Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on December 27, 2017
John Michael Greer: Systems That Suck Less
Last week’s post on political economy attracted plenty of disagreement. Now of course this came as no surprise, and it was also not exactly surprising that most of the disagreement took the shape of strident claims that I’d used the wrong definition of socialism. That’s actually worth addressing here, because it will help clear the ground for this week’s discussion.
The definition I used, for those who weren’t here last week, is that socialism is the system of political economy in which the means of production are owned by the national government. Is that the only possible definition of socialism, or the only definition that’s ever been used? Of course not. The meanings of words are not handed down from on high by God or somebody; the meanings of words are always contested among competing points of view, and when a word has become as loaded with raw emotions as the word “socialism” has, you can bet that every one of the definitions you’ll be offered is slanted in one direction or another.
That’s just as true of the definition I’ve offered, of course, as it is of any other. I want to talk about who owns the means of production in society, since this is arguably the most important issue in political economy, and it so happens that socialism, capitalism, and many other systems can be defined quite neatly in this way. A century ago, when it was still acceptable to talk about systems of political economy other than capitalism and socialism, the definition I’ve proposed was one of the most common. You don’t hear it very often now, and there’s a reason for that.
Since 1945 the conventional wisdom across most of the world has insisted that there are two and only two possible systems of political economy: socialism on the one hand, capitalism on the other. That’s very convenient for socialists and capitalists, since it allows both sides to contrast an idealized and highly sentimental picture of the system they favor with the real and disastrous failings of the one they don’t, and insist that since the two systems are the only available options, you’d better choose theirs. This allows both sides to ignore the fact that the system they prefer is just as bad as the one they hate.
Let us please be real. In theory, socialism is a wonderful system in which the workers own the means of production, and people contribute what they can and receive what they need. In practice, as seen in actual socialist societies? It sucks. Get past the rhetoric, and what happens is that the workers’ ownership of the means of production becomes a convenient fiction; an inner circle of politicians controls the means of production, and uses it to advance its own interests rather than that of the workers. Centralized bureaucracy becomes the order of the day, fossilization follows, and you end up with the familiar sclerosis of the mature socialist economy, guided by hopelessly inefficient policies mandated by clueless central planners, and carried out grudgingly by workers who know that they have nothing to gain by doing more than the minimum. Eventually this leads to the collapse of the system and its replacement by some other system of political economy.
In theory, equally, capitalism is a wonderful system in which anyone willing to work hard can get ahead, and the invisible hand of the market inevitably generates the best possible state of affairs for everyone. In practice, as seen in actual capitalist societies? It sucks. Get past the rhetoric, and what happens is that social mobility becomes a convenient fiction; an inner circle of plutocrats controls the means of production, and uses economic power backed by political corruption to choke the free market and stomp potential competitors. Monopoly and oligopoly become the order of the day, wealth concentrates at the top of the pyramid, and you end up with the familiar sclerosis of the mature capitalist society, in which the workers who actually make the goods and provide the services can’t afford to buy them, resulting in catastrophic booms and busts, soaring unemployment, and the rise of a violent and impoverished underclass. Eventually this leads to the collapse of the system and its replacement by some other system of political economy.
Yes, this is as true of capitalism as it is of socialism. Unrestricted capitalism has already collapsed once—the aftermath of the Great Depression saw it replaced by social democracy, socialism, or fascism over all of the industrial world—and we didn’t begin to return to it again until the Reagan-Thatcher counterrevolution of the 1980s. Now that we’ve gotten back to something fairly close to unrestricted capitalism, we’ve got all the same spiraling dysfunctions that brought things crashing down in the 1930s. The possibility that it could end the same way, with a similar quota of armbands and jackboots, is rather hard to dismiss out of hand just at the moment.
At the same time, the notion that we can fix the current mess by exchanging capitalism for socialism doesn’t bear close examination. We know how socialism works out, just as we know how capitalism works out. As previously noted, both of them suck. The obvious solution—unthinkable these days, oh, granted, but obvious—is to look for other options.
