasive? Some scholars would say that the agricultural revolution set the stage for inordinate amassing of power. But city states predate this revolution. So maybe that’s only a part of it. Is the desire to accumulate power natural for all of us, or just for the sociopaths? I’d say the latter. According to the recent research by the authors of that book, many ancient societies in the New World and elsewhere created specific tribal mechanisms to prevent the privileged few from becoming a dominant force. But it seems obvious to me that the concept of private property, combined with modern banking, has tipped the scales completely.  
Anarchism has gotten a bad rap. The word is used in a way to make it indistinguishable from Communism. I giggled at the term ‘anarchy-capitalist because it so completely turns the concept on its head.

 

Hi Paul,

I’ll look up “The Dawn of Everything”. As best I can tell, a lot of our problems start with the Wetiko. 

Every system is demonised when its not en vogue. I certainly don’t believe in ‘big government.’ 
 

Regarding collectivism, the road to hell is paced with good intentions. Its just so easily highjacked by the Machiavellian minds. To ascend to power you invariably need the consent and support of the masses. The masses are mostly the ones without the money, assets etc, and they are so easily duped into an ideology that promises them something better. The herd mentality is the most dangerous threat to mankind. I see the good in it too, I am certainly not an advocate of survival of the fittest mentality that our ruling class has. To me we need balance. 
We have just watched very civilised societies be manipulated into a state akin to the persecution of witches mindset, just by big government using a bad flu and propaganda. Those people conned were ready to put the people refusing the diktats into camps or take every penny they have as a punishment. Even mandatory injections. I know the exact conditions to create that fear psychosis in society, and you start with compassion and the greater good, and then make a scapegoat for the crisis. Mark my words, we are going to see the same trick all over again. It might be a worse pandemic but, if not that, it will be climate crisis, climate lockdowns, climate penalties, dispossession of peoples homes if they can’t pay net zero fines. The government will switch on the propaganda like a tap. And a majority will slip into a fear psychosis again. They’ll be repeating the collectivist mantra, its all for the greater good. Do you remember how Jim Jones and those other cults managed to convince people to sign over their houses and all possessions to the cult leaders in a blink? They used the same tactics. I think we need morality, a strong sense of right and wrong, and caring, compassion, understanding etc. Above all we need critical thinking and rationality. Not blind obedience and conformity. We must not forsake the rights of the individual. We must not continue to make faustian bargains that trade away our freedoms for a little perceived safety IMO. 
 

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

I agree with most of that, Chris.

The one point I have difficulty with relates to capitalism. Is not capitalism by definition centred on the accumulation of wealth?

And doesn’t this inevitably result in economic inequality, a hierarchy ranging from those who have literally nothing – for example, the 20,000 people globally who die from starvation every day – to the obscenely wealthy multi-billionaires.

That is the system of global capitalism that we have today. How is that system morally defensible?

Hey John, 

I should have perhaps continued writing, as hand on heart it was my next thing to attempt to address but, it didn’t seem to flow with where I stopped. 
 

Capitalism certainly does encourage the accumulation of wealth. As we’ve discussed before, I believe Marx was right that the end days of capitalism would be oligarchs cannibalising state institutions. My friends would counter stating that we don’t have free markets or true capitalism. The same can be argued with any ideology, communists will always claim that what we saw in the twentieth century wasn’t true communism. I don’t have an easy solution, should we have a wealth cap? The fact we have a monetary system creates many of the bad cultures that we have in the world. If I ponder taking that out of the equation, would we see man accumulating something else? Goats, horses, women, etc, taking more than he needs? Probably. To add to your case, I think we have more slaves in the world today than at the height of the slave trade. That is due to this system. We place material things above any sense of equality or human welfare. We do have to share this resource and a lot of people don’t really want to. 
 

