Born slaves, we must buy our skins back from banks - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14899827
(soundtrack)

QatzelOk wrote:More likely that our system has expired and some of us are more awared of this than others.
I agree, we should get together and talk about it. This isn't an inevitable conclusion.

Being turned into debt-slaves by a scheming oligarchy class is not "the world." It's a corrupt system that currently exists in the world, and it is destroying it.
Qatz, this looks like a cognitive bias. In this case, your reasoning process favors circular reasoning. Sure, The oligarchy class create debt, but that doesn't mean the world is being destroyed by it. Again, people inhabit these systems of commerce, and we're collectively responsible for our actions and what we do to the biosphere.

But I will not forget your "the banks are people too" cry for compassion, and that it was accompanies by some victim-blaming. Well-used tactics of reactionaries throughout history.
This isn't a tactic. I'm not defending anyone in particular, I'm simply pointing out that humans create these problems. There's a problem in the way we think, and business is a manifestation of that problem. I find it strange, how so many people treat extensions of thought as 'things' that exist independently of thought. We're the enablers, Qatz.

SpecialOlympian wrote:I call upon everyone reading this post to take up arms and join me in the war on poverty. This is a fight we can win. Just pick up a gun, walk outside, and start firing. You know what a poor person looks like. It is your moral obligation to kill them.
This is toxic, nihilistic sarcasm. On one hand, SO is able to laugh at our struggle (which can be helpful, because comedy is grievance). On the other, he's expressing a fundamental problem found within society and our thinking processes. Thus I :up: & :down: your post, SO. :lol:

We are unwilling to tear up our credit cards yet expect Washington to do something despite clear evidence both parties are criminally complicit in the corrupt system. Individuals must change and accept responsibility.
Yes, and this isn't to say that we do not acknowledge the behavioral manipulation and propaganda (which occurs daily). This is to say that we take back our minds (follow processes to the source) and rethink our actions. The title of this thread, Born slaves, we must buy our skins back from banks, implies action before thought. See, last time I checked, my skin is still on my back. What am I buying back, exactly? The supply/demand program will try to bypass this kind of discernment and tell you that you must 'BUY' something you already own. Of course, once we buy into that kind of thinking, we perpetuate the conflict by continually going outside ourselves for the solution to a problem we create internally. The exploited always outnumber the exploiters.
Last edited by RhetoricThug on 27 Mar 2018 17:07, edited 2 times in total.
#14899847
RhetoricThug wrote:The oligarchy class create debt, but that doesn't mean the world is being destroyed by it.

No. But nonetheless, the world is being destroyed by consumerism, which is how the oligarchical classes were able to continue their plunder of surplus labor long after basic needs could be taken care of. Therefore, the debt-based system lead to ecological plunder. It always will. Ecological destruction is the usual end-time of any civilization because civilizations are all based on unnatural fakeness.

Again, people inhabit these systems of commerce, and we're collectively responsible for our actions and what we do to the biosphere.

One again, you use the people are people non-argument. No one has argued that any of the actors are non-human. Once again, this is a common tactic of reactionary types who feel as if they profit from the flawed system that is being criticized.

One Degree wrote:What banking system does not take advantage of the poor? The US system is criminal, but this does not mean we as individuals have no power. We can limit our use of the system. This requires sacrifice, but refusing to use a corrupt system is the best method of changing it.

The OP list only mentions the government-initiated debt that children must pay to get their skins back eventually. The public can only seem to "change" the system by voting for bankster criminals with "hope and change" posters with their picture on it. This is as ineffective as eating a bag of chitos in front of the TV.
#14900010
Crantag wrote:Islamic banking is typified by the non-charging of usurious interest. I do not know the real-world nature of specific banking systems in Islamic countries.


It basically means that instead of having revolving credit (think a credit card) you have a hard set installment credit loan. However, there is no incentive to make additional principal payments. For example, you might get a $10,000 loan to buy a car or something, but you would be expected to pay back $12,000. The additional $2,000 is fixed and is a fee for the loan.