The best way to do this, it seems to me, is to pay attention to the core similarity between capitalism and socialism. Both systems reliably end up dominated by massive bureaucracies—corporate bureaucracies in the former case, government bureaucracies in the latter—and the bureaucracies do so stunningly bad a job of getting people the goods and services they need that it becomes necessary to paper over the gaps with propaganda and police violence. There’s a reason for the similarity, and it’s one that people who studied political economy a century and more ago had no trouble at all recognizing: in capitalism and socialism alike, control of the means of production is concentrated in too few hands.
Promoters of socialist systems like to pretend that if the means of production are owned by the government, they’re really owned by the workers, but I trust none of my readers are simple-minded enough to fall for that bait-and-switch tactic. In the same way, promoters of capitalist systems like to pretend that if the means of production are owned by stockholders, a little old lady who has five shares of Microsoft has just as much effective ownership as Bill Gates; here again, the old bait-and-switch tactic gets a hefty workout. In socialist systems, control of the means of production is kept within a small circle of upper-level bureaucrats; in capitalist systems, control of the means of production is kept within a small circle of upper-level plutocrats.
That’s not something either socialists or capitalists like to talk about, in turn, because once you start looking at who owns the means of production, it really doesn’t make sense to insist that the only choice your society has is either to hand them over to a small coterie of bureaucrats, or to hand them over to an equally small coterie of plutocrats. Most people, considering that choice, will quite sensibly ask why some other arrangement is out of the question—and that is not a question either socialists or capitalists want to answer, or even to hear.
Here again, there’s good reason for that. In a modern industrial society, after all, the people who control most of the wealth are also the people who exercise disproportionate influence over the political system. The choice between capitalism and socialism thus amounts to asking whether you want the means of production in the hands of corporate bureaucracies owned by the elite class, or political bureaucracies controlled by the elite class. “Meet the new boss,” sang the Who, “same as the old boss.” There are other options, and they begin with getting the means of production into many more hands.
What happens if we ask ourselves how control over the means of production can be spread more widely? Why, then we would end up revisiting the lively world of alternative systems of political economy that existed before 1945, when the US and the Soviet Union between them squeezed out every alternative to social democracy on the one hand and socialism on the other, and kept on squeezing. We would find that the question of the ownership and control of the means of production was the focus of vigorous and thoughtful discussion from the second half of the nineteenth century straight through the first half of the twentieth. There were quite a few systems proposed during that time, but those that didn’t gravitate either toward capitalism or toward socialism generally embraced one form or another of syndicalism.
Syndicalism? That’s the form of political economy in which each business enterprise is owned and run by its own employees.
Before we go on, I’d like to encourage my readers to stop, reread that definition, and remember that we’re talking about the ownership and control of the means of production. It’s possible to approach political economy from other directions, sure, and there’s a point to those discussions as well, but—ahem—not when those discussions are used to try to stonewall discussion of who gets to own and run the means of production. We can talk about those other things later.
Okay, with that settled, let’s talk about the most important feature of syndicalism: it’s already been tried, and it works. Right now there’s a very large number of employee-owned enterprises in the United States, and an even larger number elsewhere in the industrial world. They are by and large just as successful as companies owned by stockholders who aren’t employees. There are several different ways to set up a worker-owned enterprise—the two most common are the worker-owned cooperative, on the one hand, and the closely held corporation whose stock can only be owned by employees, on the other—and they’ve been around long enough to have had the bugs worked out. Thus we’re not talking about a pie-in-the-sky system, we’re talking about something with a long and relatively successful track record. You’ve probably shopped at worker-owned enterprises, dear reader; I certainly have.
