This post collates all of the chapters in Section THREE of my book, How to Dismantle an Empire. It shows the global scope of the scam to usurp ownership of homes, cities and nature itself.
My youngest daughter, who was living with me at the time, told me about it and we watched it together. I thought it was one of the most poignant and brilliant things I'd ever seen. It goes from hilarious to tragi-comic.
My daughter especially related because, at one time, she thought that all she wanted was time to spend on the internet--generally learning new things and chatting with people from around the world. Then she got all the time in the world to do just that. And had to come to terms with what that really meant.
So awesome! My oldest son found him, then we got addicted and amazed by the wits and talent of robert. So i found all the shows, we had a whole week end of fun. After i did research found is tv series, the movie, is interview. In fact i listen to my favorite song are you happy on a scale of 1 to 0 every day! Love the man. Here if you havent seen it ill link my article. Hope you love the idea of a boxing rumble.
Putting Bo Burnham up against Tim Minchin, another of my favorite people! This post is too good, Jean-Sebastien! It will give me a reason to use that Netflix account I haven't clicked on in a year.
Can't wait to dig into this jousting match of rapier wit and wide-eyed wonder. Thank you so much!
wow! coming from you it really melts my heart! i am just an amateur writer so please be sparefull on the typos and such. Hope you can read french cause i jump from one to antother all time. And for sure i'd like to hear what you think of who i crowned the winner. I'd really love your take on it.
Hello, Jean-Sebastien. I'll reply here with some early impressions and copy my reply onto your post. In a way, I feel like this discussion belongs in the comment thread of Shantaram because the question is the same. There I was asking if the beauty of someone's language makes their point right. In this case, it's the same. Does the wit and delicious humor of Bo Burnham or Tim Minchin make one more right compared to the other, or to someone else without their facility with words?
Here's where I think they agree: we are all being manipulated by media. Tim's Confirmation Bias is masterful and Bo's Welcome to the Internet is heartfelt and chilling. They may have both done songs on being deep, but Bo does genuine and unhinged like no one else. His vulnerability in Inside is unmatched.
However, they both then use the media tricks, particularly Tim, to 'sell' their points. The clever internal rhymes, the rhythm, what are these but jingles? Bo exposes more of the method. Tim--with his sotto voce asides--brings you into his worldview seductively.
In Storm, Tim is setting up a straw (wo)man argument. His point is that alternative medicines don't work and pharma has your best interests at heart. Trust the science. Spirituality is for the birds or girls with tattoos of them.
In Spirituality, Bo is really talking about religion and churches. They both ridicule anti-vaxxers and choose the most extreme examples.
They both are speaking to liberal progressive audiences, in which they count themselves. Tim, like Carlin, shows the contradictions in religion but offers no alternative except a WYSIWYG world--what you see is what you got. Bo is looking for something but seems ready to settle for a quiet space and nice people who don't exclude gays and trans.
Tim is as dogmatic as any theist in his belief in the world. He argues, in Confirmation Bias, for more tolerance by progressives of other progressives, and hopes to change the mind of the random conservative who wandered in. He opines brilliantly about the difficulty of changing one's mind, but does he apply that to himself? Not by any example he gave.
I haven't watched the longer, full shows but I never realized that Bo directed Eighth Grade! I saw that in the theatre and it made a big impact on me, especially because of my youngest, most internet-addicted daughter. It gave me a lot more empathy about the insecurity of the world they're in and the ways that an online life can make that both better and worse.
Both Bo and Tim are, without a doubt, as brilliant as it gets, with honesty and minds they can't turn off--a blessing and a curse. I'm in awe of them both, which makes it harder to disagree with them.
Ha, my friend Ernest just complimented me for the 'culture-jamming' on sado-monetarism. But that was Conn Hallinan's coinage, a journalist for Foreign Policy in Focus, so I can't take credit.
And I posted this back to you on our Petrodactyl thread:
"You see a socialist economic model as the solution, in which distribution is need-based. I'm a small scale sovereigntist and my caret distribution is equal, so that it's anarchist--pushing decision-making to the smallest level of community, whether that's the individual or the family. You favor a centralized model while mine is federal, lower-case, with the function of the larger units to protect the sovereignty of their members. Does that describe our difference in approach, do you think?"
And you replied, to bring this important conversation over here:
>> Socialist has a very elastic meaning, I will try to clarify.
