Revolution is the only hope at this point but
unfortunately the Oligarchs have been so thorough at preparing American people for the new feudalism that the American people no longer have the intellectual capacity to fully understand what's happening and what they have to do to stop it. They will just wallow in their stupor until it's too late. Then decades will have to pass until a "John Connor" is born and the asymmetrical rebellion will begin and the cycle, dark ages, renaissance, dark ages and so on will evolve all over again.

While I agree on the general premise - that we are moving towards a neufeudalism, that we have forgotten about the Classical Liberal principles that made us free and rich... I disagree that the culmination of those principles is in New Deal centralization of power. Classical political economy was in many ways a vindication of the principle of decentralization, of local governance. The move to increased federal statism is a part of the move backwards to feudal politics.

The US is moving toward a system of corporate governance, rather than a feudal order, which I think is not in line with the interests of the corporate class, since a feudal system would require loyalty in exchange for a fief. Rather, the corporations simply control the order of society directly, and will completely usurp the executive and legislative powers of the government, if they have not already done so.

I think this stage is transitional, though, as we move toward a more formally dictatorial regime. How long corporate rule lasts depends largely on how long the government retains useful power.

As for what to do about it, I'd say that the largest stumbling block to a reversal is the general ignorance of the average American. As a country, we simply do not have the intellectual wherewithal to contest the claims made by the media/government. If anyone figures out a way to make good arguments against our current system publicly accessible, convincing, and resistant to the distractive effect of the government's media mouthpiece, then the battle will be half won already.

The only question that matters is that of FREE WILL.

EVERYONE would do what is moral, -were it possible, -were we to know how.

But, BECAUSE humanity has been tossed into this scientific age not knowing how to be moral, we lack FREE WILL. We ARE immoral.

We HAVE met the bogey man, and he is US.

Science tells us, the Universe is a clockwork, right down to everything in it, including you and me.

BULLSHIT.

-We have FREE WILL. We are more than sentient beings. We are moral sentient beings.

Science comes no closer to explaining the infinite complexity of the Universe in its entirety, than does ANY OTHER religion.

The moral imperative of life is to live a life that detracts not at all from the lives available to those who will follow us into this world.

This is the essential categorically true moral statement, categorically true -both inclusively and exclusively.

Nothing else matters.

So, -now you know what is moral.

Every question boils down to how to affect the moral imperative... -and clearly science is NOT the answer.

The NEXT THOUSAND YEARS will be spent coming grips with how to unravel the Categorical Knowledge that arises from the moral imperative.

Science is dead.

Good riddance to it too.

I think it's funny that you don't believe that you're under a feudal system right now. Step back from the argument and start to count all the subtle ways that you ARE under the rule of the Nobels...

It has become a myth that the US is government of the people, not for a hell of a long time has this been true.The best current example is the health care debate presently going on in Congress. Something over 70% of the people want a Single Payer system but no one who supports that view sits at the table and those who protest are locked up with multiple charges and could get jail time for speaking their minds. During the single payer discussion the congressmen flat out say it's possible because the insurance companies don't want it , so the people be damned.

In the late sixties I was in training to be a life insurance/mutual fund salesmen and argued with my trainer about the possibility of another Great Depression . I thought there could be and now it appears I may have been right.

I have wrestled with the question of why the powers to be would deliberately do this to us, the only answer seems to be they want to drag it all behind their walled cities and helicopter from Villa to Villa.

Obviously they haven't looked at Iraq and Afghanistan at all where a rag tag bunch of mountain folks kick our ass on a regular basis. The shoulder launched weapons brought the Russians down and a sort of militia is in control of both places.

So in the end when all our slow learners catch up , shit will happen. It always has .

The Dark Ages didn't happen overnight. I'm sure the older, more learned, generation was awestruck at the downslide in 'popular culture' and political discourse. The dumbing-down of America is undeniable, and as one who remembers the 60's, when poets like Dylan Thomas and Kahlil Gibran were common currency among the 'hip'(for instance), it is shocking to see the vapid corporate-induced anti-culture of today's youth. It is this national lobotomy, coupled with the marginalisation of the educated, that has enabled the current political outrages to be broadly accepted. The acquiescence of the public is stunning. The last one out will not need to turn off the light.

Torture is just the INTRODUCTION to SLAVERY.
Once the thugs decide they can get information through torture, they will devolve to getting LABOR. Considering the economic condition they are in, it will take about 2 more weeks. Of course the "church" will need laborers to replace the drop in offerings from the impoverished SHEEP.

So: altruism and foretelling the future is requisite for a "moral imperative of life".

How do you manage the foretelling the future part?