It's basically skirting around technicalities so that you mimic the same functions of a bank but without using interest. As another example, instead of receiving interest on a deposited balance you might instead receive a "gift" from the bank of $0.05 for every $100 deposited. Or something like that, that's the basics of it I'm not attempting to use realistic prices in any of these examples.

Additionally there's usually a fee to have an Imam on staff review contract documents and ensure it's in line with Islamic beliefs. Which, let's face it, the paperwork is probably boilerplate and is just a religious stamping fee.

It's basically medieval era finance and not really a solution as much as it's a different way of running a financial business. You can legislate a fairer lending and credit system without having to resort to workarounds like they do in Islamic banking.
#14900239
QatzelOk wrote:No. But nonetheless, the world is being destroyed by consumerism, which is how the oligarchical classes were able to continue their plunder of surplus labor long after basic needs could be taken care of. Therefore, the debt-based system lead to ecological plunder. It always will. Ecological destruction is the usual end-time of any civilization because civilizations are all based on unnatural fakeness.
That's the power of thought, falseness can hoodwink reality. So what does humanity NEED to survive? We know that the ego is never satisfied. How can a minority of mind-magicians manufacture desire? Perhaps we can reverse engineer the program and rewire the schematic. First, let's differentiate between a want and a need. Of course, part of the magick, you see, lies in the myth that we're free to do as we please. So, what is it, Qatz, what's driving false hope-false security-and the mechanical ego?


One again, you use the people are people non-argument. No one has argued that any of the actors are non-human. Once again, this is a common tactic of reactionary types who feel as if they profit from the flawed system that is being criticized.
I agree with your interpretation of what I said. But allow me to clarify- I believe we must focus on the people, not the system. If we deconstruct the system, wouldn't people rebuild it? After-all, the system is an extension of human thought, thus we must go to the source of the system. The source of the system can be found in the way people think, the way people organize material reality, and that's why we must focus on the people. It's not that I'm saying people are people, so give em a break. I'm simply following the flawed system to its source.

The flawed system is a branch of human thought. If you prune off a branch, more branches appear later. We should prune the tree, prune the roots, and train new growth. We should address human thought and establish new patterns of thinking.
#14900248
RhetoricThug wrote:...I believe we must focus on the people, not the system. If we deconstruct the system, wouldn't people rebuild it? After-all, the system is an extension of human thought, thus we must go to the source of the system. The source of the system can be found in the way people think, the way people organize material reality, and that's why we must focus on the people. It's not that I'm saying people are people, so give em a break. I'm simply following the flawed system to its source.

The flawed system is a branch of human thought. If you prune off a branch, more branches appear later. We should prune the tree, prune the roots, and train new growth. We should address human thought and establish new patterns of thinking.

Virtually every failed civilization of the past has existed on a "let's improve patterns of thinking and acting" premise. But who gets to define what "improve" means? Fallible human beings with self-interest in the back of their minds.

So I strongly disagree that more brainwashing is necessary to "improve" the human condition. I would suggest that the opposite is true, that humans need to lose their highly-leveraged way of "imagining" the world that they are in the process of destroying.

Banksters can't conceive of any harm in their mafia-connected usury and bribes. It is their way of life. But their way of thinking is highly fake and not sustainable. Stealing from future generations to enrich your tribe is destined to fail, the only question is what will get destroyed in the process. (all life? all freedom? natural human existence?)

In the meantime, your opinion is worth nothing until you give private banks the money you owe them for letting you be born.
#14900257
QatzelOk wrote:Virtually every failed civilization of the past has existed on a "let's improve patterns of thinking and acting" premise. But who gets to define what "improve" means? Fallible human beings with self-interest in the back of their minds.

So I strongly disagree that more brainwashing is necessary to "improve" the human condition. I would suggest that the opposite is true, that humans need to lose their highly-leveraged way of "imagining" the world that they are in the process of destroying.