In a very real sense, syndicalism is what happens when you take the basic unit of a market economy—the individual sole proprietor with no employees, who sells the product of his or her labor directly to customers—and maintain the same relationship with the means of production at a larger scale. In a capitalist society, only the owners of capital own the means of production: the mass of the population, not being rich enough to be able to invest in ownership of the means of production, are excluded from any economic activity other than selling their labor at whatever wages employers want to pay, and buying products at whatever price companies want to charge. In a socialist economy, no individual owns the means of production: everyone is an employee of the state, and the bureaucrats who draft the latest Five-Year Plan in blissful ignorance of shop-floor realities have no more of a personal stake in how things turn out than the working stiffs on the shop floor who have to carry out the dictates of the plan despite its obvious cluelessness.
In a syndicalist society, by contrast, every employee is an owner. Every employee benefits when the business prospers and suffers when the business takes a loss. Every employee has some influence over the management of the business—the usual approach is to have employees elect a board of directors, which then hires and fires the management personnel. Every employee thus has a personal stake in the business—and every business is owned and run by people who have a personal stake in its success. That’s one of the reasons syndicalism works well.
Let’s deal with some of the usual questions at this point. Do sole proprietorships exist in a syndicalist system? Of course. An individual who goes into business for himself or herself is the simplest form of syndicalist economic organization: a business wholly owned and operated by its one employee. A family business—the sort of thing where Mom and Dad own the business and their kids work there—is also a syndicalist business in miniature. It’s when things get larger than that, and there are employees other than the individual proprietor or the members of a family, that the classic forms of syndicalist ownership come into play.
Wouldn’t syndicalism mean that new employees coming in could simply take over the business and throw the founder out on his or her ear? Not at all, because the way you organize a business in a syndicalist society prevents that. Let’s say you’ve founded a blivet-making business, just you and your blivet press, and you do well enough that you need a second employee. You hire someone, and part of the terms of hire are that she gets a share in the business for each year of employment. The business is worth thirty thousand dollars at the time of hire, we’ll say, so she gets, as part of her compensation package, one share with a five hundred dollar face value each year. This cannot be sold or transferred; it remains with her only as long as she remains an employee of the company; but it gives her voting rights in the shareholders meeting and a cut of the annual dividend. A year after she’s hired, she has one vote in the shareholder’s meeting and you’ve got fifty-nine, so she’s not going to be throwing you out any time soon.
By the time she’s put in thirty years, she owns half the original value of the company, but of course by then you’ve retired, and your shares are the basis of your pension. (Your shares revert to the company when you retire, remember—they can only be owned by employees—but your pension makes up for the income.) In the meantime, as the business grows and you bring in more employees, they also start earning shares on the same basis. A hundred years down the road the business you founded is a thriving blivet firm with three hundred fifty employees, all of whom are part owners, and each new employee starts out in the same place as your first hire, working for a year and getting that first share. Again, this was all worked out a long time ago.
Can you fire someone in a syndicalist company? Of course, if they’re not doing their job, or do something that deserves termination. That’s why the employees elect a board of directors, and the board hires management: so there’s somebody who’s not on the shop floor who can take responsibility for hiring and firing, and the other tasks management has to do. A management team that tries to offshore jobs to Third World sweatshops is going to be out on its ear in a hurry, of course, because the board of directors has to worry about being thrown out by vote of the employees; in the same way, any board of directors that tried to pay a management team the kind of absurdly kleptocratic salary packages that management thinks it deserves in today’s America had better empty its desk and pack its bags in advance. When every employee has a personal stake in the success of the enterprise, though, firing somebody who’s not pulling their weight, or is a problem in some other way, is rarely a controversial issue.
Now, the big one: could such a thing actually happen? Of course it could, for the same reason that unrestricted capitalism gave way to social democracy, socialism, and fascism across the industrial world in the 1930s. Capitalism, as we discussed last week, has a self-destruct button wired into it: as the distribution of wealth becomes more and more imbalanced, the production of goods and services stops being profitable, speculative booms and busts replace investment in productive activity, and sooner or later the economy hits a crash devastating enough that the voters turn to somebody who promises to replace unrestricted capitalism with something else. We’re arguably not that many crises away from such a moment here in America right now.
