PDA

View Full Version : Chessplayers Against Criminal Corporate globalists !



Axiom
06-09-2006, 09:41 PM
i want this thread to be devoted to the topic of "government", and its responsibilties, likely more of the western variety,considering the likely predominant demographic involved.However most of the general principles apply across the board.

As we here in australia,can safely be assumed as a subset of the USA (the current only superpower), it is logical to investigate the state of play in that particular sector, in order to establish the substance,mechanics,dynamics,and reality of that system,so to draw conclusions that pertain to our own predicament.


i ask you the following questions:-
1)to what extent do you trust a)the government, and b)the 2 party system?
2)do you believe govts act mostly on behalf of its constituents or corporate interests?
3)do you believe govts are the puppets or the puppeteers? ie. do you believe the real"buck stops here" with our govt or some greater authority(discounting god,for the sake of this argument)
4)to what extent do you believe the mainstream media is independant of govt policy?
5)why do leaders of countries,presidents,prime ministers, earn much less per year than leaders of corporations?...could it be that then they were more liable to "persuasion" from corp interests!?
6)do you ever question ,if there really is a significant difference in real position from either party?
7)do you intuitively sense, that govt, seems to act on interests that seem counter to you or your peers,and in your perception, of the majority?
8)do you think, it is possible that, given the ever increasing power of corporations, they could influence govt,producing results contrary to the overall good?
9)do you believe,given,power; corruption, is inevitable?

10)how far do you think govt corruption could go?
11)do you believe that any govt in history,has staged a faked "terrorist" event?
12)do you find the above question jarring in any way?
13)do you believe only "good" ppl can climb to the top in power?
14)do you think being "good" is a necessary trait in climbing to the top in power?
15)do you value logic in discerning your observed environment?
16)do you question your psychological conditioning?
17)do you think fox and cnn news offers us a fair and balanced view?
18)have you heard of operation northwoods or gulf of tonkin incident?
19)how ruthless do you believe corporations are in pursuing the bottom line?
20)what does" military industrial complex" ,mean to you?



if your answers are telling you something.........consider joining CACCG.

Desmond
07-09-2006, 10:03 AM
11)do you believe that any govt in history,has staged a faked "terrorist" event?Possibly, but they do not have to. Bad stuff happens all the time, and it is just a matter of blaming it on the right people, making strategically placed "off-hand" comments, warning the public of how at risk we are to keep us afraid, and letting the media circus follow along and fill in the blanks and provide the entertainment.

Kevin Bonham
07-09-2006, 12:26 PM
In a series of nutshells:

1 a) slightly less far than I could kick it, b) ditto, but with a note that minor parties in Australia tend to be extremist and often worse than the majors.

2) both to a small degree but often others (see #8)

3) both

4) apart from the extent of government censorship, relatively independent with some exceptions. The main thing the mainstream media are slaves to is sensationalism and the creation of conflict and change.

5) a government paying really massive salaries to politicians would probably be voted out - voters will accept quite high salaries for pollies but not salaries comparable to top private sector.

6) there are differences but they are too minor and will remain so until a real minor party challenge emerges

7) yes

8) sometimes. However, I think the power of corporations is overestimated compared to the power of other unelected elites such as religious leaders, shockjocks and environmentalists

9) no, but almost so

10) these days it appears to be confined to fiddling around the edges of methods instituted to control it. Corruption is still very possible but one has to be sneakier about it.

11) probably, but not recently.

12) no.

13) I don't believe in orthodox good/evil as being straightforwardly beneficial/harmful. What is called good is often harmful, what is called evil is sometimes justified. However I believe that being highly moral in a simplistic sense (traditionally "good") is an obstacle to climbing to the top in politics.

14) ditto.

15) highly.

16) I did my best to sleep through it. :D

17) not.

18) no.

19) very - but not absolutely. Counter-examples include recent major acts of philanthropy by powerful corporation heads.

20) "the usa is a rogue state" (andrew eldritch).