Banksters can't conceive of any harm in their mafia-connected usury and bribes. It is their way of life. But their way of thinking is highly fake and not sustainable. Stealing from future generations to enrich your tribe is destined to fail, the only question is what will get destroyed in the process. (all life? all freedom? natural human existence?)


Strangely enough....I think I agree with all of this.
#14900260
(soundtrack)

QatzelOk wrote:Virtually every failed civilization of the past has existed on a "let's improve patterns of thinking and acting" premise.
I'm not sure if this is an accurate statement. The successive nature of progress is a side-effect of human thought. In this case, one ought not to think? Is that your solution to a problem we created?
But who gets to define what "improve" means?
Good question.
Fallible human beings with self-interest in the back of their minds.
Naïve cynicism. Is this your philosophy of mind, Qatz?

So I strongly disagree that more brainwashing is necessary to "improve" the human condition. I would suggest that the opposite is true, that humans need to lose their highly-leveraged way of "imagining" the world that they are in the process of destroying.
Anarcho-primitivism mixed with learned helplessness? We live mythically, Qatz.

Banksters can't conceive of any harm in their mafia-connected usury and bribes. It is their way of life.
Culture against man.
But their way of thinking is highly fake and not sustainable. Stealing from future generations to enrich your tribe is destined to fail, the only question is what will get destroyed in the process. (all life? all freedom? natural human existence?)
Yes, because thought is a fragmentation process.

Your opinion is worth nothing until you give private banks the money you owe them for letting you be born.
I disagree.

Lastly, if Qatz truly believed in his perception of reality, he wouldn't use modern technology and he wouldn't be on the internet. :lol:
#14900267
I think civilizations don’t fail because of their ‘new ideas’, but through the self righteousness that insists others must convert. Don’t most fail when meeting armed resistance to their forced proselytizing?
Did communism fail because of its ideas or due to resistance to its expansion?
Self righteousness is one thought process humans must overcome. A few ‘thinkers’ come up with great ideas and then the ‘nonthinkers’ Jump on the bandwagon and destroy the original with their ignorance, greed, and self righteousness. These are all human frailties that ‘nonthinkers’ are most prone to.
We don’t need a ‘change in thinking’. We need more people who actually think.
For example, I don’t disagree with most liberal views, but with how they have been distorted by non thinkers. It is the ignorant followers who eventually destroy the movement.
#14900363
RhetoricThug dropped a few soundtrack proposals into the thread and then he wrote:Lastly, if Qatz truly believed in his perception of reality, he wouldn't use modern technology and he wouldn't be on the internet. :lol:

I have no choice but to use the latest technology in order to make lots of money.

I will need this money to pay the banks for the skin they created for me to live in. If I don't pay them, they might have me killed in some kind of a war. Look what happened to Libya when its government started to talk about "alternatives" to the private banks who own our skins.
#14900796
QatzelOk wrote:I have no choice but to use the latest technology in order to make lots of money.

I will need this money to pay the banks for the skin they created for me to live in. If I don't pay them, they might have me killed in some kind of a war. Look what happened to Libya when its government started to talk about "alternatives" to the private banks who own our skins.
This is an established interpretation of reality, you recognize the problem. Now, what's your solution, Qatz? Or is this a form of entertainment for you, making pithy memes, and retweeting your fixed perspective? I've offered a solution, but you deny it and say that I'm some-kind of apologist or reactionary. :lol: This is all so silly.
#14901604
RhetoricThug wrote:This is an established interpretation of reality, you recognize the problem. Now, what's your solution, Qatz? Or is this a form of entertainment for you, making pithy memes, and retweeting your fixed perspective? I've offered a solution, but you deny it and say that I'm some-kind of apologist or reactionary. :lol: This is all so silly.

You haven't offered any kind of solution when you said "stop using computers then."

You are the one who offers trite memes that we've all seen hundreds of times before.

