What is this all about

I have always had a deep interest in everything around me; life, the universe, & the way things operate. I have always stood up for what's right.

Over the past several years I have come across compelling information that MUST be known by the majority of the people & this is not conspiracy theory; There are documented facts.

Regarding what is right & wrong, where we stand,
and where governments stand:

Humanity has seen the degree to which we unfortunately must fight for freedom. Securing the future by standing up against the tyranny we see. Martial law could be declared next week or next year, so we must seek a better way to play this game right! We are not scared, we need not fear; Deception will soon be blinded by the light of truth. Don't be leery; none of this is theory, and it ought not have to be a newsflash that in this day and age, things clearly should be much better. Standing up to this tyranny before it's too late is in our best interests! It's high time to turn the page, & stop being slaves.

The general feeling has been that decisions made by governments are beyond our control with exception to voting, but we are now sufficiently mature as a culture to realize that taking real responsibility for our lives is of utmost importance as opposed to leaving it to one out of four candidates to then carry on with the same old corruption.

We can avoid further manipulation & destruction of the Earth & social structures within. This is an incredible time where the people, having the REAL power, can come together on a common cause, and utilize this power to maintain peace with the help of the internet to connect on these social issues.

Further good news is that it's not going to be difficult, but the time is literally now, otherwise it will be impossible to regain harmony and freedom in our lives.

There is a better way to live symbiotically, while maintaining the ecological systems that sustain & make life possible. We have this opportunity to avoid a world-police state by learning about the true dynamics & agendas of the governments and by re-creating our own natural order. -Free from corruption & laws devoid of any sense, for example; the Carbon tax. ...

The situation is obvious: We are living beyond our means against our will by mass-deception, because clean technology & certain information has been hidden from us, the public. If we continue to assume fossil fuels are our only option with a blind faith in this corrupt government, we will enter an age of "too late".

- Regarding both freedom & sustainability: The corporate-state complex has hindered our ability to think for ourselves & be responsible for our lives & communities, have made access to clean technology an impossibility through secrecy & discouraging mass production of solar panels for example, which would increase affordability. This is one of the greatest crimes against humanity! 

We really should all have solar panels hooked up by now, but when everyone all over the world can finally have access to these free-energy generators (that are functional & have been demonstrated) without having to pay for oil and centralized power grids we would have a blossoming of the world's economy & blossoming of abundance, not to mention a proper, sane civilization with higher hopes for the future.

It was claimed that even reducing pollution would harm the economy, but it's the opposite: We cannot afford to lose the priceless true wealth; life & the symbiotic relationship with the resources which could sustain us for millions or billions of years if properly utilized.

The money spent during one day at war would be sufficient to fund clean energy technologies around the world within less than a year. If Governments would truly be in favor of our well being, they would focus on that aspect would be a priority on their agenda, yet all we see is secrecy. -The plain truth is that it could be done in a short period of time! As long as we continue to follow, and have faith in the poorly determined path towards the dominator dictatorship of authoritarianism, arbitrary, illogical, tyrannical & destructive systems of governments based on over-simplifications, assumptions & unfair ways of life, we will continue to see our world literally melt before our eyes.

All of these issues affect us all & are maintained & accelerating by the way we are thinking and living. - Mainly, our herd mentality of following along with it all; not questioning this irrational way of living. We will break out of this, (like dropping a bad habit) if we all realize this common cause, we will do whatever needs to be done, because our 'leaders' are not leading us to a good place at all! They never have, never will. It's time for REAL change!

Important points compiled from literature

The following has been compiled from the book 'Connexity' 

The alternative to self-organization is collective sovereignty, and today it is through politics that we try to steer and protect our societies. But how good is politics at filling this role? ~Some time ago, a cartoon in a newspaper showed a small boy standing by the side of a road, holding his bicycle. Two of his friends were pedaling hard the other way and the boy called out: 'Wait for me, I'm your leader.' The cartoon captured much of the feel of politics. Politicians expect to be in control of their societies, with their hands on the levers of power and a dutiful public following behind but in practice all too often they have to run to keep up with the confusing pace of social change. Most in private feel powerless, hemmed in by aggressive media and uncompromising financial markets, and baffled by the swirling currents of public opinion.

But just as politicians feel powerless to do much to answer the pressing problems of crime or unemployment, so do many citizens feel equally dissatisfied: convinced that politics is self-serving, ineffective and remote from their concerns. Its culture seems distant from the basic principles of connexity transparency, responsibility and reciprocity - tending instead to be secretive and to treat citizens as children. The result is an uneasy relationship between citizens, politics and governments; an unhappy mutual distrust.

