The Acknowledgement and Acceptance of Alternative Universes: A Critique of Berger and Luckmann’s Conceptual Machineries of Universe-Maintenance
Societies often reject “otherness.” Because symbolic universes sometimes feel threatened by alternative universes, their reaction often is to prove one’s superiority. In the course of this essay, I will argue that no one universe is correct and nor is any one universe superior. To claim that one’s symbolic universe is superior to that of another’s is simply a false assumption. One must realize that other cultures do exist, and likewise, they have their own unique institutions, religions, values, traditions, taboos, etc. On these grounds, one must accept this “otherness” and must not be threatened by it, nor should one claim it to be inferior to that of their own. It is for this reason that I will criticize Berger and Luckmann’s statement, “The alternative universe presented by the other society must be met with the best possible reasons for the superiority of one’s own. This necessity requires a conceptual machinery of considerable sophistication.” (B&L 108)
It is not necessarily true that all symbolic universes feel threatened when they encounter alternative societies. The early American settlers did establish friendly relations with many Native Americans. However, Berger and Luckmann argue that a symbolic universe must meet the alternative universe presented by the other society “with the best possible reasons for the superiority of their own.” Such xenophobic attitudes give rise to discrimination, hatred, racism, and other problems that are in fact harmful and destructive to society. A symbolic universe may feel threatened when they encounter otherness, however there is no reason to be. Societies need not reject this otherness and nor is it necessary to try and prove one’s superiority. On these grounds, Berger and Luckmann’s claim is discriminatory simply because it implies that the alternative universe must be deemed inferior. This is why it is important to not allow distortion of reality.
If one were to study a particular symbolic universe historically, they would realize that things were once otherwise. In studying American history, we can see that the times have really changed; for example, slavery once was a common practice but now is a thing of the past. In looking back, slavery is something Americans are not particularly proud. Another example, “Separate but equal’ was once equal before the law, but now is deemed unequal before the law. So we can see that our symbolic universe was once otherwise, and we can look back and say that it was by no means a perfect society. Symbolic universes evolve over time, and some much quicker than others. Those societies that are isolated from “otherness” may remain as they have for centuries, and this may account for the considerable differences between symbolic universes. Societies must not be threatened by this difference, rather they should accept alternative universes for what they are. No one universe is superior to others, and on these grounds, there is no need to try and prove that a symbolic universe is superior to the alternative universe presented by the other society.
Ancient Greek society rejected all societies outside the polis, claiming only Greek society was civilized and all others were barbarous. Israel says this of Palestine, and Palestine says this of Israel. Because societies are quick to make judgements about others, they make false assumptions concerning this otherness simply because they lack knowledge of alternative societies. How can one society make such assumptions when they do not understand the alternative society? And on this note, how can any society claim superiority?
On the discussion of universe maintenance, Berger and Luckmann speak of the necessity of the “conceptual machinery of considerable sophistication,” while therapy and nihilation are two strategies of universe-maintenance advocated by Berger and Luckmann. Therapy, as agued by the authors, is one strategy that ensures “that actual or potential deviants stay within the institutionalized definitions of reality, or, in other words (prevents) the ‘inhabitant’ of a given universe from ‘emigrating’.” Nihilation is the incorporation of deviant conceptions within one’s own universe and the final goal of this strategy to liquidate them altogether. Nihilism is basically the general rejection of customary beliefs in morality, religion, tradition, etc. When symbolic universes use strategies of universe-maintenance such as therapy and nihilation to protect their own society from otherness, they perpetuate discrimination, the fear of otherness, and they may even harm the alternative universes presented by the other society. (B&L 112-116)
The Navajo Native Americans have been living a distinct culture for centuries, and likewise have been performing religious rituals that include the use of mind altering peyote found in cactus in their part of the country. This practice was once outlawed, as it is for non Native Americans, simply because peyote is a mind altering drug and drug us is deviant according to the United States legal system. What is allowed for the Navajo, but used to be illegal, would get other Americans in trouble with the law and force them to face the consequences of “therapy”, as decided by the courts. This strategy of universe maintenance once disregarded the Navajo’s distinct tradition and culture. Because their religious practices were once illegal, their way of life has been altered for this reason, the ruling courts has proven to be destructive to the Navajo culture.
If societies could accept alternative universes as equals, there would be no reason to be threatened by otherness. This acceptance would allow for the existence of diverse and distinct cultures, while it would ease many of the problems associated with encounters between different “symbolic universes.”
