ConservativelyRadical

Try waiting for the whole picture to be presented before jumping to your conclusions please, I am well aware that everything has to come from somewhere and someone. The only big difference in the end is that the wealth that flows into and around this nation will no longer primarily be in the pockets of a minority, but will be "trickled down" throughout society at a level that will actual benefit us all. @ Michael Hardner - yes the structure of the government involves radical changes and hence I wanted to get some input on the basic philosophy of it first, it's far too easy to dismiss the entire package without understanding what the primary objective(s) of the system is. Of course it's easy to dismiss the whole package even understanding the primary objective(s), such is the uncompromisable nature of political beliefs. Even those who like my ideas in general(yes, even a few highly educated people) admit that they, like all human beings, are naturally hostile to any new viewpoint presented to them and will seek to find any and every flaw in it in order to dismiss it, the 'big picture' be damned. EDIT: I have been told that I can't fight that nature, but I don't mind trying.

Seriously, the first sentence using a general analogy I admitted was "dumbed down" is your focus? (I shouldn't have removed the "to the politically uneducated" part I suppose) I asked for serious discussion and constructive criticism, I don't see much that fits the bill in your response, but then that is my fault. It's impossible for you to see right now the "big picture" and realize most of your arguments are null and void. The garden was a general example of the philosophy behind it of 'everyone who puts in and gets something out', nothing more. But regardless, in that case your example is also subject to large numbers of variables as I myself have tended relatively small gardens all by my lonesome and given away large portions of it without hurting my own supply(if I didn't give it away it would have rotted and been wasted). Yes some gardens do better than others, but comparing a personal garden run by people of questionable botanical/agricultural skill and knowledge to a group system whereby typically someone who actually knows what they are doing is in charge and you will always yield a decent output, unless God/Mother Nature or some human asshole intervenes. The input is far lesser than the output and that increases with the number of people involved(limited by space obviously though), thus it is possible to cover those who are not capable of chipping in their share, and even providing the bare minimum for survival to those capable but unwilling. Many community gardens exist in places like Detroit today with none of the bureaucracy you speak of - when everyone is directly involved they don't need to pay other people to manage other people managing other people and telling them how things are going with the garden and so on - one or two volunteers out of every few hundred participants and one central organizer is enough to organize things well enough. And believe it or not you only need to buy seeds once every few crop rotations if you are smart, after that quality of food may start to suffer though. And natural fertilizers are available all around us in abundance, though it may not be a pleasant matter to deal with... And although it sure makes life easier all those "garden implements" and tools are not necessary to getting the job done. But dealing with the real issues by addressing them in analogy form is retarded anyways. I do not favor a welfare-state myself so if the people decided as such we could possibly force those who do not want to contribute to society to become "Natural Citizens" and thus not be covered by society in any way, but that would probably make them hostile to our society and lead to security issues which I prefer to avoid. The economics are far more complicated than that community garden example, but still very simple in principle - The corporations/economy work for the people with the "government" providing management but The People having the ultimate power. The largest part of the bureaucracy is "The People's Trust" and "The People's Network" - the former is simply a national bank system in the form of a national credit union(every citizen has an equal share and vote in executive matters) that handles all banking needs and manages "The People's Treasury" for which all government funding is drawn. The Network is a series of online databases and "portals" where anything and everything government related is announced, discussed and debated and possibly even voted on publicly with full transparency and minimal activity on the part of most citizens(how hard is surfing the web and clicking and typing?). Both the Trust/Treasury and Network would require fairly large amounts of personnel to make it work(some possibly transferred from existing banks), but almost everything would be carried out under the "The Economic Bureau" as nationalized corporations with elected CEO's(Chief Elected Officers) and an executive cadre all subject to approval of the people(a simple discussion board type polling system would suffice possibly). Standardized salaries, a few Corporate Laws and their being subject to the whims of the people will ensure, in theory, that those CEO's and executives are always working for The People as a whole, and not for any private or foreign interests. Not all corporations would be nationalized though, only those that serve the "Public Interest" - those that do large-scale mega-corporation level business or are involved in natural(national) resources and that start the "trickle down" process in our economy. With all CEO's and executives being "public servants" on reasonable standardized government salaries a lot less money would end up in the pockets of a few big-wigs and more would "trickle down" and eventually reach the true backbone of any economy - the "small businesses". A portion of the nationalized corporation's profits would go into the Treasury to pay for government operations and some directly into the People's Trust where it is even distributed among the people, the rest goes to it's employee's. All the infrastructure is in place, or most of it anyways. If we tear everything down and start over from scratch then yes all the infrastructure needs to be built, but that would just be stupid. There is deconstruction involved in some areas in regards to the existing bureaucracy but mostly it simply involves adapting existing infrastructure and systems and not destroying them and starting all over. As for establishing trade agreements and all that - are you afraid of doing any actual work? I don't get it, why is getting people to do some work a problem when everyone is already used to that? No, actually that is backwards - in this system the government works for the people, the people don't pay taxes to or serve any government. The government only provides a bare minimum for survival to any citizen, it is up to every individual citizen to work and achieve more than that if they want to enjoy their life's and do more than just survive. By your logic no system in the world should exist because it takes work too much investment to get it going? The "it's too much work so why bother" excuse isn't an intelligent or constructive response, our entire world today is built on people doing "too much work". I admit I am not providing a very good "big picture" to grasp right now, but the "big picture" as I've said before isn't much different than what we have now as far as "lifestyles" or the core principles (work and you shall succeed) are concerned. But many of the changes needed to get from the "now" to the end product that isn't much different are very radical changes, and it is easier to break down the discussion so that there aren't too many "radical changes" together that would naturally scare people away.