At its core, politics is the means for societies to determine their direction. We usually think of this as something very new. But in all of the Indo-European languages there is a root word which means the people brought together for deliberation. In Greek the word is demos, which meant both the people and, more specifically, the people gathered together to debate and decide.

In Latin the res publica (literally the 'public thing') was not the republic but rather that which is known by everyone and is deliberated in public. Each of these examples shows that the idea of collective deliberation and decision making has ancient roots.

Today we need collective deliberation to do things that cannot be done in any other way. One is to forge some agreement about society's ultimate goals - what we mean by well-being, and how we are to achieve it. -And how We will evolve more holistic tools to solve problems.

the true story of government in recent decades is not so much one of institutional adaptation as one of consistent underachievement. - Governments that set themselves the task of rolling back the frontiers of the state and raising the growth rate did neither. Governments which promised wars on drugs or crime ended up with more of the problems rather than less.

The result is a common unease about government, even amongst people who are predisposed to be favorable. The polis seems to be inherently in tension with the facts of connectedness. The polis is always at root about territory and jurisdiction, where the new connections and communities cross over. The polis is geographical whereas the risks to health, life, and security are not. The polis is sclerotic in an environment which requires the capacity to change rapidly. As a consequence political power has neither the tools nor the ability to achieve the goals set for it by the public.

The argument goes like this. Interdependence and freedom render government irrelevant interdependence because the systems are too big and complex for governments to manage, freedom because citizens no longer want a protector, a taxer or a lawmaker, and can purchase for themselves security, insurance, health and education in transnational systems of exchange. Governments therefore face a slow drift to obscurity.
The power of this argument is that it combines the 'is' of contemporary trends with the 'ought' of greater self-reliance. It is attractive because the story it tells is implicitly one in which people take on a wider set of moral and personal responsibilities. And it is an inclusive argument because so many different political traditions have imagined the end of the state in one form or another. In the nineteenth century every radical imagined that sooner or later the world would evolve into a series of self-governing communities (Marx and Engels wrote of the 'withering away of the state' that would leave it only with the task of the 'administration of things').
If there is a declining demand for its outputs then it matters little if it still has the technical capacity to deliver. The central argument made in opposition is that there is a critical mass of citizens, perhaps a majority, who no longer want or need government to provide them with the essentials of life, who can obtain for themselves the things that governments used to provide.

there is still one other plank to the argument that government is in secular decline, and that is the simpler claim that there is no comparative advantage for any region in having an institution with the capacity to adapt to threats and opportunities. Even if in the past it was essential for communities to have an effective government to protect them, in a world of free trade and open networks there might be no benefit in having a preeminent institution. Just as Costa Rica shows that nations no longer need to have an army, so perhaps is there no longer a need for a nation to have a government.

Clearly this argument does not apply to physical security. Very few can defend themselves against aggressors, or dial up a global security force to help them when they are mugged on the street (although the number of gated estates, with privately run security services, has steadily risen). Instead the argument focuses primarily on welfare and services, claiming that the conditions that supported mass demand for generous government provision have now disappeared.

many of the eighteenth-century utilitarian reformers tried to bring reason to government, and devised a range of new methods that would eliminate arbitrary decisions and apply a precise calculus of means and ends to the state's capacities as a system of command Interestingly, almost every single reform proposed by neoliberals in the I970's-9O's was prefigured by the utilitarians. They proposed introducing competition into government, separating purchase and provision, using incentives for payment, and the further professionalization of groups like doctors, police and social workers to respond to a set of clearly definable problems that in another era might have been seen as the responsibility of the individual or the community. When these ideas were put into practice they sometimes achieved more efficient outcomes, but none were democratic innovations. They were not ways of engaging the public in decisions, but rather of improving the efficiency of the system in carrying out goals set at the very top. Even when they worked they only proved Weber's point about bureaucracy - that it tends to drift towards neutral and abstract rules that eliminate emotion and judgment.

The states we have inherited reflect their origins.~The gentler ones ran society as harmonious machines, the more extreme ones ran them like armies: fascism with the use of uniforms, parades, and the glorification of violence, communism with the extension throughout civil life of command systems. All tried to protect the individual from the loneliness of big cities and industrial society by absorbing them into a much larger cohesive whole. ...In Measure for Measure Shakespeare wrote that 'it is excellent to have a giant's strength, but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant'.