Axiom
07-09-2006, 11:21 PM
Possibly, but they do not have to. Bad stuff happens all the time, and it is just a matter of blaming it on the right people, making strategically placed "off-hand" comments, warning the public of how at risk we are to keep us afraid, and letting the media circus follow along and fill in the blanks and provide the entertainment.
Yes, i would agree that this represents a significant element in the dynamic,but i sense you may underestimate the capacity for self staged govt sponsored terror.i refer you to -operation northwood and - gulf of tonkin incident(please google)A thorough study of history reveals many more examples.....i refer you to dvd "Terrorstorm" - Alex Jones (google)

Alan Shore
08-09-2006, 12:18 AM
i want this thread to be devoted to the topic of "government", and its responsibilties, likely more of the western variety,considering the likely predominant demographic involved.However most of the general principles apply across the board.

As we here in australia,can safely be assumed as a subset of the USA (the current only superpower), it is logical to investigate the state of play in that particular sector, in order to establish the substance,mechanics,dynamics,and reality of that system,so to draw conclusions that pertain to our own predicament.


i ask you the following questions:-
1)to what extent do you trust a)the government, and b)the 2 party system?
2)do you believe govts act mostly on behalf of its constituents or corporate interests?
3)do you believe govts are the puppets or the puppeteers? ie. do you believe the real"buck stops here" with our govt or some greater authority(discounting god,for the sake of this argument)
4)to what extent do you believe the mainstream media is independant of govt policy?
5)why do leaders of countries,presidents,prime ministers, earn much less per year than leaders of corporations?...could it be that then they were more liable to "persuasion" from corp interests!?
6)do you ever question ,if there really is a significant difference in real position from either party?
7)do you intuitively sense, that govt, seems to act on interests that seem counter to you or your peers,and in your perception, of the majority?
8)do you think, it is possible that, given the ever increasing power of corporations, they could influence govt,producing results contrary to the overall good?
9)do you believe,given,power; corruption, is inevitable?

10)how far do you think govt corruption could go?
11)do you believe that any govt in history,has staged a faked "terrorist" event?
12)do you find the above question jarring in any way?
13)do you believe only "good" ppl can climb to the top in power?
14)do you think being "good" is a necessary trait in climbing to the top in power?
15)do you value logic in discerning your observed environment?
16)do you question your psychological conditioning?
17)do you think fox and cnn news offers us a fair and balanced view?
18)have you heard of operation northwoods or gulf of tonkin incident?
19)how ruthless do you believe corporations are in pursuing the bottom line?
20)what does" military industrial complex" ,mean to you?



if your answers are telling you something.........consider joining CACCG.


1. a) Bwahahaha.... I'd say about (Lim. x->infinite [1/x]). b) There is more solidarity and it presents people with a clear choice, so I approve of it over a multi-party system (a dictatorship can theoretically be the best form of government but unfortunately it can also be the worst).

2. There's a balance but ultimately the prime directive of any government is made up of economic concerns.

3. There are times when the buck should stop with the government and times when global concerns dictate changes (even so, little to no responsibility is ever taken at the top).

4. In Australia there is definitely more censorship when it comes to discussing government policies than say, the United States or some other Western European countries. Of course, we're not as bad as Zimbabwe just yet. ;)

5. They earn less but there is non-pecuniary element of having the power to make large-scale changes to policy, legislation and how the country operates. I think there will always be the need to appease corporate interests and lobbyists in the interest of securing votes but I wouldn't go as far to say it's done for specific personal monetary gain.

6. Sometimes there's not because there's only a choice between a generally beneficial or non-beneficial action - some votes both sides of the house agree upon - it does happen!

7. I don't think I'll go into any 'theories of persecution' haha, but the present government has certainly made some policy changes that disadvantage me and my peers (especially regarding universities).

8. They can and do. Yet it depends how you're defining 'overall good' in this case - economic utility perhaps? If so, then sure - a free trade agreement with the US is an example of hurting small businesses to develop a stronger economy yet there will always be disagreement on whether it is an 'overall good' as it is contingent upon where your loyalties lie.

9. Not univerally but certainly more often that not.

10. Straight to the top, baby. (Sure I'll jump on the conspiracy bandwagon for this question... for fun :D )

11. Perhaps but why would they need to control events when they can always control the information and perception of them? :hmm:

12. Not at all.

13. Oh absolutely! And I am the magical man from happy land who lives in a gumdrop house on Lollypop Lane! :rolleyes:

14. See above.

15. Of course you should value logic. You should however also be open to alternate interpretations.

16. Constantly - everyone should be continunally re-evaluating their outlooks.

17. Y..y.. n.. no. Fox is the worst.. CNN is ok but still not great.

18. No, what are those?

19. Fairly so - they act to achieve an ends and certainly don't operate on any kind of moral principles unless they're the ones that are being profitable.