Berger, Peter L. and Thomas Luckmann The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Doubleday, 1966
Friday, February 27, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Dependency and International Lending Institutions
Around the world, it’s not just the poorest nations that are going bankrupt. First world nations are going broke, the United States, the UK and Ireland are, while others have collapsed already including Iceland. Despite funding from international lending agencies, many third world countries and now first world countries are facing consequences of loansharking, and as a result, they are falling prey to those ready to take advantage of them in the name of profit. International lending agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the Federal Reserve continue to provide financial assistance to these countries on a regular basis, yet these counties remain indebted. Annually, trillions of dollars are now lent for the sake of “development” or “bailout”, however the facts remain; the governments lack of stability and their economies and currencies are in shambles, while the people of these countries are dying of malnutrition, they lack adequate drinking water, housing, medical assistance and education. With as much monetary “aid” or “stimulus” that is being lent by foreign sources, the question is raised, why have these countries allowed themselves to remain poor and indebted, and in many cases underdeveloped or at a loss of liberty, both politically and economically?
It is quite apparent the conflict of interest that international lending agencies hold over borrowing countries, and it can be said that these international agencies do more harm than good, while they perpetuate poverty in these already poor countries, let alone the supposed richest of the developed world. These agencies are responsible for the exploitation of the people and the land, while they also leave these countries dependent upon yet more ‘aid’ year after year. The United States is no exception.
All borrowing nations are in a no-win situation. They will continue to borrow time and time again, and for this reason, these countries have become increasingly more dependent upon this aid. On this note, the theory of development which will be discussed is that of the dependency perspective. I’m favoring this theory for I believe that borrowing nations are in fact dependent upon the banking institution, enslaving entire countries in the process.
Under the leadership of the United States and Great Britain, these lending institutions were devised in order to rebuild the European economy which had been devastated by the war. Today, these lending agencies and others play major roles in the international arena of loansharking. International banks in collaboration with commercial banks and wealthy first world countries, lend monetary aid for development or bailout, however they also can impose interest rates as high as sixteen, seventeen, and eighteen percent. When these nations borrow, and that includes the United States or Britain, they stand to fall further and further in debt as a result of over ambitious plans for development or stimulus. For this reason, interest rates alone are one condition imposed by lenders that further the debt crisis of debtor nations. In reality, the underlying factors that are responsible for the inability of repayment vary from country to country, however lending institutions impose certain condtions that supposedly curtail the defaulting of loans. These conditions are known as ‘structural adjustment’ policies. These bankrupt countries will not be credited with more aid unless they allow for these structural adjustment programs, and if they do not - they face a serious problem. The problem is these countries will give up their sovereignty, power, and control of their own economies. As a condition of further loans, eventually these imposed adjustments take place within debtor nations through their institutions and economies, and according to creditors, these adjustments will help these countries work their way out of debt and into prosperity. They have been saying this for years with Second and Third World countries, now it’s soon to be most all the world. These reforms may include the selling off of public resources, the removal of subsidies and price controls, contraints on governmental spending, deficit reduction, exchange rate adjustments, and the reduction of government control with regard to the economy. (Africa 5)
The people of these debtor nations are becoming increasingly affected by these lending policies and they face further destabilization as a result of these practices. Many will lose their sovereignty by way of economic policy, none of which will attempt to achieve self-sufficiency. It will be seen in time if these nations, including the United States and many European countries, fall deeper and deeper into debt as a result of this financial dependency.
(“Structural Adjustment.” Africa News Dec. 25, 1985
It is quite apparent the conflict of interest that international lending agencies hold over borrowing countries, and it can be said that these international agencies do more harm than good, while they perpetuate poverty in these already poor countries, let alone the supposed richest of the developed world. These agencies are responsible for the exploitation of the people and the land, while they also leave these countries dependent upon yet more ‘aid’ year after year. The United States is no exception.
All borrowing nations are in a no-win situation. They will continue to borrow time and time again, and for this reason, these countries have become increasingly more dependent upon this aid. On this note, the theory of development which will be discussed is that of the dependency perspective. I’m favoring this theory for I believe that borrowing nations are in fact dependent upon the banking institution, enslaving entire countries in the process.