Growth is taken to be a good in itself, even though to common sense it is clear that any society may want to grow some things and not other things. Capitalism was born out of an ethos, an ethos of work and sacrifice, but today it lacks even the means to think about what it is for.

The second weakness is that economic life is profoundly disconnected. Most of it is made up of transactions that are not repeated and relationships that are passing. Although some economies, and some economists, have actively encouraged continuing relationships, the dominant economic paradigm distrusts these either as embryonic cartels or as suboptimal arrangements that favor sentiment or habit over efficiency. The consequence is that there is less scope for understanding, or for the accumulation of trust, and a bias against continuing commitments that shows up in such absurdities..

This detachment, which is a virtue in any 'perfect' free market, also shapes the disconnection from places and lives. Money is the clearest example of all, and its footloose qualities have been amplified by networks. Electronic trading, for example, permits a Korean trader to sell a German stock in a Canadian company on an American exchange (with the money passing between a Luxembourg and a Swiss bank) in a transaction that no longer has any clearly defined place, let alone any close relationship to the production of goods or services. This disconnection could go even further if, as is likely, electronic monies are increasingly produced by firms and brands, rather than by governments responsible for national territories. Within a virtual market the real world truly is irrelevant, and the invisible hand becomes a blind hand, with no reason to take account of how it affects other people, or future generations. In this sense the typical modern economic organization reverses Kant's categorical imperative: everything and everyone external becomes solely a means rather than an end.

These two features, the blindness to ends and the disconnection from people and places, generate most of the odd pathologies of modern economies. The willingness of creditor nations to preside over large net flows of money from much poorer nations during the 80s was a perfect illustration of seeing contracts as paramount rather than taking any account of the ends of those being traded with. The widening divide between the people with so much work that they cannot enjoy life and the third of the world's working-age population that the International Labor Office reckons to be unemployed or underemployed demonstrates the incapacity of the system to think of itself as a whole, as does the odd pathology that even in the richest nations decades of economic growth show no signs of being translated into well-being or subjective happiness. We can summarize: the global economy that is the most elaborate of all human creations is experienced even by many of the people who benefit most from it not as a liberator but as something that is beyond control and conscious shaping.

How might we restore that sense of freedom and control and reconnect economic forms to desirable goals? The answer lies through organizations, since it is through them that we produce and trade - but organizations radically different from the insular hierarchies that still dominate much of the world's economy.

Every era has its characteristic forms of organization. We may like to think of ourselves as individuals with distinctive choices, tastes and idiosyncrasies, but in truth most of our choices are highly organized, and even mass-produced. The irony of an age which prides itself on its individualism is that most of contemporary life takes place within organizations: these shape how people act, even how they think.

Much of the modern world was framed by its new organizational rules, which rejected the old principles whereby monarchs and the church provided privileges and licenses for things to happen, so that rank and status were paramount and freedoms flowed from power. Modern organizational law is very different. It sets basic parameters within which organizations can operate more freely, and its founding aim was to take arbitrary caprice out of organizational life.

The idea of the bureaucratic organization was drawn directly from the military. The first factories were built by armies, and it was in military production that the principle of breaking each task into its component parts was first perfected. The very essence of an army, particularly before the advent of democracy, was that only the commanders could take part in decisions, only they needed to know the conditions of battle, and only they needed to know what broader purpose they contributed to.

If communication is richer and more ubiquitous, then it is natural that it does more than pass down commands or pass up results, but rather communicates emotions and desires too.

This is what an ethos provides. It provides a link between the daily tools, the structures and architectures of an organization and a higher goal. In the most successful organizations the ethos is crystal-clear, and cascades through the structure so that even on the front line individual workers understand precisely what mission they are part of. ...(to) provide such a clear sense of values and direction that each citizen can feel part of a 'we', with great and inspiring goals that bind them to millions of strangers in a common enterprise. In all of them the ethos brings simplicity to very complex systems without denying their complexity.

Knowledge can actually gain in value by being used, unlike material things which are used up. The tendencies exactly mirror the effects of connexity on politics and government, since they are in effect favoring a pooling of sovereignty over knowledge, as know-how leaks, is appropriated and reshaped, rather than the absolute sovereignty of classic ownership vested in one individual.

* The Internet is not owned by anyone, but makes use of leased lines to interconnect different public and private networks. There is no substantial physical body underlying the whole operation - which is why the term 'cyberspace' was coined to describe the virtual realm inhabited by net-surfers, and the popularity of this 'network of networks' derives from its distribution of intelligence and innovative capacity throughout the system. Innovations on the Net have generally come not from the center but from users and niche software companies around the edges: the World Wide Web, for instance, was invented by a computer scientist in Switzerland but the key technologies for using it were put together by a student in his early twenties.