First off Alex Jones and all those seeking primarily to make money for themselves are not interested in the honest truth, I doubt most of them have ever even heard of historical revisionism and base most of their own theories on rumors and pure conjecture, not facts. Some of what they say may be true or pretty close to true, but much of it is just invented to sell books and videos and such. But silencing those who speak out would only serve to give credibility to what are now largely viewed as nothing but conspiracy theories. If the majority believed them they would not be called conspiracy theories now. As long as they are considered conspiracy theories by the majority there is no reason to do anything that would lend credibility to the theories. Although in the case of Holocaust Revisionism specifically there are laws against it in most countries today and lots of revisionists have been imprisoned and forcefully silenced on that issue, for nothing more than trying to bring real fully authenticated and undeniable WWII documents to public attention in some cases. As I said before, free speech in this country and most others these days only applies as long as your words are deemed to be legal... As long as they are only spouting conspiracy theories they are easier to dismiss than to silence, but the powers that be have no fear in silencing them if they take one step too far and get too much attention. A simple press article picked up and spread by the Echo Chamber outing that conspiracy theorist as a possible terrorist sympathizer, pedophile, communist subversive, anarchist, Holocaust denier or whatever the flavor of the day label is will end any credibility that person had with the general masses, even if the claims end up being proven completely false in the end. Our entire society is based on perceived social status and very few people are going to follow someone who is relegated to the proverbial gutter of our society even if they know what they say is true - it goes against the natural ambition to succeed in life, it goes against going with the flow. People like Alex Jones only make so much money because they avoid the real issues and sell whatever the masses will buy into, they have some hits but far more misses when it comes to actual truth. Revisionists in general have lost far more money banking on the truth than they will ever make from their work because they truly care about finding the truth. Alex Jones and most of his ilk are just cashing in on public paranoia.