Under the leadership of the United States and Great Britain, these lending institutions were devised in order to rebuild the European economy which had been devastated by the war. Today, these lending agencies and others play major roles in the international arena of loansharking. International banks in collaboration with commercial banks and wealthy first world countries, lend monetary aid for development or bailout, however they also can impose interest rates as high as sixteen, seventeen, and eighteen percent. When these nations borrow, and that includes the United States or Britain, they stand to fall further and further in debt as a result of over ambitious plans for development or stimulus. For this reason, interest rates alone are one condition imposed by lenders that further the debt crisis of debtor nations. In reality, the underlying factors that are responsible for the inability of repayment vary from country to country, however lending institutions impose certain condtions that supposedly curtail the defaulting of loans. These conditions are known as ‘structural adjustment’ policies. These bankrupt countries will not be credited with more aid unless they allow for these structural adjustment programs, and if they do not - they face a serious problem. The problem is these countries will give up their sovereignty, power, and control of their own economies. As a condition of further loans, eventually these imposed adjustments take place within debtor nations through their institutions and economies, and according to creditors, these adjustments will help these countries work their way out of debt and into prosperity. They have been saying this for years with Second and Third World countries, now it’s soon to be most all the world. These reforms may include the selling off of public resources, the removal of subsidies and price controls, contraints on governmental spending, deficit reduction, exchange rate adjustments, and the reduction of government control with regard to the economy. (Africa 5)
The people of these debtor nations are becoming increasingly affected by these lending policies and they face further destabilization as a result of these practices. Many will lose their sovereignty by way of economic policy, none of which will attempt to achieve self-sufficiency. It will be seen in time if these nations, including the United States and many European countries, fall deeper and deeper into debt as a result of this financial dependency.
(“Structural Adjustment.” Africa News Dec. 25, 1985
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Sailing the Inside Passage of Alaska
I had the cool experience of starting off in the Pribiloff Islands, at St. Paul Island, Alaska, a remote set of islands deep into the Bering Sea. I remember taking the last skiff ride off that island, and hearing the sea lions bark as we took the skiff out to the Helenka B. The day was blue sky with clouds, soon to be storm as soon as we stepped foot on the boat for our 7 day journey back down to Kodiak towing a barge, going at a slow 6 knots per hour. No sooner that we got under way did we hit 30 foot swells. I have never seen anything like it. Up on top of the world, facing a darkness and peaks and valleys everywhere, and then the next second you are down 30 feet with waves in all directions over your head. Up down, Up down. I was a shade of green, literally, and remember having to eat Ritz crackers. I got to sleep, next to roaring twin CAT 3500 series engines (on the other side) of the walls. Then I got up to be sea sick again. They made me eat buckwheat pancakes, only to have me stumble across the galley, see my green face again in the bathroom, and out to the deck to feed the fishies. As I puked I think I saw 5,000 plus birds, all kinds of seagulls, the Albatross (the huge bird with wing spans galore; Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner) and even puffins. Then to Kodiak, then a week of offloading there, then across the Gulf Alaska and where we hit more 30 foot swells the entire time. Sea sick all over again, after sea legs in Kodiak. I had sea legs for like a day there.
So we entered the inside passage up above Skagway I believe, and from there the passage was between a quarter mile wide to 2 miles wide. One of the coolest experiences I have ever seen. We saw the Cruise Ships in passing. We saw Humpback Whales playing. And at one point when the passage was at its narrowest, about a quarter mile wide, with our boat sailing right in the middle at slow speed, we saw a harbor. Then we saw 7 Killer Whales move in. We saw just their dorsel fins, then as they moved in from the right hand side of the small harbor, one whale darted immediately left, and circled in along the shore of the harbor, and then started swimming fast, as the other 6 moved in quickly, then we saw their faces and silver salmon and blood. We saw fresh salmon and a feeding frenzy. It was something I will never see ever again. Something I wish I had a video camera in the day to post on Youtube, but I will always remember it. We saw deer along the shore, lighthouses along the way where families lived in remote wilderness and lived a quiet but good life for sure. I saw the vast Alaska wilderness, that of the Tongas National Forest, and then we entered wider waterways and soon entered Vancouver area, and their islands, then on into Seattle. The Inside Passage was a journey in and of itself. Yet the ride from start to finish was memories that will be hard to forget. The sea is something else. Dangerous always, yet beautiful. From plankton that glowed in the night, to a cruise ship on the horizon at night, you passed in different directions, and then moved on to the new experiences along the way. The killer whales feeding on salmon was one of the coolest things I ever saw before my very eyes. I was that close. 50 yards away. 7 killer whales on the hunt.