And the reason the meme you shat into the thread exists is because it serves those who are in favor of a shitty system. "If you don't like slavery, stop wearing clothes since the fabric is all made by slaves!"

Meanwhile, there are much better solutions to slave-textile-workers than "stop wearing clothes then!!"

What a thoughtless way of trying to end thoughts that don't fit into your pringles-and-netflix worldview.

Here's another one you can use for the next ten years: "If you don't like buying your skin back from the banks, then stop using your skin!!"

Smart retort, eh?
#14902249
QatzelOk wrote:You haven't offered any kind of solution when you said "stop using computers then."

You are the one who offers trite memes that we've all seen hundreds of times before.
Yep, it's a choice. A collective choice.

And the reason the meme you shat into the thread exists is because it serves those who are in favor of a shitty system. "If you don't like slavery, stop wearing clothes since the fabric is all made by slaves!"

Meanwhile, there are much better solutions to slave-textile-workers than "stop wearing clothes then!!"
:eh: Make your own clothes. I'm not sure why your philosophy of mind is so disgruntled.

What a thoughtless way of trying to end thoughts that don't fit into your pringles-and-netflix worldview.

Here's another one you can use for the next ten years: "If you don't like buying your skin back from the banks, then stop using your skin!!"

Smart retort, eh?
Wow, Mr. grumpy pants, what's troubling you? Your response is ridiculous and toxic. Again, you didn't provide any solutions. Anyway, you should focus on the tangible things, like magnetobiology, nanotechnology in biochemistry, and physical control systems that can physically manipulate organisms. All this bank and money talk boils down to thought. Currency is an exchange tool, and a bank is a geometric structure. However, we will not be able to think our way out of a biophysical control grid. Can money modify (y)our genetic code (of course, this could be an interesting discussion)? So you see, it's the thought and action of science that should concern us.
#14902988
RhetoricThug wrote:...you should focus on the tangible things, like magnetobiology, nanotechnology in biochemistry, and physical control systems that can physically manipulate organisms. All this bank and money talk boils down to thought.

Yes, it does boil down to thought.

And one of the thoughts that came through the boiling process is that the banks own our children when they're born.

Also, when the banks realize that they will never get the money that our children owe them (for their own skin), what will the banks do? Kill them in a war and seize resources?

Probably.
#14903074
QatzelOk wrote:Yes, it does boil down to thought.

And one of the thoughts that came through the boiling process is that the banks own our children when they're born.

Also, when the banks realize that they will never get the money that our children owe them (for their own skin), what will the banks do? Kill them in a war and seize resources?

Probably.


Look at it as a credit card debt you can never pay off before you die. You can choose to spend your life depressed over the debt, or you can simply remove the interest you pay from your income in your budget.
You will adjust to living on the smaller amount and it need not have any effect on your quality of life, because you decide if your life has quality. The danger is not to our skin, but only to our thought process. You can choose the power the debt has over you. This does not mean we should not work to improve the system, but what is important is the health of our thoughts. Determining what ‘improve’ means is dictated by the health of our thoughts.

Edit: My point was probably not clear. If you have a budget and a debt, then normally we list the debt as an ‘expense’ which is depressing. If, in your budget, you deduct it from your income before figuring your budget, then it magically loses it’s depressive ability. You still have to pay it, but you can destroy it’s power with your mind. You make it separate.
#14903108
One Degree wrote:Look at it as a credit card debt you can never pay off before you die. You can choose to spend your life depressed over the debt, or you can simply remove the interest you pay from your income in your budget.
You will adjust to living on the smaller amount and it need not have any effect on your quality of life, because you decide if your life has quality. The danger is not to our skin, but only to our thought process. You can choose the power the debt has over you. This does not mean we should not work to improve the system, but what is important is the health of our thoughts. Determining what ‘improve’ means is dictated by the health of our thoughts.

Edit: My point was probably not clear. If you have a budget and a debt, then normally we list the debt as an ‘expense’ which is depressing. If, in your budget, you deduct it from your income before figuring your budget, then it magically loses it’s depressive ability. You still have to pay it, but you can destroy it’s power with your mind. You make it separate.