Aw, so that is the issue - the conspiracy theories supported by facts just won't die and keep being repeated, so that means they are obviously false, eh? You want me to make up some bullshit you haven't heard before in place of the dull but true facts you've heard so many times before? Or is it just that the "NWO conspiracies" strip your precious U.S.A of it's "super-power" status and mean the "Great Satan" is actually just a "Great Stooge" to some greater power(s), like every other nation on Earth is supposed to be for the U.S.A? Not surprisingly people like you completely and totally dismissing the facts as "conspiracy theories" as if that title automatically makes it untrue is quite common too. Could you be more original please? Maybe explain how the "Old World Order" of the British Empire days has not been replaced by a "New World Order" dominated by international banking syndicates, as is the basis for what the "NWO conspiracies" were originally born from? It is mainly American's who think it's all an "American plot" to take over the world, most of the rest of the world knows it's an international operation that the Americans are just a pawn in like everyone else. The fact Americans fail to realize their true powerlessness is what garners so much "ignorant American" sentimentality - Israel has more power over the U.S government than American citizens do these days(yes, even under Obama). Do you honestly think you have any real power? Do you have a corporate empire that has greater "representative power" than the Israel lobby, have all the dual Israeli-American citizens in the U.S Senate and Congress under your influence, and have a ton of money to bribe or offer "economic incentives" for persuasion? Because that is the minimum requirement for you as an American citizen to actually have any real power in your country. But yeah, the U.S.A rules the world!

Alright, well I honestly don't know how to start here as experience has taught me I usually get dismissed after the first paragraph or two regardless how I start it, so let me start by trying to give a succinct summary of what Mutualism stands for: Mutualism is simply the recognition that with 33+ million Canadians today with their own views NOBODY will be able to have the exact perfect system they want, they can only hope to compromise and find common-ground between the large majority to agree on and work together for. I'll post the introduction I have put together here first as it explains the main philosophical system behind it and leave the more detailed policy stuff for the "Mutualist Cooperative" structure later when I get it worked out a bit better. It may not seem like it given the name but it's is actually very nationalistic while still being "globalist" - but not "ultra-nationalistic". This whole thing is subject to constant change of course and I encourage constructive criticism fully, my ultimate goal is to try to come up with a radical new system that people from all political persuasions can support at least in principle - to do that I need people providing opinions from all perspectives on it. And this is a very rough draft "dumbed down" to a simple point by point format for easier reading, hopefully. It is a bit repetitive though now, lol. Also I am not referring to Proudhon's or anyone else's anarchistic economic views, though there are some aspects of this system that are similar. As for the general "government" structure for now I only say that there are 5 sections to it: The People The People’s Trust The People’s Network The Council & Chairman of The Council(essentially PM and Premiere's) The Economic Bureau(Corporate Leaders & Executives) As scary as that may sound it truly ends up with a system very similar to our current society in most of the significant ways, but with everything simplified as much as possible to reduce bureaucracy - it sounds like "big government" but since it is "streamlined" it would end up being a physically smaller government than we currently have, I can guarantee that. PS - I apologize for all the "The People" references, but honestly this system would mostly appeal to leftist leaning individuals and it makes sense to gear it toward them with some of the language. Especially since the Mutualist policy of "cultural harmony" that I will get to sometime soon goes against much of what every Liberal today believes in... compromise in personal belief's "for the greater good" is essential to Mutualism. That is the main deal breaker though for most people today unfortunately whether on the political Right or Left. Of course this system provides an option that covers "none of the above" with the ability to transfer your status to that of a "Natural Citizen" essentially "opting out" of the Mutualist society - but you dismiss society and you get none of the benefits it offers either beyond the right to remain here and retain ownership of anything and everything you legally possess - contractually agreeing to never do anything that poses a threat to the main society either of course. It offers an option for the truly independent people and all the anarchists out there anyways. But I'll get into that later, I'm interested in opinions on the general philosophy first off. Don't pull any punches but please try to be respectful.