I have a company that builds machinery, I have apartments I rent, my friends have their own small factories and farms.. we are all small scale entrepreneurs, nothing wrong with that. However basic services should be government owned: Banks, stock exchanges, insurance companies, public transport including, rail, buses, highways, airports etc. (Not taxis and small busses etc.) Education and healthcare should be made available for all for free. Not everyone to his needs, this doesn't work. But every kid should have a fair chance for success in life irrespective of his family's wealth.
Quote: "You favor a centralized model while mine is federal, lower-case, with the function of the larger units to protect the sovereignty of their members."
>> Yes I favor a strong centralized model for 2 reasons:
1. Because it can pool big resources needed for development as in China, Russia, Japan, Germany, Italy etc.
2. Essential for sovereignty. When colonialists broke up the levant into mini states, none of them was able to develop sufficiently to become sovereign, that's why they have remained colonies for over 100 years now.
You and I share an understanding of the problems, more than anyone else I know, and we share the same goals. I think it's important for me to continue representing how small scale sovereignty would address these issues on a detailed, point-by-point basis. Your centralized model is the only one in existence for the last 250 yrs, and has many arguing for different models within it. As far as I can tell, that's the only argument happening.
There are those who argue for leaving the system as it is but individuals making different choices--local currencies, communitarians, voluntarians fall into that category. And others want no system of self-governance but just individuals doing whatever they want--which I think gives the power to global technocracies with no community protecting us.
No one that I'm aware of is representing an alternative, supplemental, decentralized system that gives the power to make the rules to communities and families. So if I were to concede your points, the only voice for this would be gone. While you can point to results, good or bad, my experiment hasn't been tried for 250 yrs. So I don't think we want to agree on a conclusion--only on a purpose and a process.
Quote: "You and I share an understanding of the problems.. and we share the same goals"
>> Yep!
Quote: "No one that I'm aware of is representing an alternative, supplemental, decentralized system that gives the power to make the rules to communities and families."
>> From simple experience I know how difficult it is to organize simple things even for a very small group of people. Such as when setting a date and venue for a bikers beer night. Or say tenants in an apartment block agreeing on improvements to the building. That's why I doubt that bigger groups such as families or communities can agree on a variety of important issues.
The first company I set up, all partners had minor shares, it was a nightmare to manage. The second company, I had 95%, the third started 95% then my partner wanted a bigger share, so I dropped mine to 70%.
Quote: "my experiment hasn't been tried for 250 yrs."
>> Definitely don't drop it. Always good to try something new, that's the only way to develop new ideas.
Quote: "I don't think we want to agree on a conclusion--only on a purpose and a process."
>> Definitely! Discussions and brain storming helps us learn and hone our ideas
Thank you for that, Fadi! And to continue to represent my system in terms of agreeing on important issues:
The only need for agreement would be on community projects. Of a hypothetical ^500 monthly distribution, ^100 would be for community projects: ^40 at the neighborhood level, ^30 for the hamlet, ^20 for the village and ^10 for the commonwealth. This money can't be spent in any other way, it's really like a vote. In addition, I think I'd have the commonwealth match anything that commoners put into community projects over and above the dividend.
So instead of deciding what they want and then figuring out how to get the money, they start out with the money to do something and if they don't decide on what, it just adds up to more money later. It seems like the happiest of all reasons to come together. And I don't think I'd allow dividends to be committed beyond a year. So if your project doesn't make it that year, there's always the next.
I like the way you are building your system from scratch. Your courage is much greater than mine. Could be my engineering background makes me evaluate existing systems and choose from them, rather than invent from scratch.
The video Julius sent provides the best explanation of what is in mind as a starting point for good governance system.
In my reply to Julius, I suggested that you visit China for a month or more as research for the second edition. I think it is a worthwhile endeavor, so I am willing contribute to expenses of your trip.
Ideally research should include the 3 civilizational states I am aware of Russia, Iran and China. There could be others that I am not aware about.
Another word for courage might be intrepid. I can't imagine anyone consulting me when they decide how to govern 1B people. The limit of my imagination is figuring out what could solve the problems of the two places I know best--Santa Cruz and Cumberland.
https://youtu.be/1ws33f6qys4?si=nJw9ToOhxrhHVN-a
🤣😂😅🥲😁🎁💎
Bo Burnham is so funny! Did you see his lockdown video called Inside? https://letterboxd.com/film/bo-burnham-inside/
My youngest daughter, who was living with me at the time, told me about it and we watched it together. I thought it was one of the most poignant and brilliant things I'd ever seen. It goes from hilarious to tragi-comic.