So we entered the inside passage up above Skagway I believe, and from there the passage was between a quarter mile wide to 2 miles wide. One of the coolest experiences I have ever seen. We saw the Cruise Ships in passing. We saw Humpback Whales playing. And at one point when the passage was at its narrowest, about a quarter mile wide, with our boat sailing right in the middle at slow speed, we saw a harbor. Then we saw 7 Killer Whales move in. We saw just their dorsel fins, then as they moved in from the right hand side of the small harbor, one whale darted immediately left, and circled in along the shore of the harbor, and then started swimming fast, as the other 6 moved in quickly, then we saw their faces and silver salmon and blood. We saw fresh salmon and a feeding frenzy. It was something I will never see ever again. Something I wish I had a video camera in the day to post on Youtube, but I will always remember it. We saw deer along the shore, lighthouses along the way where families lived in remote wilderness and lived a quiet but good life for sure. I saw the vast Alaska wilderness, that of the Tongas National Forest, and then we entered wider waterways and soon entered Vancouver area, and their islands, then on into Seattle. The Inside Passage was a journey in and of itself. Yet the ride from start to finish was memories that will be hard to forget. The sea is something else. Dangerous always, yet beautiful. From plankton that glowed in the night, to a cruise ship on the horizon at night, you passed in different directions, and then moved on to the new experiences along the way. The killer whales feeding on salmon was one of the coolest things I ever saw before my very eyes. I was that close. 50 yards away. 7 killer whales on the hunt.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Places I've Been
I've been to a lot of places. I am streetwise. I am seaworthy. I have sailed the Bering Sea. I have sailed into Kodiak. I sailed the Gulf of Alaska on down to the inside Passage to Seattle. I have hit 30 foot swells more than once. I have seen the albatross. I have seen dolphins swimming alongside the boat for 2 days. I have been to Alaska over 30 different occasions. My travels in Alaska are extensive. I met one gentlemen at a cafe in Ketchikan Alaska. He was sitting next to me. He carried a pocket Constitution in his pocket, of which I enjoyed breakfast and remember him to this day. I have been to the place where Evel Knievel jumped the Snake River Canyon. The ramp is still there. I had to go to that place every two months, but would enjoy tranquility of that spot, but enjoyed partying my ass off in Boise more. Hawaii was known for its snorkeling at Poi Pu beach, and I remember it to this day. The Redwoods rocked. As did the scorching heat in Arizona. From a tram ride to the top of a mountain in New Mexico, to deep in the Rockies of Colorado, I have seen montanas. From Salt Lake City on a Sunday, to a Saturday at the Minneapolis Aiport, to the beauty and the plains of Montana, from almost dying in Fargo ND, to almost dying somewhere near Eugene OR (Derek knows), to the semi truck that came 3 feet in my lane in the mountains of Northern California, I have seen the road. I have a lot of respect for it. OK, KS, all but a summer vacation. I do remember partying on the boardwalk in San Antonio. I remember it raining on spring break in Clearwater FL. I remember the panhandlers in Atlanta Georgia hit me up for $15, $20. I had to take a piss in the worst part of town in E St. Louis. I've seen the courts of Philadelphia. I ate their phillie steak sandwiches. Ive eaten all over. I ate at a revolving restaurant over looking the Ohio River. And I was at Churchill Downs. I gazed right at the Battle of Gettysburg, and had 6 hours at the mall of Washington DC one time. Not enough. I stepped foot in NJ. Didn't get off the freeway to go into Maryland, although I hope to one day. I've won some money on the Ohio River in Evansville Indiana. And I scored 129 drunk off my ass at the Cougar Lanes in Omaha, first game in like 10 years. I've met some great people. Ive seen some terrain. I have learned history and know a great deal about native history from reading it along the way. I have travelled much of the Lewish and Clark trail. Not all. I have had the privilege of trying out microbreweries and golf courses, and have done some incredible hikes. I have seen mother nature at her best. And I have seen mother nature at her worst. Ive seen things that open up my eyes. I have seen things that have made me cry. I have seen bad things and I have seen good things. And I've helped out a few dogs along the way. I have 13 more states to go.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Social Darwinism By Way of Rigged Game
Social Darwinism By Way of Rigged Game
The Theory of Evolution has always been of intrigue. Darwin touched the nerve of debate with his theory and yet his theory is widely accepted in the scientific community, to the point that his conclusive proof has been reified into that of the social sciences, or that of Social Darwinsim. The debate could go to lengths of explaining what is of nature in terms of natural selection if you generally accept the natural setting for that which Charles Darwin studied, that of a natural setting, versus that natural selection being that of a social setting. One is a state of nature, the other is a state of man. And this is where the argument can go in any direction with regard to ideology, however my point is to compare what is meant by Darwinism in the social sense versus that of the intended arena, nature.
Setting nature aside in terms of the observation of Darwin, examine the meaning of Social Darwinsim. There are some that will go down the path of Aristotle and say that man is a social animal and forms clans, governments, laws and order, and that others can go onto discuss religious hierarchical order or the reason for man to be governed. All could be accepted in the meaning of Social Darwinism. But don’t let me to get too into that. That is not my intention.
