The Occupy Movement

[Phytotron]

Chartgasm!

Mother Jones: It's the Inequality, Stupid

Don't forget to check out the "Want more charts like these?" links.

[Lucifer]

Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.

Anybody else noticed the merge of state and corporate power in the U.S.A.?

Um, that happened in the late 19th century, and we've been fighting it ever since.

[compguygene]

Good point, Lucifer. When I say that, most people call me insane.

[Phytotron]

Good point, Lucifer. When I say that, most people call me insane.

It may have something to do with what you mean by it, like the inclusion of all that "powers that be" conspiracy stuff. (Which is not only untrue, but completely unnecessary in explaining what's going on. Plus, a huge distraction from reality—you can't wage a revolution against something that doesn't exist.)

It may also have something to do with your support of the very sort of political ideology (and politicians like Ron Paul) that is, at least in part, responsible for said corporate serfdom and Gilded Age-like conditions, and would make it even worse. I mean, my god, do you really want to repeal the 20th century and return to child labor? Ron Paul does.

[compguygene]

I never stated that I agree entirely with Ron Paul. You are assuming a ton. I mostly disagree with Ron Paul's ideas about monetary reform. If you are curious about my beliefs about monetary policy, then you should read about the Mathematically Perfected Economy I do believe that Ron Paul's and other conservatives desires in terms of Economic and Monetary Policy would return the vast majority of us to serfdom. I was merely talking about how corporate power, and the close ties of huge corporations and the state are really Fascism. As to who do you demonstrate against? The Fed, that's who. The Fed is a root of a lot of the economic problems. For much longer than the Occupy movement has existed, the End The Fed movement has been around and growing. End the Fed is NOT endorsed by the current administration and is mostly ignored by the media.

[Word]

...And that's why I'm happy that our politicians don't have to look like actors - people know they're politicians and not the illuminati.

[Phytotron]

Mathematically Perfected Economy

A grand ("perfect," even!) economic theory (strike one) on some creepy dude's messy website (strike two) that is more quotes, diatribe, and declarations than substance (strike three); based on the self-evidence of "ancient scripture" (strike four); laden with conspiracy language (strike five); and worse yet, is trademarked (ejection)? Come on, man. Ironic that he would accuse others of pseudoscientific, unqualifiable assertions. One man's self-important, rambling diatribe. Where is all his amazing, perfect math? Oh, it's kept secret.

Plus, I don't like hunters.

...And that's why I'm happy that our politicians don't have to look like actors - people know they're politicians and not the illuminati.

A) Are the Illuminati supposed to be a bunch of Adonises? B) Have you looked at the US Congress? They ain't pretty. One of my US Senators, who happens to be the Minority Leader, looks like a plush turtle. This isn't even including state and local politicians. Look at the three main candidates for Governor we had this year:

[Word]

A) No, but most people would expect they'd use actors as their representatives.
B) Yes, but if you take a look at the GOP candidates/Obama, all of them seem well educated in rhetoric, but when it comes to content, they'll always recite the same parols. I'm just not used to politicians using so much pathos in their speeches. That and the mass media (FOX) just seem to degrade the political campaigns to pure entertainment in my eyes, it's not really about the content.
Almost all of our top politicians have skeletons in their closets, hold extremely boring speeches while the voter participation gets lower from year to year. I fear that our politicians are desperately trying to adapt to the American way of campaigning soon. Not long ago there were talkshows discussing topics such as 'Is there a German Obama?' (instead of 'Do we need one?' !). It just seems like the populism of a Roman Emperor to me.
I guess our history is one reason why most Germans trust in the government and currently don't regard it as an oppressor, the other would be our country's relatively small size (which is easier to manage than an entire continent...). We don't have as many mega-corporations but lobbyism still plays an important role in our system - even if this is nearly uncovered by our media (which have a lobby, too). Bottom line it's not perfect here either and I think the number of circulating conspiracy theories is dependent on the size and complexity of your government's institutions and how close you are to becoming a service society.
I just think politicians should be able to get votes for fact-based visions, realistic plans and opinions, not for being the best standup comedian or self-exposer.

edit:
Try to beat that triptych:


Also, 1.30 AM. Good night.

[compguygene]

Mathematically Perfected Economy

A grand ("perfect," even!) economic theory (strike one) on some creepy dude's messy website (strike two) that is more quotes, diatribe, and declarations than substance (strike three); based on the self-evidence of "ancient scripture" (strike four); laden with conspiracy language (strike five); and worse yet, is trademarked (ejection)? Come on, man. Ironic that he would accuse others of pseudoscientific, unqualifiable assertions. One man's self-important, rambling diatribe. Where is all his amazing, perfect math? Oh, it's kept secret.

I expected nothing less than you. You very clearly did not take the time to read what is there. This site and idea does not exist in a vaccuum. Had you actually read through it, you might have seen that. Of course, as soon as you see something that doesn't fit the paradigm of you thinking, you make fun of it. It's not based on ancient scripture, though it sites such as a way of drawing a reader in. There is plenty of substance there, had you read further than the first few pages. The substance therein has attracted the following of a number of University Professors (whom you no doubt would say have no credibility). As always, any viewpoint posted that might challenge anything you believe will be shot down. No doubt, if others feel the need, other people here will help you shoot this down without really looking at it.
My apologies for speaking up, as usual. After all, I am an known crank, idiot, and conspiracy theorist, so nothing I say should have any value whatsoever.

[compguygene]

Sorry, accidental double post.

@Word.