Iran doesn't need ICBM's to hit Israel, and even if they did it would mean instant annihilation in response. They may be religious and angry but that doesn't mean they are ready to have their entire nation destroyed on a suicide mission pretty much guaranteed to failure. Even most of the Israeli's I debate(okay, mainly argue) with admit Iran is no real threat to Israel and any attempt to attack Israel would be suicide for them, but they push that angle simply because the masses over here in the "West"(mainly U.S.A) who have been "programmed" with the "National Security State" mentality are gullible enough to buy it - if for no other reason than that Mid-East politics is a very complex and confusing thing to wade into and it's easier to just accept the official views put forward by our government's and media than deal with the headaches of trying to understand all of the details of it ourselves. But when the U.S, Russia, Britain, China etc. are constantly flaunting all their weaponry, especially in that region, while at the same time telling Iran they can't develop their own similar technology of course that is just going to make them want that technology 10x more. Yeah, we're just building "launch vehicles" for satellites...wink, wink. Kind of like how Israel's large undeclared and thus illegal nuclear arsenal doesn't really exist... wink, wink. To go from typical geo-political cock-jockeying to nuclear Armageddon is a big stretch, even for the fanatics in Iran. The U.S.A is and was never to blame "for everything", it is just one of the main catalysts for establishing all of the necessary components to enact a "globalized agenda". Those behind it are from many different countries and hold allegiances to no country at all. Like the U.S.S.R once the U.S Empire's job has been completed the U.S Empire will be purposefully led to crumble in order to pave the way for the next phase - the North American Union. That already began quite a while ago actually according to some people's views, but we'll see what the next 2 years hold and go from there. Have you ever wondered why the Allies - both American and British - did nothing to stop the Soviets after WWII until after they had spread into the Mid-East and Asia and established themselves securely as a "global menace"? The Soviet philosophy regarding expansionism was well known long before WWII began, just look at the Soviet flag with it's communist hammer and sickle super-imposed over the entire globe for a good symbol of Soviet policy. The Soviet's reign of terror on their own people was also well known long before WWII, including the purposeful worsening of a drought through policies enacted by Lenin that killed over 10 million people simply because they were resistant to the Soviet doctrine. Not to mention the mass-murders and numerous atrocities involving far more gruesome acts, not the least of which being the Katyn Forest Massacre. The Americans and British knew exactly what the Soviet's were planning and they handed large portions of Europe, the Mid-East and Asia to them on a silver platter immediately following WWII when they had all the forces in place to stop them. Only when the Soviets had established themselves as a force that would allow 50 years or more of the U.S "National Security State" and perpetual war did the Americans and British decide to lift a finger to "combat" them. Have you ever wondered why Truman's "Point 4 Plan" to combat communism called for almost the exact same policies the communists themselves were pursuing, as outlined briefly by American Communist Party leader Earl Browder in "Tehran, Our Path in War and Peace"? Global communism was never the objective, and neither is or was capitalism - both are after the same thing, being financed by the same people. This isn't a "conspiracy theory", it is a theory about a conspiracy that is well documented. Of course that depends on whether you dismiss the well documented facts because the you don't like the messengers providing them. See "revisionism" as an example - the last debate I saw between a revisionist and a conventional historian was quite funny - the evil revisionist kept referring back to the thousands and thousands of actual WWII documents he'd spent his whole life criss-crossing the world to collect and study, while the "mainstream" historian kept referring to books written by other people that were mostly referenced from other books that were referenced from other books, etc. Say I have a document in my hand authored by Hitler himself - you have the opinion of a guy who reviewed the opinions of another guy after that guy reviewed the opinions of another guy and came to an "expert" conclusion based entirely on opinions and impossible to track back to any actual documentation. "Expert opinions" win over hard facts? Revisionists must be dismissed as "conspiracy theorists" entirely simply because they can't be intelligently debated when they have so many documented facts to support them against an establishment built on opinions and official propaganda. I once dismissed revisionists outright myself, but when I actually decided to review the revisionist material in detail I was amazed at just how easily everything over the past century fell right into place and made perfect sense. Not of all it is beyond reproach by any means, everyone is biased and that gets into their writings no matter how much they may try to avoid it and some do stray from the documentation on some issue and engage in a bit of conspiracy theories too. But why not review it for yourself before drawing conclusions on it? It won't kill you, in theory... but if you get into the Holocaust material your "ass is grass" here in Canada, free speech be damned if you speak illegally. The Institute for Historical Review has a vast database that is a good place to start: http://www.ihr.org/main/search.shtml "Obama's plan for Palestine" is not really Obama's plan, just as Truman's "Point 4 Plan" wasn't really Truman's plan, or Earl Browders for that matter. I'd be willing to bet that within 2 years(possibly the next 6-9 months) we will see the expansion of Israel's borders(while acting in "self defense" no doubt) to establish "Greater Israel" as a direct result of "Obama's plan for Palestine". Is that the same plan that now see's American and Israeli supported "citizen groups" in Egypt that had no involvement in the initiation of the Revolution(they on the side being revolted against) but thanks to the media there are now pulling a new "Bolsheviki shuffle" and establishing themselves as the main "peoples movement" to take control and completely undo that revolution's achievements in ousting the foreign control? The Egyptians started the revolution, but it has been hijacked by outsiders once again. Typical, but of course just a conspiracy theory. Anyways, dismiss away...