My daughter especially related because, at one time, she thought that all she wanted was time to spend on the internet--generally learning new things and chatting with people from around the world. Then she got all the time in the world to do just that. And had to come to terms with what that really meant.
Bo does a very nuanced perspective on it.
So awesome! My oldest son found him, then we got addicted and amazed by the wits and talent of robert. So i found all the shows, we had a whole week end of fun. After i did research found is tv series, the movie, is interview. In fact i listen to my favorite song are you happy on a scale of 1 to 0 every day! Love the man. Here if you havent seen it ill link my article. Hope you love the idea of a boxing rumble.
https://substack.com/@varietyquebecoise/note/p-148862737?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=1d5a8f
Welcome to the internet! That must be your girl favorite one hehe
Putting Bo Burnham up against Tim Minchin, another of my favorite people! This post is too good, Jean-Sebastien! It will give me a reason to use that Netflix account I haven't clicked on in a year.
Can't wait to dig into this jousting match of rapier wit and wide-eyed wonder. Thank you so much!
wow! coming from you it really melts my heart! i am just an amateur writer so please be sparefull on the typos and such. Hope you can read french cause i jump from one to antother all time. And for sure i'd like to hear what you think of who i crowned the winner. I'd really love your take on it.
It may take me awhile to watch all of these, but it will be time well spent!
Hello, Jean-Sebastien. I'll reply here with some early impressions and copy my reply onto your post. In a way, I feel like this discussion belongs in the comment thread of Shantaram because the question is the same. There I was asking if the beauty of someone's language makes their point right. In this case, it's the same. Does the wit and delicious humor of Bo Burnham or Tim Minchin make one more right compared to the other, or to someone else without their facility with words?
Here's where I think they agree: we are all being manipulated by media. Tim's Confirmation Bias is masterful and Bo's Welcome to the Internet is heartfelt and chilling. They may have both done songs on being deep, but Bo does genuine and unhinged like no one else. His vulnerability in Inside is unmatched.
However, they both then use the media tricks, particularly Tim, to 'sell' their points. The clever internal rhymes, the rhythm, what are these but jingles? Bo exposes more of the method. Tim--with his sotto voce asides--brings you into his worldview seductively.
In Storm, Tim is setting up a straw (wo)man argument. His point is that alternative medicines don't work and pharma has your best interests at heart. Trust the science. Spirituality is for the birds or girls with tattoos of them.
In Spirituality, Bo is really talking about religion and churches. They both ridicule anti-vaxxers and choose the most extreme examples.
They both are speaking to liberal progressive audiences, in which they count themselves. Tim, like Carlin, shows the contradictions in religion but offers no alternative except a WYSIWYG world--what you see is what you got. Bo is looking for something but seems ready to settle for a quiet space and nice people who don't exclude gays and trans.
Tim is as dogmatic as any theist in his belief in the world. He argues, in Confirmation Bias, for more tolerance by progressives of other progressives, and hopes to change the mind of the random conservative who wandered in. He opines brilliantly about the difficulty of changing one's mind, but does he apply that to himself? Not by any example he gave.
I haven't watched the longer, full shows but I never realized that Bo directed Eighth Grade! I saw that in the theatre and it made a big impact on me, especially because of my youngest, most internet-addicted daughter. It gave me a lot more empathy about the insecurity of the world they're in and the ways that an online life can make that both better and worse.
Both Bo and Tim are, without a doubt, as brilliant as it gets, with honesty and minds they can't turn off--a blessing and a curse. I'm in awe of them both, which makes it harder to disagree with them.
sado-monetarism 😊
Quote: "The economy rules the government, government doesn't rule the economy.
>> True
Quote: "Before the economy can be changed, control must be decentralized"
>> Not necessarily
Ha, my friend Ernest just complimented me for the 'culture-jamming' on sado-monetarism. But that was Conn Hallinan's coinage, a journalist for Foreign Policy in Focus, so I can't take credit.
And I posted this back to you on our Petrodactyl thread:
"You see a socialist economic model as the solution, in which distribution is need-based. I'm a small scale sovereigntist and my caret distribution is equal, so that it's anarchist--pushing decision-making to the smallest level of community, whether that's the individual or the family. You favor a centralized model while mine is federal, lower-case, with the function of the larger units to protect the sovereignty of their members. Does that describe our difference in approach, do you think?"