Like a caribou, or bear, a tiger, or a groundhog, man has his place on the planet as well. You could say that man is a political animal, but looking at the given constituency here, I question that notion. I do not agree that Social Darwinism intends for man or woman to be governed in a sense that it changes that very existence or social being. I contend that that is unnatural and not of the theory.
Like the caribou, we must learn to display our nature to survive the changing times and seasons. We must withstand a great deal or some of us won’t make it, as can be seen. Like the bear, we must learn how to fish for our survival and to fight for everything we can while teaching our young how to survive and this includes socially. This is of nature. I do not believe that man, in comparison to the caribou or the bear is much different. The tiger must adap via natural selection, to the point of blending in with it’s natural setting in order to survive. This is natural selection at it’s best. And the groundhog must know when to call it a winter in order to survive.
So natural selection and the theory Darwin proved is about survival and how the strong survive in the natural setting. The question is does Social Darwinism require that man be ruled in order to survive, ruled in a political sense, or in some cases controlled?
I would say that goes against nature itself and that there are some who believe that a few rule mankind for their very existence, however I will argue that this goes against the rules of nature. Others can coerce or manipulate. We see that with complex taxation laws to the point that we require professionals. Laws in general are very complex and in our society you pretty much are expected to spend thousands in order to decipher these laws if brought into court.
But you have to take into account a government that has been corrupted and bankrupted and ask yourself how this is of natural selection? Socialized profits? How is this natural selection? It seems that rules of Social Darwisnism for the few or elite class change as needed. Or is this just a means for others to maintain their existence or stature in society?
I think it really comes down to this and how others justify their own existence, no matter to what expense to society.
I do see a difference between Social Darwinism which I accept as the person and their brain, their family, their community, and their domain. I do not see the society as anything different than that of a herd of caribou. I do not see any differentiation between the aggression of man or tiger or intelligent design of that of the tiger or man. I do take exception at the manipulation and control of others to form an unnatural selection. Have and have nots.
The social disparities and erosion of the middle class is rapidly being seen. In the 90’s it was drastically becoming apparent. Today we are seeing an entire class of people in tent cities because of a few predatory lenders. This is unnatural. The corporations and the transnationals and the government are changing the playing field and people are getting caught up. Others are taking 7 figure bonuses along the way.
Either way, human nature will go on, as will Social Darwinism. It just comes down to what viewpoint you take as to what “natural” is anymore. What is real and what is natural I ask? Hard to tell. Keeps changing. When people lose their own ability to make their own decisions or use their own brain, with decisions that will strap society with debt to the brink of bankruptcy, how is this not impending slavery? How is this natural? Again, others believe in their authority to control society and accept this as their role in the social order. Royalty and the Church are good examples of this belief.
It just seems that this is no longer a natural order, and therefore it is difficult for Social Darwinism to even play out. And for this, I believe this is the plan, to eliminate the competition that man would bring to survival mode in any given society. But if we allow any given society to be ruled via coercion, intimidation, fear, or any other means that would allow desired ends of a few, then what does it say of us? To believe the media and accept it as truth, as most do, maybe there are others that really believed we are to be ruled, as opposed to self governance. But I also believe that Social Darwinism requires the society to stand up for it’s own survival, and that is a paradigm change if it happens. You can expect others to cast their dominance over society in order to maintain their own survival, but if this is not a true natural progression, then survival mode is in store for the people, because that is how it works naturally. The strong get stronger and the weak get weaker. I think people need to understand this more than ever as the principle still applies, only it would be better for others to get weaker for the survival of society than for a few to weaken the many in order to justify their survival.
Make sense?
The Theory of Evolution has always been of intrigue. Darwin touched the nerve of debate with his theory and yet his theory is widely accepted in the scientific community, to the point that his conclusive proof has been reified into that of the social sciences, or that of Social Darwinsim. The debate could go to lengths of explaining what is of nature in terms of natural selection if you generally accept the natural setting for that which Charles Darwin studied, that of a natural setting, versus that natural selection being that of a social setting. One is a state of nature, the other is a state of man. And this is where the argument can go in any direction with regard to ideology, however my point is to compare what is meant by Darwinism in the social sense versus that of the intended arena, nature.
Setting nature aside in terms of the observation of Darwin, examine the meaning of Social Darwinsim. There are some that will go down the path of Aristotle and say that man is a social animal and forms clans, governments, laws and order, and that others can go onto discuss religious hierarchical order or the reason for man to be governed. All could be accepted in the meaning of Social Darwinism. But don’t let me to get too into that. That is not my intention.