20. Area 51 anyone? Or maybe where they house the WMD! Haha.. most likely just training facilities though.

Axiom
08-09-2006, 01:07 AM
In a series of nutshells:

1 a) slightly less far than I could kick it, b) ditto, but with a note that minor parties in Australia tend to be extremist and often worse than the majors.
a)heartening b) I ask you to consider why ONLY "extremist" parties present themselves and why they are "worse" than the majors?(I would ask you to consider the possiblity that there are mechanical over-riding reasons why this is the generally accepted reality)


2) both to a small degree but often others (see #8) so only a SMALL degree towards the constituents? im sure you'd agree then, it is by definition, a failed govt?
only a LITTLE towards corporations?


3) both YES, But in which direction will you commit ? :) ie.-where do you believe the ultimate buck stops?


4) apart from the extent of government censorship, relatively independent with some exceptions. The main thing the mainstream media are slaves to is sensationalism and the creation of conflict and change. i would argue,in the larger picture, the bigger MAIN THING ,is the media being SLAVES to the power-elite's agenda(see murdoch's relationship with current american power and current content vis a vis U.S govt policy)


5) a government paying really massive salaries to politicians would probably be voted out - voters will accept quite high salaries for pollies but not salaries comparable to top private sector.

im sure you see the absurd irony in this.......does it not by current society's idea of value,minimise greatly this role of such supposed importance?...or is it that they really are just the front men monkey puppets,of the REAL power,behind them,which in our construct,is money?...and do you concede that this would logically lead you to conclude that they are then more vulnerable to corrupt ways as a result of this disproportionaly low pay?


6) there are differences but they are too minor and will remain so until a real minor party challenge emerges.

what do you think has prevented the rise of such a REAL MINOR PARTY?


7) yes.

my guess is, that you are in the distinct majority there


8) sometimes. However, I think the power of corporations is overestimated compared to the power of other unelected elites such as religious leaders, shockjocks and environmentalists

again i return to the axiomatic principle of "follow the money",and would suggest that shock jocks are hired by corps,and are "allowed" by them....and yes i accept ,sadly, the pervasive effects of religion on our humanity, but religion has always been the lap dog of money, or at the very least ,part of a perverse synergetic relationship with money.........environmentalists are generally shaken off the boot of the multi national corporations......their few "wins" i would say have been exagarated by the media,distorting the true proportions,to mislead us into thinking they have more power,that they in fact do.



9) no, but almost so

ok, approaching infinity,asymptotically :)




10) these days it appears to be confined to fiddling around the edges of methods instituted to control it. Corruption is still very possible but one has to be sneakier about it.

fighting their control,could be seen as corrupting behaviour!(see current US govt treatment of their constitution)...........not sneakier,these days, its more institutionalised,almost expected,,because of the almighty bottom line,the god- of our realm. I contend the govts are the puppets ,ostensibly of the corporations/old money institutions-rothschilds.rockerfellers,bilderbergers,tri lateral commision etc
(i probably need to expand the definition of the real problem,but we need a focused target,and corps are the closest functioning end of the chain that we can most directly relate to)


11) probably, but not recently.

refer to "operation northwood","gulf of tonkin incident",...we'll get to more recent ones later.


12) no.

fair enough too! :)



13) I don't believe in orthodox good/evil as being straightforwardly beneficial/harmful. What is called good is often harmful, what is called evil is sometimes justified. However I believe that being highly moral in a simplistic sense (traditionally "good") is an obstacle to climbing to the top in politics.

yes,well said.


14) ditto.

ditto



15) highly.

of course! :)



16) I did my best to sleep through it. :D

hmmm, an interesting response,from a psycho-analytic point of view!. :)
.....i would hope you are at least now awake to a review of the psychological forces and dynamics that contribute greatly to ones viewpoints and way of thinking on any particular matter.....it is only through this sometimes uncomfortable journey, can one make more enlightened and multi-angled perception of any given "reality".