I didn't dodge his question, I provided 3 possibilities for what I may be and one of those was mostly true(the age is a bit off). My response got convoluted and maybe the point was lost, but I simply meant to ask him why it matters to him personally what my educational background or credentials are? I thought I was on a public discussion forum, not at an inquisition where only an "expert" may testify before the court... I live in Canada and am directly affected by political issues pertaining to Canada as such, thus I have the right to an opinion on political matters that affect me directly regardless of whether you or anyone else likes my "credentials" or agrees with my opinions. If you don't agree with me that is fine, but at least find out enough about what my idea's are in full so you actually know what you are disagreeing with me over. My education is "questionable" by professional standards no doubt, if that is reason enough to dismiss me entirely then that is each individual's choice, though I do think it is ironic that such dogmatic mannerisms are clearly anti-intellectual and typically the symbol of ignorance, not "education". Anyways, that's enough on that here, I have to go for a few hours but when I get back I'll get a thread started to discuss some of this in a proper location.

Same Federation, just different numbskulls running different ships(into the ground). I think the thing to note from a political perspective is that there is only one (global) Federation, with different "ships" and "crews" all working for shadowy "elites" that rarely are seen or heard of/from but command unlimited and unchallenged authority while they all work for common interests that suit primarily those "elites" who are warm and cozy and safe back in their posh Federation HQ and Party palace. On a side note though, I must admit Obama looks good there, he looks like he belongs in that chair... Now where's the Borg/'Islamic Death Cult' when you need them?

This is the truth, I must apologize for getting off topic here. I just wanted to lay out some basic "Mutualist" principles that had some bearing on constitutional and governmental reform and see if there was interest to start a separate discussion on it in general, but obviously things got carried away. I will start a separate thread as originally intended within a few days to discuss that, I want to get what I have drafted on it organized a bit better first to make it easier to read and address. But the other points I threw into the mix with all that off-topic stuff about how all the options from moderate to extreme should be considered and reviewed fully before any conclusions are drawn does absolutely have bearing on this discussion. No matter what happens I do personally consider the fact most Canadians are willing to at least consider changing things today in a serious manner to be a positive sign, even if it ends up falling flat in the end. I am one of those people that likes to push for constant advancement or "evolution" of political ideology and philosophy, the people who say our system is "good enough" as it is so there is no need to change things are no different than people who say "black and white T.V was good enough, why advance things?", or "the Ford Model-T got people where they needed to go so it was good enough, why advance things?". A hole in the ground was "good enough", why did we need to invent the modern toilet? To strive for constant advancement in almost every realm and then turn around and look at a political system that clearly has big issues, that serves the interests of a minority first and foremost, that many if not most Canadians are not satisfied with and say "it's good enough, why would we want to change it?" is just plain stupid to me. I honestly don't understand it. Even if that change ends up being minor this opportunity gives us a chance to at least slightly improve at least one aspect of the system that the majority are not satisfied with, we should embrace that and make sure we do it right.