Like a caribou, or bear, a tiger, or a groundhog, man has his place on the planet as well. You could say that man is a political animal, but looking at the given constituency here, I question that notion. I do not agree that Social Darwinism intends for man or woman to be governed in a sense that it changes that very existence or social being. I contend that that is unnatural and not of the theory.
Like the caribou, we must learn to display our nature to survive the changing times and seasons. We must withstand a great deal or some of us won’t make it, as can be seen. Like the bear, we must learn how to fish for our survival and to fight for everything we can while teaching our young how to survive and this includes socially. This is of nature. I do not believe that man, in comparison to the caribou or the bear is much different. The tiger must adap via natural selection, to the point of blending in with it’s natural setting in order to survive. This is natural selection at it’s best. And the groundhog must know when to call it a winter in order to survive.
So natural selection and the theory Darwin proved is about survival and how the strong survive in the natural setting. The question is does Social Darwinism require that man be ruled in order to survive, ruled in a political sense, or in some cases controlled?
I would say that goes against nature itself and that there are some who believe that a few rule mankind for their very existence, however I will argue that this goes against the rules of nature. Others can coerce or manipulate. We see that with complex taxation laws to the point that we require professionals. Laws in general are very complex and in our society you pretty much are expected to spend thousands in order to decipher these laws if brought into court.
But you have to take into account a government that has been corrupted and bankrupted and ask yourself how this is of natural selection? Socialized profits? How is this natural selection? It seems that rules of Social Darwisnism for the few or elite class change as needed. Or is this just a means for others to maintain their existence or stature in society?
I think it really comes down to this and how others justify their own existence, no matter to what expense to society.
I do see a difference between Social Darwinism which I accept as the person and their brain, their family, their community, and their domain. I do not see the society as anything different than that of a herd of caribou. I do not see any differentiation between the aggression of man or tiger or intelligent design of that of the tiger or man. I do take exception at the manipulation and control of others to form an unnatural selection. Have and have nots.
The social disparities and erosion of the middle class is rapidly being seen. In the 90’s it was drastically becoming apparent. Today we are seeing an entire class of people in tent cities because of a few predatory lenders. This is unnatural. The corporations and the transnationals and the government are changing the playing field and people are getting caught up. Others are taking 7 figure bonuses along the way.
Either way, human nature will go on, as will Social Darwinism. It just comes down to what viewpoint you take as to what “natural” is anymore. What is real and what is natural I ask? Hard to tell. Keeps changing. When people lose their own ability to make their own decisions or use their own brain, with decisions that will strap society with debt to the brink of bankruptcy, how is this not impending slavery? How is this natural? Again, others believe in their authority to control society and accept this as their role in the social order. Royalty and the Church are good examples of this belief.
It just seems that this is no longer a natural order, and therefore it is difficult for Social Darwinism to even play out. And for this, I believe this is the plan, to eliminate the competition that man would bring to survival mode in any given society. But if we allow any given society to be ruled via coercion, intimidation, fear, or any other means that would allow desired ends of a few, then what does it say of us? To believe the media and accept it as truth, as most do, maybe there are others that really believed we are to be ruled, as opposed to self governance. But I also believe that Social Darwinism requires the society to stand up for it’s own survival, and that is a paradigm change if it happens. You can expect others to cast their dominance over society in order to maintain their own survival, but if this is not a true natural progression, then survival mode is in store for the people, because that is how it works naturally. The strong get stronger and the weak get weaker. I think people need to understand this more than ever as the principle still applies, only it would be better for others to get weaker for the survival of society than for a few to weaken the many in order to justify their survival.
Make sense?
Saturday, February 14, 2009
False Institutions
When I examine the institutions in our society as portrayed via a media that brings it to you or whatever means you came to the said belief system in them, I realize they are just words. These are false institutions in the sense that the wordfreedom is slavery in Orwellian context. It never ceases to amaze me that these false institutions continue to play outin our society given the falsehoods in which they really are.I must bring into question a media that profits from it, as controlled and filtered as it may be, but yet how it is that put the utmost faith in these institutions, when they are merewords. To play out these falsehoods and believe in their systemsis to be as controlled as the media that sells it or the rhetoric that lends to it's unquestioned foundation of our society.