17) not.

correct


18) no.

please google



19) very - but not absolutely. Counter-examples include recent major acts of philanthropy by powerful corporation heads.

if you are referring to the recent Gates-Buffet donations,it seems it was mostly a swap of funds between them to mutually benefit re.taxation!....lets see how much of that money actually reaches its "target"


20) "the usa is a rogue state" (andrew eldritch).

..see Q19 !..this IS how ruthless they are !!



REPORT:-KEVIN BONHAM...........Firstly,thankyou for responding...........we here at the Deprogramming Unit at CACCG,consider that you show certain promise in achieving "FULL CLEAR STATE"(ie the highest state of enlightenment)...........There are some areas we will need to address however, but we have decided to welcome you as a cadet member...WELCOME ABOARD KB!

firegoat7
08-09-2006, 03:59 AM
Axiom,

You have way too much spare time on your hands.

cheers Fg7

Axiom
08-09-2006, 04:18 AM
Axiom,

You have way too much spare time on your hands.

cheers Fg7
"One can never have too much spare time on ones hands,when one's spare time ,are the hands that spare the folly of men" Axiom 2006 (c)

Kevin Bonham
08-09-2006, 11:52 AM
b) I ask you to consider why ONLY "extremist" parties present themselves and why they are "worse" than the majors?(I would ask you to consider the possiblity that there are mechanical over-riding reasons why this is the generally accepted reality)

My main theory on this is that Australian political discourse is impoverished and the main way Australians think about politics is what kind of illiberalism they support, not whether illiberalism is justified at all. Australians are stuck in a very simplistic left/right model and struggle to conceive of alternatives that are not simply more left, more right (etc).


so only a SMALL degree towards the constituents? im sure you'd agree then, it is by definition, a failed govt?
only a LITTLE towards corporations?

I think of government as being the net outcome of a great big list of influences of which the will of the people is one, corporate influence is one, various unelected elites contribute, the media contributes (etc). Each of these has a small say in the outcome. There are feedback loops between them so the will of the people is heavily conditioned by the media (for instance) but they in turn are conditioned, and those who condition them in turn are influenced, and so on. There is no doubt that in theory government could do far more to benefit the population in general, but solutions leading to this outcome aren't that easy to find.


YES, But in which direction will you commit ? :) ie.-where do you believe the ultimate buck stops?

The question of the ultimate location of "power" is an extremely complex and difficult one. I think it is the hardest question in political science and all trite answers to it are wrong. I don't think there is a source of ultimate power; I think all actors pull strings and in turn are pulled on by others.


i would argue,in the larger picture, the bigger MAIN THING ,is the media being SLAVES to the power-elite's agenda(see murdoch's relationship with current american power and current content vis a vis U.S govt policy)

True but other media will then expose such connections, either because the market drives them to do so for the sake of a story, or because when it doesn't all the lefty journalists get annoyed and go take over the ABC.


im sure you see the absurd irony in this.......does it not by current society's idea of value,minimise greatly this role of such supposed importance?...

No because "society" (in the sense of voters voting with one vote each) does not control executive salaries.


and do you concede that this would logically lead you to conclude that they are then more vulnerable to corrupt ways as a result of this disproportionaly low pay?

In that case I should be dozens of times more corrupt than politicians. :D I think political susceptibility to corruption has nothing to do with salaries and everything to do with the kind of donkey that gets attracted to the job in question.


what do you think has prevented the rise of such a REAL MINOR PARTY?

See above.


again i return to the axiomatic principle of "follow the money",and would suggest that shock jocks are hired by corps,and are "allowed" by them....

But shockjock style media in Aus is often anti-corportatist.

antichrist
08-10-2006, 03:36 PM
Axiom,

You have way too much spare time on your hands.

cheers Fg7

|Coming from the guy who has never been in a flame war in his life.

firegoat7
08-10-2006, 04:18 PM
|Coming from the guy who has never been in a flame war in his life.

Yeah I am losing sleep over that one AC.:owned: But, I find it completely ironic that Axiom believes in questioning corporations and government , yet cannot seemingly understand that the local affects the global. He/she wants "us" to examine the "big" picture, yet, whoever Axiom is, they certainly don't seem to question the politics of this place.i.e the "small" pictures. Would you stand "united with Axiom" in the trenches AC? We don't even know their real life name!

cheers Fg7