True Liaisons

[MagsJ (Surya Loka.. triumvirate)]

@Jakob

Was the lowly move of changing ‘off topic’ to ‘non-philosophical chat’ yours?

I already had the feeling some resentment was brewing among some of the moderators.

The awesome decision was mine, and for a good reason too - why are you seeing a negative act in one that was nothing but positive?

Resentment brewing amongst the moderators?

[Moreno]

@Jakob

There is one great question to my mind: assuming for a second that they are indeed a singular, coherent and centralized organization, which can only be an image to work with, are they controlled fundamentally by their own logics of the power of obscurity and suggestion, or are they driven by money? Of course the two can combine well, but if the former is the case it truly has a soul, and it can be theoretically healed. In the other case it is rather a question of reforming the corporations than the agencies.

You certainly have to change the context. (though any you reading this has very little chance of influencing things) Things like corporate personhood, revolving door between government oversight and what it oversees, centralized control of media by the same players and the growing gap between the rich and the poor with less and less in between, mean that the bad tendencies of intelligence agencies are nearly impossible to prevent or control. So any solution can really start anywhere in the web, but it is going to have to get everywhere, at least to some degree. I actually think it might be better to assume there is not potential for gooddness there, but outwardly act as if there is a chance. Outwardly being in whatever diplomacy takes place with the agencies, especially with the underlings. Aim a lot of PR at the staff and not at the heads of the agencies. Deal with the heads in full Machievellian mode. But appeals directly to the staffs in there is a chance mode. And treat whistleblowers well. Unlike Obama who has actually been worse than the other team even though they are supposed to be the fascist team.

But I have to say that a non-defined ‘we’ when planning what we should do in relation to X - a common way of communicating around political issues - seems delusional to me. If someone is saying this to a meeting of like-minded people with a budget of Y and a network of Z names who have shown some like minded interest, then the ‘we’ has some meaning and a way of actually answering ‘what should we do?’ comes into play. But otherwise it just makes no sense to me. And in this particular instance - not some local board of selectmen talking about skateboarders on the City Hall steps but about how to deal with intelligence agencies - this seems even more delusional. I don’t think whatever vague we is present can do anything nor can any discussion hope to clarify what we should do or how we should view the agencies. I understand this may be a philosophical thought experiment, but even then a more concrete context seems more worthwhile. Some of we do not care what the agencies do. Some of them do not think the problems are problems but good things. Some of we will never believe the problems exist. Some of we can only think in binary terms. I think the issue is better discussed in more concrete specific terms.

[Red_Skull]

It is no secret now that the CIA and Homeland Security control all the major news broadcast networks in the United States.

[Red_Skull]

@Jakob

All of them, love.
I give you the solution, somewhat, to the ‘evil’ I attributed to this problem, here:

It’s quite the same with the human body as with the humanity-body. Some functions, most in fact, you do not want or need to be conscious of, if they are functioning well. If they are functioning poorly, we become conscious of them. That is what is happening now with these state-organs. They need to be ‘healed’.
The important, the crucial matter is whether or not the system is in the right way functional, - that is to say, whether it stands in relevant service to the whole organism, and goes about it according to pertinent intelligence.

We are going through the creation of a new organ - the digital information organizing heart - and it’s not a matter of preventing its existence (as a kind of Skynet) but of containing it to its function. That function is however quite large. To go right to the heart of it, the mere existence of atomic warheads precludes all self-contained national orders. Defense must always be pre-emptive, anticipating.

The message, which is slightly complicated (only slightly) is that to trust them requires of them that they become trustworthy; but for them to become trustworthy requires that they are addressed as something potentially trustworthy. This in itself is almost impossible, and yet there is no future for mankind without intelligence services, unless someone can resolve that nuclear issue in another way.

The current government serves nobody other than the top 1% that are comprised of internationalists.

Only until a government that is created to represent the people will any of these problems ever be addressed. This is why the current government needs to be abolished to form a new one and if that can’t happen it needs to be thoroughly destroyed or cleansed off the face of the entire planet.

[Red_Skull]

@James S Saint

But then, why should the CIA tell a British political analyst/activist the names of it’s programs.
Hell, the FED won’t even tell the US Senate what it is doing.

The FED needs to be taken over by the government and exposed to the general public in all of its financial holdings.

Members of the FED need to be imprisoned for the damage they have done to greater society and some also need to be made an example of by public execution.