No offense, but if that is your viewpoint I don't really care for your opinions on it too much. I'm not providing a lecture or an academic paper for a peer-reviewed service on socioeconomic's, macro/microeconomics or human resource management based on existing geopolitical frameworks or anything like that, this a philosophy issue more than anything else. The Mutualist system is basically a political paradigm, an amalgamation of numerous other systems combining what I personally consider to be some of the best aspects of those systems, while ignoring the worse aspects. There is little that a standard education could assist with on this matter beyond basic understanding of economics and sociology and such, interpreting a completely new paradigm based on parameters set by one or more existing paradigms when those systems themselves would be subject to a "paradigm shift" is a heavily flawed way of doing things that does not give the new paradigm a "fair shake". I could be a 70 year old professor of Political Sciences at a prestigious college or university, I could be a 30 year old high-school drop out who decided he didn't like his education interfering with his learning(to steal a line from Einstein), or I could be 18 and live in a box down the street after flunking out of elementary school and failing at everything my whole life. My status and/or credentials are irrelevant to this matter as also are yours, every person living in Canada and who is affected by the politics here has a valid opinion that should be heard in full no matter how you or I personally feel about it. Maybe they have one really good idea that could really help society and that everyone of all political creeds would greatly support mixed in with a bunch of really stupid ideas, but in dismissing them all as stupid and not giving them any intelligent review at all nobody will ever know about that great idea that could help us so much. Unless the general public are complete imbeciles they should be able to recognize really bad ideas using nothing but commonsense, but if that fails those with the intelligence to understand the problems can use the media and internet and what have you to reach out and educate the general public on the matter. Generally you don't need to protect people from stupidity, as long as you aren't encouraging it. If that fails, we find a smarter country to move to... I hear the Norwegians offer a fairly intelligent and open society. Anyways, I have no doubt you will disagree with about 90% or more of what my "Mutualist Manifesto" suggests, but I do have some "alternate" more moderate ideas to go along with it for corporate reform, monetary reform and legal reform that have invoked a positive reaction(to varying degrees, with many offering their own suggestions as well - which I fully welcome) from almost everyone I have discussed it with regardless of their political orientation, credentials or social status. Often in politics an expert opinion is worth less than an amateurish one, because the "expert" has been "taught" to think in a certain way that excludes many legitimate possibilities from the get-go. One of the ways the "existing social and political order"(to quote the U.S D.H.S) maintains it's "order" is through the use of the Delphi Technique, which is essentially a system whereby "expert opinions" are used to establish "accepted facts" of the "consensus community" in order to manipulate group dynamics to create supposed "one-mindedness" in a manner similar to the old Hegelian 3 body system of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Some info on Delphi - http://www.rand.org/international_programs/pardee/pubs/futures_method/delphi.html For the U.S.A political system for example the thesis would be "right wing Americanism", the antithesis would be "left wing Americanism", and the synthesis is "Americanism". Americanism is determined by "expert opinions" and the media representation of it and those experts, as long as your views fall within the accepted boundaries of "Americanism" you can be left wing or right wing and your opinion matters. But if your views fall outside those accepted boundaries of "Americanism" you are a traitor, un-American, your opinion is worthless and there is no reason to listen to you. It creates "false one-mindedness" only as in reality anyone that doesn't accept that "one mind" just gets ejected from the society completely and "doesn't count". Regardless of any credentials or social status or "wisdom gleaned through age" that I may or may not be in physical or intellectual possession of I personally and my political views absolutely 100% fall outside of the accepted Canadian "one-mindedness", and as such as I said before I have no delusions of any changes as such becoming reality in the near future. My goal right now is to work with people of all political persuasions, social statuses, levels of educations and what have you to develop a theoretical system that can best meet everyone's needs and desires, without becoming a massive, tangled mess of bureaucracy. Direct democracy is the only way to cut down on the bureaucratic horse shit while still maintaining a true democracy, but again there needs to be a combination of systems in order for it to work properly. Regardless most people do agree some kind of reform is in order, and reviewing all the options from moderate to extreme is the smart thing to do. Maybe a compromise between aspects of an extreme reform and aspects of a more moderate one can be attained that will satisfy everyone, which again if we don't review all the options we may never know. PS - I apologize for any grammatical errors or if I made any blatantly stupid errors of any kind, I'm a bit tired and splitting my focus on a few things right now.