From complexity and apparent chaos has emerged something like order, a useful system of knowledge and communication which grows at an exponential rate and which bears a distinctive ethos that favors openness, pooling of knowledge and reciprocity. Yet its performance has owed nothing to advertising or the assertion of corporate power; it has been the system's adaptability, the freedoms it gives users, which have given it its edge.

A casual observer of the modern media would be justified in believing that the world is falling apart. A tiny terrorist incident or a hurricane count for more than a dull committee on trading arrangements. Wars seem to be rampant, human misery unlimited, genocide the norm, and international bodies look like a cacophony of mutually deaf voices making demands. Yet the remarkable fact of the end of the twentieth century is the degree of global order, not disorder. It is this order that makes it possible to travel, to trade and to communicate far more widely than before.

Axelrod puts it well: 'in zero sum games you always try to hide your strategy but in nonzero sum games you might want to announce your strategy in public so the other players need to adapt to it.

The essential idea of this emerging order is that openness makes you more secure. If you decide sovereignty you can gain rather than losing. If you can create structures based on mutual interests and reciprocity you gain more than by asserting your might. In global historical terms this is an extraordinary achievement. It mirrors the logic of a post nuclear world, and a connected world, and reflects public values that have evolved beyond militarism.

Peace does not come solely from common interests, or from industrial integration, but it does come when common interests are amplified by confidence building, deliberate policies to increase trust, and the ethos of cooperation that flows from these. In the military field, joint exercises, the disclosure of confidential information and the sharing of technologies achieve this. In economics, revealing the rules that will be followed by a central bank or a government makes it easier for other governments and firms to run efficiently. In policing, the sharing of information increases mutual confidence that makes it easier to fight organized crime.

The same rules can apply in any part of the global order. One is the environmental order, which is peculiarly complex because the interests being protected, such as future generations or habitats, have no voice. But the shared ethical commitment to protecting the environment can translate into similar rules of common responsibility and inspection, for example of emissions into the air or seas.

Together these overlapping orders of military security, economic trade, environmental protection and information offer the hope that they will lock the world into peaceful conduct and that the costs of opting out of a single, connected system will become prohibitive. But this ethos of peace is not bound to prevail..

Secrecy and deception were legitimate, and the guiding principle was that my enemy's enemy is my Fiend, an ethic of distrust of others that sees all alliances as temporary and contingent. But the global order of connexity has almost the opposite character. Its remarkable nature is that it is almost fractal, in that the same principles and fonns that make sense in the smallest scale in connexity - transparency, ethos, responsibility, mutuality.

When someone once remarked to T.S. Eliot that we know far more than previous generations, he replied: 'Yes, but they are what we know.' In so far as their knowledge included answers to the question 'How should we live?' he was probably right..The ways in which we live together do change in every age. They are shaped by the prevailing technologies and institutions, by values and by weights of numbers and connections, and past insights are of only limited use. That is the justification for focusing on the structures and institutions, the social and economic orders, within which people live their lives, in the radically novel context of a more densely connected world. Even though the task of reconciling freedom and interdependence is not in itself new - everyone who becomes a parent, takes on a job or lives in a community lives with it - its form changes and its tensions are heightened, because the nature of that interdependence is so much more complex and so much denser than ever before.

As an answer to the question, I have suggested a framework for thinking about progress. Instead of seeing it as an accumulation of technical prowess or material goods, or an expansion of freedom, I have described it in terms of a transition that parallels the one that every individual life passes through, from dependence through independence to interdependence. Where the child passes from dependence on its parents and family, through adolescence to taking on new responsibilities and relationships of trust in adulthood, I have argued that societies are passing from the dependence on tradition and hierarchy, through the independence of liberal individualism, to the interdependence of connexity.

That progress can be seen in morality, which is so often presented as the best sign that our civilization is in retreat. The sheer range of moral argument today is so much richer than even a generation ago that it is hard not to see this as progress. Today we are aware of the moral issues that take place deep inside the family: abuse of children, or the suppressed life chances of women. We are aware of the moral needs of minorities, that were denied. We are aware that animals as well as humans have a place in moral argument, and that we owe them duties in so far as we use them for food or for pets. We are aware that the way work is organized shapes the moral climate of a society - if employers treat their staff as disposable commodities, if they work them so hard that they have no energy left for their children and lovers, then this cannot be considered as a matter of concern only to economists and shareholders.