Marriage
Banking
Law & Order
Justice
Government
Healthcare
Marriage - I wish to decipher between legal marriage and matrimony.I will argue that the institution of marriage is false, from a legalstandpoint, and furthermore, will argue that the only reason to getlegally married is in order to get someone in the country, or to get them on the roles of insurance, or to profit contractually. Beyond that, there is no reason to ever get the government involved in personal matters or private matters. The government would haveno role in the destruction of assets. And these are clear exampleswhy the institution of marriage is as false of an institution as the SAP that falls for buying the wedding ring, going along with an advertisement or a belief system that he has to do it. With a successratio of 50%, it is something not to do. To not be legally marriedwould be to endemify one from those that want in on the action.
Banking - Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln, Jackon, and Harding are all presidents that warned of the international bankers and their predatorypractices. To hold the absolute conflict of interest of pure profit by setting policy in a nation that forbids such policy by the highestlaw of the land, the Constitution, is also to enslave an entire nationon the preset that the banking institution is going to "correct" whatthe fractional reserve system of banking created in the first place.This is not legal, in terms of the people or the States, as guaranteedunder the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. To circumvent this systemto the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the IMF, or any othercriminal syndicate is to prove this is a facade - that of a false institution. And this author reasonably questions the events of 9/11, put options, short selling, and the digital runs that transfer the wealth to a few.
Law & Order - With nearly 200 people being exonerated from prison based on DNA evidence proving them innocent, it comes to light that someone liedto convict them in the first place. When the police are perfectly content on investigating their own, the Bar Association is responsible for the conduct of lawyers, and the Judiciary Commissions are responsible for thejudges conduct, you can smell the conflict of interest. This institutionhas proven to have racist roots leading to inhumane treatment. When you youtube search Mena Cocaine you can see how the government has been involved in running cocaine for guns in the Iran Contra Affair to the pointthat it ended up on the streets being sold through the gangs of Los Angeles, distributed nationwide. One could call this ethnic cleansing. Others can call it the war on drugs. Yet others profited from the for profit prisonsystem and the economics of prison building. This is clearly a false insitution. And with a silent code of conduct and a government that never admits liability or any wrongdoing, it appearsto be as doublespeak and as criminal as the order they enforce. I questionthe belief system that enables it; God, Church, Government, Law & Order - there is a common theme. Words.
Justice - When judges in 2009 are accepting over $2 Million in bribes toimprison children in Pennsylvania, one must question the existence. Thisis the same system that corruptly gave corporations personhood. From it'sinception based on common law, til now, this has been an arrogant displayof power and deciet, becoming an industry. But to build a children's prisonsystem and to incarcerate children, without the right to an attorney - onpetty crimes, despite others raising eyebrows at what was happening, itbrings into question not only adults incarcerated and the corruption as seenor contractors that build the prisons and those that own them, but the veryinstitution of justice in the first place. When they use fear and intimidationand racketeering as a means to control society, and then control is usedon a case by case basis, with no recourse, as in Leonard Peltier's case, one must understand the necessity to strip these people of their powers immediately, including the prosecutor's, so that justice itself is preserved and has recourse to protect the innocent. This is a system ofhuman rights atrocities. False Institution.
Government - Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the inherentright to privacy are freedoms which we would expect a limited government, established by way of the Constitution, to protect. To bankrupt itself and to go around the world establishing Empire and fighting and fundingillegal wars and giving Israel a free ride on the U.S Taxpayers, clearly things have gone awry. What is sold in the media or via the two party system is just that, a 2 sided coin. And to keep people battling over eachside is perfect for a fascist media and government moves towards total-itarianism. To claim to be a Constitutional Government and then to hand overunquestioned powers to criminals, our forefathers have clearly rolled overin their graves. And this intitution as much a government for the people by the people as ignorance is strength.
Healthcare - A system of healthcare as an insitution? Not here. Where the sickest or those that most require it can't afford it, or are denied by lawbecause preexisting condition clauses and waits, or victoms of corporateAmerica and the fact that healthcare is tied to employment and their layoffs,it is no wonder that millions drop from the roles of insurance yearly in our country. The complexity of primary and secondary insurance laws, the bait and switch tactics and the continual rise of specialty drugs and medical costs, it is a carrot that keeps moving for society. The laws are not in favor of the peoplebut the insurance industry. This is a system that will go down as the mostevil shadows over society since that of Hitler Nazi Germany. This is not an institution; this is a falsehood designed to make people believe they must keep up with the laws or risk falling to the curb.
These false institutions, for what they are, are designed to conquer and divide and to provide a steady revenue stream for those that profit from their establishment. That word establishment, like the word instututions, is a falsehood.They are merely belief systems that have been inundated time and time again, enough times that people begin to believe them.