Consider this about Obama and the most poplular Republican candidates: Their biggest supporters by far are the banking/Wall Street establishment. They are merely spouting the stuff they are told to. I don't see any of these people actually representing the views of average citizens of the U.S.A.

[Mecca]

http://ragecollection.com/6971

[Z-Man]

compguy: I'd be interested in deep links to the perfect math and proof of inevitable collapse the site talks about, too. I dug around a bit and found some claims and ideas actually understandable, but most of it was gibberish (in part because I'm not familiar with economics lingo) and impossible to actually read through. From what I understand, their main claims seem to be:
1. An economy that allows interest on loans is doomed to collapse
2. The way out is to outlaw interest and allow everyone to write IOUs as long as they feel they'll actually be able to pay them later.
I'd like to see the proof for 1 and the inevitable correction to 2, because umm, people judging all by themselves how much they'll be able to pay later? I can see how that's going to work out in practice.

[Phytotron]

Please don't be so reactionary, Gene. I did read through it. No, not every single page—I didn't need to—but a good bit of it (and once you get past all the needless quotations plastered everywhere, and the unnecessary bold-face and multi-colored text, there's less there than it seems). And I wasn't making fun of it; I was describing it as I saw it. The "strike _" comments reflect red flags. Again, Baloney Detection Kit.

As for his claim about university professors (why would I say they have no credibility?) and others being "very interested" in his stuff (while also expressing astonishment that other "important people" wouldn't return his calls—again, self-important), I don't buy it. Give me evidence of one of these professors actually endorsing and "following" him, beyond his personal claims. I couldn't find them, and yes, I looked.

My sense of it is that he's one of these guys who shows up at a book tour stop or symposium or calls into C-SPAN in the morning, gets on the mic and presents his amazing, curative theory, then, when the professor or whomever, in being polite says, "interesting theory, I'd have to look into it more, you can send it to me, but thanks for the comment," he takes that as, or at least claims it to be, a ringing endorsement. I've seen it countless times.

And there are just so many other red flags.

Anyway, here again, there's no reason for you to go in with a guy like this. Why not just say you oppose usury?


By the way #1, this:

I never stated that I agree entirely with Ron Paul. You are assuming a ton. I mostly disagree with Ron Paul's ideas about monetary reform.

When just the other day you made such a broad, encompassing, unconditional statement as "Ron Paul is the only candidate in the current USA elections that actually gives a crap about fixing the real problems in the United States of America," what do you expect anyone to take from that? Half or more of what the man talks about is monetary/financial issues, of wanting to completely deregulate the market, privatize everything, end taxation, etc.. You didn't exclude that at any point.

By the way #2, the thing about heaping all or the primary blame and disdain on the Fed, that's misdirected (not that some isn't warranted). Wall Street, the banking and financial industry (and the repeal of Glass-Stegall that allowed their merging), money in politics (including Citizens United v. FEC), massive and reckless deregulation and liberalization, so-called 'free trade'—and a political/economic ideology that worships the market and the wealthy—that's where you need to direct it, not at the bogeyman of "big government."


And since you've gotten into the personal rebukes: Sincerely, I'm not trying to be a dick to you; in fact, I think I've been rather restrained, especially considering the rich material provided. That is in part because I think—I don't know you well at all (though I've tried a bit at times), but the impression I've gotten—that at heart you're well-intentioned. I just think you're confused, overly credulous, and spending way too much time dug deep and entrenched in this largely web-based sub-culture. You're living in the world of Beowulf, man, where hidden, malevolent forces reside in the dark forest and control everything around us. Replace the Fates with secret cabals, same thing. I'm encouraging you to break out of that. Even for the sake of your health—it must be stressful to think like that.

Also, did you notice when MrsKsr said "I miss the old Gene?" You used to be much more diplomatic, open, good-natured. Now any time you get a little criticism you're coming at us with all this reactionary pariah stuff, which, sorry, doesn't help your case—it's pretty typical paranoid conspiracy theorist mentality. I don't know what's going on with you lately, but hope you're not turning into a misanthropic recluse.

"My apologies for speaking up, as usual. After all, I am an known crank, idiot, and conspiracy theorist, so nothing I say should have any value whatsoever." By all means, speak your mind. But if you're going to argue for something—anything, but especially something unconventional or controversial—you should always expect and be prepared for someone, often many someones, to have a counter-argument. For crying out loud, look at some of my positions: I'm a naturalist, a leftist, a practical vegan, child-free by choice, just to name a few big ones, very much the minority all. Do you see me acting like a victim when someone disagrees with me? Or that the only reason my views aren't the mainstream is because some malevolent "powers that be" secretly control the universe and won't allow it?

And just generally, too much internalization and personalization of your views.

You won't even return my PM's anymore.

compguy: I'd be interested in deep links to the perfect math and proof of inevitable collapse the site talks about, too.

You won't get it. That's the problem. This guy has actually trademarked his grand theory and keeps all the math a secret.

Honestly, how is that something that a person who wants better for humanity to do? You have an invention that will save the world, but you won't release it? For what, fear of scrutiny? Moreover, that's seriously bad science—good science must be freely submitted to the larger community to be interrogated and either corroborated or disproved; i.e., peer-reviewed. How can you take this guy seriously, Gene?

[Lucifer]

The substance therein has attracted the following of a number of University Professors (whom you no doubt would say have no credibility).

That's the Appeal to Authority, one of the 8 informal logical fallacies.

[Z-Man]

But certainly the proof part needs to be somewhere? You can't call it a proof if it's secret, plus facts uncovering flaws in the current system is not something anyone would want to keep a secret in the first place. Or hide behind a pay wall. It's the equivalent of the first shot of heroin you get for free, right?