But this richer moral argument has yet to be properly translated into how we do politics. The transition to forms of government fit for the twenty-first century has scarcely begun because power tends to lag, paying its respect more to older interests than to newer ones.

In philosophical terms the changes I have described can be understood as a process whereby the tension between freedom and dependence resolves itself through a change from quantities to qualities, from the quantities of freedoms and connections to a qualitative improvement in the nature of human relationships. But whatever the driving force behind it, this transition towards interdependence depends on a co evolution. ...

There is no shortage of barriers. Passivity and dependence are embedded in our culture and institutions. Television is a good example, since it still takes up more time than any other activities except working and sleeping. Despite the attempts of media analysts to promote the idea that television viewing is active, the mass of evidence on the educational and advertising effects of television shows that audiences have tended always to follow the path of least resistance, exercising surprisingly little choice and discrimination. In the long run the fact that spending on personal computers overtook spending on television sets for the first time in the USA in 1994 may indeed presage a shift to a more demanding, active and interactive culture, but that transition is set to be slow, and even if it is not, it seems likely to widen the gaps between what Manuel Castells calls 'the interacting and the interacted', those with the money and competences to shape their choices and communicate back, and those dependent on ready-packaged menus of products and services. (My note: A decent computer is very affordable now, about 100$ second hand).

In politics too, the fact that electoral systems still depend on parties offering programs (and still presenting themselves through primarily monologue forms like television) means that the transition to a more horizontal way of making decisions, with a greater sharing of responsibility between the state and citizens, is unlikely to happen rapidly. Nor are educational forms easy to transform. The day-to-day practices of classroom teaching have proven extraordinarily resistant to change. But in the long run there are signs of new principles becoming second nature, slowly embedded in mentalities and institutions: the principle that difference is something to be welcomed, not feared; that authority is unavoidable but that it must be always ready to answer for itself; the principle of mutual transparency as the basis for feeling secure; the principle that mutual, reciprocal relationships are always preferable to dependent ones. These are simple principles, even if complex in their implementation, and they go with the grain of human nature - one reason why there are grounds for optimism that they may spread.

The ends of centuries and millenniums lead many to be attracted to finality. We have been promised the end of history, geography, politics, and of the good. Erudite thinkers tell us why there is no possibility of progress or of common understanding. Nations and social groups in relative decline invariably project their own condition onto the world at large, and opt for a comfortable pessimism. What George Orwell called the 'pensioned oppositions' never have to worry too much about what they would do otherwise, and so can pass their time in peaceful negativity.

The optimists focus on the runaway qualities of knowledge and information that seem able to grow beyond the norms of material things, the rise of mutual understanding and capacities to communicate, the emergence of a global public space in which to debate questions of morality and survival. The pessimists stress the tendencies towards myopia, disconnection from responsibility, cultural imperialism, economic inequality, and the collapse of authentic cultures.

Most people choose on the basis of taste as much as reason, but given a choice, the advantages of choosing hope, of an optimism tempered by realism, are overwhelming. At a personal level hope releases all sorts of energies. What one psychologist defined in his study of hope as 'believing you have both the will and the way to accomplish your goals' turns out to be one of the keys to success in life.2 It is the best thing that an education can give to its pupils, the most valuable thing a family can give to its children, and the most useful virtue of political leadership. At a societal level, hope justifies itself because it creates the conditions for problems to be solved. Without hope no human groups stretch themselves to their limits and realize their full potential. This is why hope is functional rather than naive.

...But even if history is no longer providence it can still be infused with hope, and hope shared across the myriad of connections that now join our feelings, (desires) and fears to those of so many others. There may be no destiny, and no certainty, nothing determined, only choices and chances. But life is all the better for that, because that is what leaves the room for people to make their own history.

Earlier this century, E.M. Forster wrote that we should 'only connect'. The world has followed his injunction. Now all we have to do is to learn to live with the connections that we have made.

--- --- --- --- 

Legal Disclaimer: It is important to note that this is in no way an 'extremist' site, and there are absolutely no harmful or wrong actions suggested here. This Bill was recently passed in the U.S. to justify & legalize the arresting & breaking of arms of innocent protesters. Many actions of protests have been proven to be uneffective in actually causing the real change that is needed, but at least they shine a light on the dark issues we face. All we need to do is know what is REALLY going on, so have no fear in exploring this info. - We don't need to protest. - We need to assess our greatest assests! There are Millions of people on the internet, many thinking for themselves, & nothing can stop us now, except the control of the internet... We now have this oportunity to open our minds, our eyes, and realize.