I could post an approximately 4,000 word far from complete rough draft I only recently began working on, but would you really read it? Honestly? I didn't think so... Besides, it is far from done and is fractured right now as I am more concerned with getting the ideas laid out rather than ordering or organizing them in a "flowing" format that is easily readable. If I posted it in that condition 99% of the arguments would be nitpicking over that irrelevant crap and ignoring the actual important stuff, and I would prefer to at least have it more than half-way completed in rough draft form before publicizing it in any way. But it gives a general idea anyways, with some of the details worked out generally speaking - but the involvement of direct democracy means it is subject to a lot of "as the people decide". I could post it in the philosophy section if you really are honestly going to read it all the way through and try to understand and provide constructive criticism on it.

That's your opinion and that is fine, but I think people like you are quite blind to what is obvious to anyone who has interest in actually researching political history over the past 100 years or so in any kind of depth(beyond just what the official history text books say). I would suggest reading a book entitled "Tehran, Our Path in War and Peace" written by Earl Browder, then one of the leaders of the Communist Party of America. Then read the transcripts from President Truman's first inauguration speech a few years later, specifically his "Point 4 Plan" to "save the world from Communism". A plan that was followed in some form or other by every President that followed him, Conservative or Liberal. As Douglas Reed eloquently put it: The plan to save the world from communism is the exact same plan the communists wanted to use to build a socialist global empire? If you want to establish a socialistic globalized "New World Order" that everyone would naturally be opposed to what better way than to claim you are doing it to combat socialism and have everyone embrace it instead of fighting it. Although referring mainly to Africa... Welcome to the age of the "New Imperialism", the "Old World Order" of the British Empire is long dead and the monarchists and national banking cabals have been replaced by an international banking cabal that achieved more than the old monarchists ever could have dreamed of in a very short period of time(Boer War - 1899 till now). Today the United Nations is funneling money from the developed world into Africa and other underdeveloped places, supported by virtually every government and every party within those governments around the world. The U.N force behind all of it's social and economic policies is the U.N Economic and Social Council(ECOSOC), which is made up of smaller commissions from around the world - the most powerful of those being the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia(ESCWA). http://www.escwa.un.org/ http://www.un.org/en/ecosoc/index.shtml In depth research will reveal that the ESCWA, like all ECOSOC commissions is a privately registered corporation, in the financial services(banking) industry, controlled by the 'same old' international bankers so familiar to "conspiracy theorists". When you understand how the bankers use huge loans to enslave 3rd world countries and how the U.N is funneling money into Africa and other 3rd countries that were already enslaved to pay off the huge debts owed to the very people running the U.N, then you will see why I am opposed to "them". Our government, regardless of party affiliations fully and totally supports this policy. So they are now using other people's taxpayer money to pay off those 3rd world country's debts to them, but in actuality in most cases that money barely covers the interest on the debts owed so the countries remain enslaved but a small minority gets very rich assisting the bankers and corporations in exploiting that country as much as possible for profit. It's the interest that always gets you. "Them" may not be evil, but their plans are not in the interests of the majority of people, either here in Canada or in the entire world. In 1917 the Russians were tricked by turning one single group into 2 separate public identities - the Bolsheviks and the Mishneviks, which literally meant majority(bigger or larger) and minority. Neither the Bolsheviks nor the Mishneviks represented the Russian majority's interests, they represented the interests of only about 5% of the population - but using the press/media that they controlled they "focused" the people's attention in a way that led to the belief that only 2 groups represented the common Russian man against the imperialist Romanov royal family - the Bolsheviks and the Mishneviks, the former being in favor of radical, violent change the later more slow and "moderate" change - but both with the same end goals. The Bolshevik's won out after annihilating the Romanov's using foreign assassins and they the media spun their tales and the Russian people thought they had a "majority revolution", but it only was a revolution for a majority of members of a small minority section of the Russian society. A majority of 5% of the population is not a majority of the people, just a majority of the plutocrats. Sound familiar? Today we have a corporate media which represents the interests of a small minority above all else, but everyone thinks we're all represented equally even if we don't completely trust the corporate media. Nothing has changed, the PR has just gotten better over the years. Conspiracy theories aside, "they" are "international money" which does not have the Canadian people's national interests in mind, and "they" are bankrolling almost all of the political parties, think tanks and NGO's here just like everywhere else. You may not have a problem with that, but some of us do.