In answer to your question; I don’t know how defensible any of the systems are, as they all lead us down the same track. Honestly, its very difficult to rationalise. Last time I heard there was a community in India populated by people from all over the world and they all work together, trade goods, there is no money and it seems to work, as everyone has gone there for the same reason. Then I thought; what happens if a couple of people just stop working as hard as some others. We’ve all seen these shipwrecked shows, where you put a group of 15 people on an island to fend for themselves. Our own neurochemistry is wired to complete tasks, the greater the task, the greater the chemical release in the brain. I think to be a healthy functioning creature, we need to keep pushing, there is ambition, desire, a competition in us, a will. Do these things put us at loggerheads with our fellow man? One argument for capitalism is the rate of progress, if aliens peered down on earth from space between the industrial resolution and now, I think they would struggle to understand how so much could happen in such a short period of time. If we take out the incentive, would we be better off being less evolved or living a simple life? Perhaps. Or would we still be warring like its medieval times? A counter might be, how can we possibly separate the world with and without capitalism? I am probably thinking outloud here just before bed. I am not sure I have a sufficient or valid enough answer. Thoughts? It may be that you and Paul are more advanced than me in this thinking. 

 

Anyway guys, I am hoping my replies are not hypocritical or subtracting value. if so, I am using the tiredness clause. Its 2:42 and I need to be up at 7am. 

[Matthew Koch]

13 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

I shudder to think what anarcho-capitalist means... I giggled at the term ‘anarchy-capitalist because it so completely turns the concept on its head.

Here you go Paul, you can now educate yourself!! 

https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/a/Anarcho-capitalism.htm

Make sure to pay extra attention to the NAP section aka (the nonaggression axiom)since your Antifa buddies can't seem to live by it.. 

[Matthew Koch]

14 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

 Communism, nationalism, fascism and socialism are all collectivist ideologies. They often start by using compassion, the greater good, or encouraging a tribal mentality, telling us the group is more important than the individual. Organised religion uses that too. Human beings are so vulnerable to being conditioned and falling into a group or tribal mentality, because it was their ancient survival mechanism and also why we look up to leaders unquestioningly. This presents the greatest danger to us all.  The truth is that typically most of the wrong people are attracted to politics, narcissists, those seeking power over others, or the greedy self interested types. If 90% of those in congress or parliament are that, then I don’t see how any system can flourish. If there was no money or mechanism for bribery/self gain in politics, would we get a better outcome? I also point out the way some people live in the emotional brain, as opposed to the rational, logical, neo-cortex. We simply cannot succeed if those in power are ruled by their emotions and primal instincts. 

Chris, here is the group that Paul identifies as attacking police over the weekend.. 

 

[Paul Brancato]

 Anyone can wear black and destroy property. That alone should make one suspicious when the word Antifa is bandied about as if it proves that the government is out to get you. If I say anarchism you say Antifa as if that nullifies the concept. So you make my point - anarchism gets a bad rap. It wasn’t anarchists that marched on the Capitol on Jan 6th, it was supporters of Trump.  Anarchism is meant to be an antidote to authority and rulership.
 

[Matthew Koch]

6 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

 Anyone can wear black and destroy property. That alone should make one suspicious when the word Antifa is bandied about as if it proves that the government is out to get you. If I say anarchism you say Antifa as if that nullifies the concept. So you make my point - anarchism gets a bad rap. It wasn’t anarchists that marched on the Capitol on Jan 6th, it was supporters of Trump.  Anarchism is meant to be an antidote to authority and rulership.
 

..If you say so, 

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Matthew Koch said:

Chris, here is the group that Paul identifies as attacking police over the weekend.. 

 

My personal feelings on Antifa are that they are funded to cause havoc and push the agenda that’s destroying western culture. The clue is in the way the press covers them. I see nothing good about them or what they have done. They are a mechanism to further fracture a society. 

[Paul Brancato]

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

My personal feelings on Antifa are that they are funded to cause havoc and push the agenda that’s destroying western culture. The clue is in the way the press covers them. I see nothing good about them or what they have done. They are a mechanism to further fracture a society. 

Agree. Not anarchists, provocateurs being funded by unknown entities.