" live a life that detracts not at all from the lives available to those who will follow us into this world"

....worked pretty good so far....[ahem]

science is dead?
logic is deader....

why conflate "bad scientists" and academic dogma with "science"? [the art and philosophy of engaging existence for the purpose of knowledge]
religion is not science.
religion is politics+philosophy as a method of contextualizing the social limits of human behavior and as such generally has little to do with human "spirituality" [meaning: mental/physical/emotional well being]

re:
"Anonymous said...
I think it's funny that you don't believe that you're under a feudal system right now. Step back from the argument and start to count all the subtle ways that you ARE under the rule of the Nobels..."

BINGO!!!

...and always were....if'n ya don't believe it: go ask da injuns and kneegrows...and da po' white folk and da wimminz.[be prepared for deeply contemptuous and mirthful sarcasm...]

ivory towered nonsense- MCcluhan saw this coming years before anybody

ps:

"EVERYONE would do what is moral, -were it possible, -were we to know how."

W.O.W.

we?

"But, BECAUSE humanity has been tossed into this scientific age not knowing how to be moral, we lack FREE WILL. We ARE immoral."

mind.boggling.


....the cosmic cop out: [comic?] "but we didn't know how to be moral or we would have...really....it's sciences fault....we didn't have no free will....cept when we pulled the trigger, cracked da whip, voted, etc"

mr robertson: like wow dude......for real?

editors note:

...um...this is exactly "how" all this bullshit was perpetrated to begin with....now being presented as a solution....wtf???!!!!

is it really "that bad" "out there"? [don't answer that]
lol

the dollar is tanking, the unemployment situation worse by the minute, and the nation sliding further into DICTATORSHIP by the nanosecond.

we are in very very bad shape. it's over here. we're on the brink of a violent, ugly revolution.

It's the continuing counter reformation...

http://continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com/2007/06/wlodimir-vladimir-ledochowski.html

http://continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com

Be sure to read the tags Tupper Saussy and Kulterkampf Revemge

Okay -George-Washington Kiddies.

Humor yourselves. You're all geniuses that have the world figured out. You have the answer to enough of the questions, you can assert your comprehension of your surroundings with skill.

Your presumption is that you are both conscious and cogent... Or so it seems between your perked ears. Right?

So answer a few questions for me? Okay? Humor the old guy. I am sixty, and as fiesty as any young buck on the planet. So, humor me? Please!

QUESTION ONE

Were I a scientist who made an intellectually stimulating scientific discovery that made possible the easy construction of a device that would destroy the world... -Let me add-, this device would be so easy to make -any high school sophmore with $20 and access to a Walmart could make this device, -once they understood the scientific hurdle-, the hurdle I hypothetically discovered... Would it be immoral for me to publish my discovery on the Internet?

That's a rhetorical moral question, Jackasses.

Now consider for yourselves... Is there any difference between MY (hypothetical) DISCOVERY -and what is going on in hundreds of thousands of laboratories all over the world?

-ANSWER TO QUESTION ONE- (for those geniuses too stupid to figure out the answer for themselves because they are too busy watching reruns of Star Trek -or- dreaming of being Britney Spears' room-mate at Yale or Princeton.)

No. There is no difference. Scientists are everywhere seeking knowledge breakthroughs exactly like what I am described by my analogy.

These scientists are all gambling away the future -by their immoral research. -It's not even a gamble. These scientists are inflicting on humanity the consequences of their asinine discoveries, -like derivatives and genetic engineering and a host of others we all could name.

QUESTION TWO

If you were attached to a machine that was going to shortly kill either YOU or THE REST OF HUMANITY, depending on the setting of a switch within your reach... What is your moral decision?

That too is a rhetorical moral question, Jackasses. (I'm talking to you! Listen, Fool!)

Now, explain to me your decision, logically?

--------------

QUESTION NUMBER THREE

When an assertion is viewed against the obvious backdrop of an infinitely-infinitely complex reality, -its self-evidence diminishes like the view of a gnat from an increasing distance.

With this critical view in mind, any one of you might tell me what you think you know. What do you believe?

Donny -the Jackass- awaits your page-plop-

And -for extra credit, if you are under thirty and think yourself even slightly educated... -Do the world a favor and pick up a copy of Lord Chesterfield's "Letters to His Son" written in the 18th Century.

I just found it myself, and wish I had found it long ago. Machiavelli's "The Prince" is NOT the ultimate political treatise, the compilation of these letters, is the ultimate political treatise, -among a great many other things you all need too.

"The Prince" is a waste of time by comparison.

All of you think you are "the Prince". -BULL-->>SHIT!

All of you are Bart Simpson growing up to be a big, fat, dumb Homer.

Welcome to America in the 21st Century, George Washington

Thanks for the insightful article. I don't know if it's feudalism but it sure looks like slavery to me when people are working all the time to pay mortgages on houses they can never hope to pay off.