That is not direct democracy, that is a perverted Frankenstein produced because of the conflict between the Californian people and the Federal Government that keeps making it extremely difficult to do what they actually want to do. Using a state that is contained within a larger Federal entity that places great limitations on the actual democratic powers in use and specifically works against those democratic decisions does not serve as a good example of why a national system involving some form of direct democracy would not work. Trying to change a single piece of a big puzzle is a difficult task, changing the big puzzle is far simpler. More importantly, there are literally hundreds of different ways a system including direct democracy can work, using a single example of a certain type of existing system that likely would have no bearing on a direct democracy system created here according to our own needs and desires doesn't prove every system involving direct democracy is doomed to failure. Do you think that every possible system that could exist has already been thought of and we shouldn't strive to improve or develop new systems even though the majority of people clearly aren't happy with the existing ones?

That is an unfair reactionary and likely untrue statement, the large majority of "communists"/socialists I have come across personally here in Canada are over 60 years old and are mostly consumed with thinking about the good old Hippy days, the large majority of 19-20 year old's I know are running around waving their Canadian flags in ultra-nationalist furor in complete contradiction to the fact the people they support are ultimately seeking to destroy our national identity in the name of a global "universalism". The NDP is as much a part of that as the Liberals and CPC, but at least they know they are part of it for the most part. My own Mutualist philosophy is very much nationalistic while still being very much socialistic - there are no free rides, you work and therefore you succeed. There are even different classes, though laws would ensure a maximum "salary gap" between the highest and lowest classes to prevent monopolization of wealth. The end result would satisfy most "welfare state" advocates while still providing more or less the same capitalist corporatocracy we are so used too now, only with the current power-balance reversed and with it being profitable for the entire society instead of a small minority within it. But people these days don't care to understand the systems that they don't already know and support, they just dismiss them with the common buzzwords of "communist", "fascist", etc. which gives them all the excuses they need to not take the time to intelligently review them.

Haha, yeah the distractions that pretty much our entire modern society is built on are well known to me, and they are serious obstacles to overcome. Though not if the corporations running most of those distractions were taken over by the people and forced to stop distracting people. But that too would be very tricky, but nothing is impossible. Regardless, I have no delusions of any serious change occurring in the near future given the currently intellectually docile nature of the Canadian people today, not to mention most of the rest of the world. But I enjoy the "what if" discussions and considering what could be possible if the rest of the people weren't so distracted from what is truly important. But we do have an opportunity for change here, and to say "it's not possible, don't bother trying" is just letting "them" win. I prefer to win but if I have to lose I at least like to go down with a good fight, maybe I can only weaken "them" a little bit but then maybe someone else can come along after me and do more damage, and eventually someone else can finish the job. Anything is possible, but not if you don't even try. It would be a lot easier if I was female and had big tits though I must admit... or at least if I wasn't an unattractive fat-ass man that could appeal to the women, haha. We just need some costumes and make-up and CGI to make us seem really hot and sexy and then we talk about stupid stuff on TV and get a huge cult following and then we slowly convert into intelligent conversations and trick them into smartening up without them realizing it... Hey, crazier things have happened... on "reality T.V", and they always attract big audiences.