Marriage
Banking
Law & Order
Justice
Government
Healthcare
Marriage - I wish to decipher between legal marriage and matrimony.I will argue that the institution of marriage is false, from a legalstandpoint, and furthermore, will argue that the only reason to getlegally married is in order to get someone in the country, or to get them on the roles of insurance, or to profit contractually. Beyond that, there is no reason to ever get the government involved in personal matters or private matters. The government would haveno role in the destruction of assets. And these are clear exampleswhy the institution of marriage is as false of an institution as the SAP that falls for buying the wedding ring, going along with an advertisement or a belief system that he has to do it. With a successratio of 50%, it is something not to do. To not be legally marriedwould be to endemify one from those that want in on the action.
Banking - Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln, Jackon, and Harding are all presidents that warned of the international bankers and their predatorypractices. To hold the absolute conflict of interest of pure profit by setting policy in a nation that forbids such policy by the highestlaw of the land, the Constitution, is also to enslave an entire nationon the preset that the banking institution is going to "correct" whatthe fractional reserve system of banking created in the first place.This is not legal, in terms of the people or the States, as guaranteedunder the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. To circumvent this systemto the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the IMF, or any othercriminal syndicate is to prove this is a facade - that of a false institution. And this author reasonably questions the events of 9/11, put options, short selling, and the digital runs that transfer the wealth to a few.
Law & Order - With nearly 200 people being exonerated from prison based on DNA evidence proving them innocent, it comes to light that someone liedto convict them in the first place. When the police are perfectly content on investigating their own, the Bar Association is responsible for the conduct of lawyers, and the Judiciary Commissions are responsible for thejudges conduct, you can smell the conflict of interest. This institutionhas proven to have racist roots leading to inhumane treatment. When you youtube search Mena Cocaine you can see how the government has been involved in running cocaine for guns in the Iran Contra Affair to the pointthat it ended up on the streets being sold through the gangs of Los Angeles, distributed nationwide. One could call this ethnic cleansing. Others can call it the war on drugs. Yet others profited from the for profit prisonsystem and the economics of prison building. This is clearly a false insitution. And with a silent code of conduct and a government that never admits liability or any wrongdoing, it appearsto be as doublespeak and as criminal as the order they enforce. I questionthe belief system that enables it; God, Church, Government, Law & Order - there is a common theme. Words.
Justice - When judges in 2009 are accepting over $2 Million in bribes toimprison children in Pennsylvania, one must question the existence. Thisis the same system that corruptly gave corporations personhood. From it'sinception based on common law, til now, this has been an arrogant displayof power and deciet, becoming an industry. But to build a children's prisonsystem and to incarcerate children, without the right to an attorney - onpetty crimes, despite others raising eyebrows at what was happening, itbrings into question not only adults incarcerated and the corruption as seenor contractors that build the prisons and those that own them, but the veryinstitution of justice in the first place. When they use fear and intimidationand racketeering as a means to control society, and then control is usedon a case by case basis, with no recourse, as in Leonard Peltier's case, one must understand the necessity to strip these people of their powers immediately, including the prosecutor's, so that justice itself is preserved and has recourse to protect the innocent. This is a system ofhuman rights atrocities. False Institution.
Government - Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the inherentright to privacy are freedoms which we would expect a limited government, established by way of the Constitution, to protect. To bankrupt itself and to go around the world establishing Empire and fighting and fundingillegal wars and giving Israel a free ride on the U.S Taxpayers, clearly things have gone awry. What is sold in the media or via the two party system is just that, a 2 sided coin. And to keep people battling over eachside is perfect for a fascist media and government moves towards total-itarianism. To claim to be a Constitutional Government and then to hand overunquestioned powers to criminals, our forefathers have clearly rolled overin their graves. And this intitution as much a government for the people by the people as ignorance is strength.
Healthcare - A system of healthcare as an insitution? Not here. Where the sickest or those that most require it can't afford it, or are denied by lawbecause preexisting condition clauses and waits, or victoms of corporateAmerica and the fact that healthcare is tied to employment and their layoffs,it is no wonder that millions drop from the roles of insurance yearly in our country. The complexity of primary and secondary insurance laws, the bait and switch tactics and the continual rise of specialty drugs and medical costs, it is a carrot that keeps moving for society. The laws are not in favor of the peoplebut the insurance industry. This is a system that will go down as the mostevil shadows over society since that of Hitler Nazi Germany. This is not an institution; this is a falsehood designed to make people believe they must keep up with the laws or risk falling to the curb.
These false institutions, for what they are, are designed to conquer and divide and to provide a steady revenue stream for those that profit from their establishment. That word establishment, like the word instututions, is a falsehood.They are merely belief systems that have been inundated time and time again, enough times that people begin to believe them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)