And you replied, to bring this important conversation over here:
>> Socialist has a very elastic meaning, I will try to clarify.
I have a company that builds machinery, I have apartments I rent, my friends have their own small factories and farms.. we are all small scale entrepreneurs, nothing wrong with that. However basic services should be government owned: Banks, stock exchanges, insurance companies, public transport including, rail, buses, highways, airports etc. (Not taxis and small busses etc.) Education and healthcare should be made available for all for free. Not everyone to his needs, this doesn't work. But every kid should have a fair chance for success in life irrespective of his family's wealth.
Quote: "You favor a centralized model while mine is federal, lower-case, with the function of the larger units to protect the sovereignty of their members."
>> Yes I favor a strong centralized model for 2 reasons:
1. Because it can pool big resources needed for development as in China, Russia, Japan, Germany, Italy etc.
2. Essential for sovereignty. When colonialists broke up the levant into mini states, none of them was able to develop sufficiently to become sovereign, that's why they have remained colonies for over 100 years now.
You and I share an understanding of the problems, more than anyone else I know, and we share the same goals. I think it's important for me to continue representing how small scale sovereignty would address these issues on a detailed, point-by-point basis. Your centralized model is the only one in existence for the last 250 yrs, and has many arguing for different models within it. As far as I can tell, that's the only argument happening.
There are those who argue for leaving the system as it is but individuals making different choices--local currencies, communitarians, voluntarians fall into that category. And others want no system of self-governance but just individuals doing whatever they want--which I think gives the power to global technocracies with no community protecting us.
No one that I'm aware of is representing an alternative, supplemental, decentralized system that gives the power to make the rules to communities and families. So if I were to concede your points, the only voice for this would be gone. While you can point to results, good or bad, my experiment hasn't been tried for 250 yrs. So I don't think we want to agree on a conclusion--only on a purpose and a process.
Quote: "You and I share an understanding of the problems.. and we share the same goals"
>> Yep!
Quote: "No one that I'm aware of is representing an alternative, supplemental, decentralized system that gives the power to make the rules to communities and families."
>> From simple experience I know how difficult it is to organize simple things even for a very small group of people. Such as when setting a date and venue for a bikers beer night. Or say tenants in an apartment block agreeing on improvements to the building. That's why I doubt that bigger groups such as families or communities can agree on a variety of important issues.
The first company I set up, all partners had minor shares, it was a nightmare to manage. The second company, I had 95%, the third started 95% then my partner wanted a bigger share, so I dropped mine to 70%.
Quote: "my experiment hasn't been tried for 250 yrs."
>> Definitely don't drop it. Always good to try something new, that's the only way to develop new ideas.
Quote: "I don't think we want to agree on a conclusion--only on a purpose and a process."
>> Definitely! Discussions and brain storming helps us learn and hone our ideas
Thank you for that, Fadi! And to continue to represent my system in terms of agreeing on important issues:
The only need for agreement would be on community projects. Of a hypothetical ^500 monthly distribution, ^100 would be for community projects: ^40 at the neighborhood level, ^30 for the hamlet, ^20 for the village and ^10 for the commonwealth. This money can't be spent in any other way, it's really like a vote. In addition, I think I'd have the commonwealth match anything that commoners put into community projects over and above the dividend.
So instead of deciding what they want and then figuring out how to get the money, they start out with the money to do something and if they don't decide on what, it just adds up to more money later. It seems like the happiest of all reasons to come together. And I don't think I'd allow dividends to be committed beyond a year. So if your project doesn't make it that year, there's always the next.
I like the way you are building your system from scratch. Your courage is much greater than mine. Could be my engineering background makes me evaluate existing systems and choose from them, rather than invent from scratch.
The video Julius sent provides the best explanation of what is in mind as a starting point for good governance system.
In my reply to Julius, I suggested that you visit China for a month or more as research for the second edition. I think it is a worthwhile endeavor, so I am willing contribute to expenses of your trip.
Ideally research should include the 3 civilizational states I am aware of Russia, Iran and China. There could be others that I am not aware about.
What a generous offer, Fadi! Thank you for that.
Another word for courage might be intrepid. I can't imagine anyone consulting me when they decide how to govern 1B people. The limit of my imagination is figuring out what could solve the problems of the two places I know best--Santa Cruz and Cumberland.
I'll respond more on the other thread.