Or in a more rational society, perhaps we would grab our pitchforks and torches, and go pay a visit to the side of town where the bankers live.

But many of us don't live in very rational societies nowadays.

Recession and revolution are the two great traditional ills of capitalism. The powers which be have put a lot into effecting the abatement of the latter.
#14903114
Crantag wrote:Or in a more rational society, perhaps we would grab our pitchforks and torches, and go pay a visit to the side of town where the bankers live.

But many of us don't live in very rational societies nowadays.

Recession and revolution are the two great traditional ills of capitalism. The powers which be have put a lot into effecting the abatement of the latter.

Admittedly, I too often think of revolution as a solution. The truth is revolution is emotion based and therefore can not accomplish real change for the better. This is why it just changes our jailers. It is always the result of manipulation of the masses emotions. Real change requires change in our emotional maturity. I see no evidence humans have matured emotionally. We are pack animals that require alpha leaders. No matter what ideological label we choose, the result is the same.
This is why I propose a world of many packs in the hopes one of them will show the way to maturity. Switching from one to another is inefficient. Let us experiment with them all free of outside interference.
Capitalism is not corrupt, many of it’s practitioners are because they are emotionally immature.
#14903120
One Degree wrote:Admittedly, I too often think of revolution as a solution. The truth is revolution is emotion based and therefore can not accomplish real change for the better. This is why it just changes our jailers. It is always the result of manipulation of the masses emotions. Real change requires change in our emotional maturity. I see no evidence humans have matured emotionally. We are pack animals that require alpha leaders. No matter what ideological label we choose, the result is the same.
This is why I propose a world of many packs in the hopes one of them will show the way to maturity. Switching from one to another is inefficient. Let us experiment with them all free of outside interference.
Capitalism is not corrupt, many of it’s practitioners are because they are emotionally immature.

One issue with the defeat of the episodic nature of revolutions is that in their absence the divergence of rich and poor gets ever wider, and wider, and wider, as those at the top just continue to accumulate and accumulate ever more. That sort of seems like the situation of the USA in a nutshell.

I also idealize local sovereignty. And I ascribe to anarchism because I feel it is the most consistent sustained current of criticism against elitist power structures, which are invariably corrupt as far as I am concerned.
#14903124
I have no reply or disagreement with your post. Truthfully, I am currently distracted by amusement at my own attempts to pretend I know what I am talking about. I will think on your comments.

Edit: @Crantag
Okay, I think I have regained enough hubris to continue. I agree with you about the increasing wealth disparity without intervention. Is revolution the only tool? My argument would be we need to search for a better tool. I don’t know what it is, but again I believe multiple experiments will find it faster than a few.
#14903132
One Degree wrote:I have no reply or disagreement with your post. Truthfully, I am currently distracted by amusement at my own attempts to pretend I know what I am talking about. I will think on your comments.

Edit: @Crantag
Okay, I think I have regained enough hubris to continue. I agree with you about the increasing wealth disparity without intervention. Is revolution the only tool? My argument would be we need to search for a better tool. I don’t know what it is, but again I believe multiple experiments will find it faster than a few.

I don't know the answer. My point was mostly that the blunt and obtuse implement of revolution is no longer really on the table, though it was in past periods. The caveman's club (revolution) has been removed. Previous norms were affected. But the show goes on. The tension which builds up could be what it is which breeds fascism.
#14903133
Crantag wrote:I don't know the answer. My point was mostly that the blunt and obtuse implement of revolution is no longer really on the table, though it was in past periods. The caveman's club (revolution) has been removed. Previous norms were affected. But the show goes on. The tension which builds up could be what it is which breeds fascism.

Revolution is never off the table, Crantag. Back in the 18th century, most educated people thought that the era of revolutions and total war was over - the Peace of Westphalia had settled matters one and for all. How did that work out? :)

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]