That’s why it’s time to start talking again about the alternatives to capitalism and socialism. Since, as already noted, both of them suck, and the third alternative most often tried back in the 1930s—fascism—sucks even more, other options are worth considering.
It’s worth noting that classic social democracy is also an option. That’s the system we had in the United States from 1932 to 1980—a period, please note, when this country achieved the highest standard of living and the widest distribution of wealth and income in its history. As mentioned in last week’s post, social democracy balances the power of government against the power of the corporations. It’s an unsteady balance, and eventually breaks down when the wealthy forget that limiting the excesses of the capitalist system is the one thing that keeps them from being strung up from lampposts, but during the time that it works, it sucks less than either of the two alternatives that get all the air time these days.
It’s also worth noting that syndicalism comes in many flavors. Those of my readers who happen to be Roman Catholics will want to check out distributism, the specifically Catholic version of syndicalism, which draws its basic principles from encyclicals issued by Leo XIII and Pius IX in the nineteenth century, and was worked out in some detail by G.K. Chesterton in the early twentieth. Those who aren’t Roman Catholics, or sympathetic to Catholic moral doctrines, will probably not find it to their tastes, because it incorporates quite a bit of conservative Catholic morality; I mention it here partly because I have quite a few readers who are either Catholic or comfortable with Catholic moral thought, and partly as a reminder that syndicalism isn’t necessarily associated with the political left—you’d have a hard time convincing anyone who knows the first thing about Pius IX or G.K. Chesterton that either man was a leftist.
There are other versions, ranging from anarchosyndicalism on the extreme left to national syndicalism on the extreme right. The version I tend to favor, as previously noted, is democratic syndicalism: the system of political economy that combines a syndicalist economy with a politics based on constitutional representative democracy. I also favor a firm distinction between public utilities, which are best owned and operated by local governments, and private businesses, which are best owned and operated by the people who work for them; readers of my book Retrotopia already know that I consider banking to be a public utility rather than a private business, but that’s a matter for another post.
Is what I’ve just very roughly sketched out a perfect system? Of course not. In the real world, there are no perfect systems. Every possible system of political economy will inevitably turn out to have glaring flaws, for the simple reason that human beings have glaring flaws. The best we can hope to achieve is a system that sucks less than the ones that have been tried so far.
I think that’s potentially within reach, even given the many other pressures on the United States and industrial society in general as we lurch through the opening phases of the Long Descent. If such a thing is going to be possible, though, the first step is to break out of the mental rut that insists that the only choice we’ve got is between capitalism and socialism, two systems that both unquestionably suck. Attention to the ownership of the means of production is one tolerably effective way to leave that rut and start exploring the vast and interesting spaces outside it.
Ecosophia by John Michael Greer
330 Comments on "John Michael Greer: Systems That Suck Less"
GregT on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 1:32 pm
MM,
You are a fraud. None of your linked papers “prove beyond any reasonable doubt you will be dead within the next decade.”
You aren’t anywhere near as smart as you think that you are. You have an overinflated ego and sense of self worth, you are suffering from depression, and you are a coward.
JuanP on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 1:54 pm
Systems that suck less sound great. Things will simplify out of necessity. Water, shelter, food, health, fitness, and friends will always make things better.
MASTERMIND on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 1:58 pm
Greg
Your survival bia is showing again..All my studies prove an economic collapse is coming. And that means every corporation and every social program and government going bankrupt at once…Afterwards what the hell do you think will happen? You will die…Duh…I can see many moves ahead. That is why I was a state chess champion in High School.
MASTERMIND on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 2:03 pm
Greg that will be the last time I ever reply to you or cloggie. I still will to madkat because he uses humor and is much more clever in his arguments. You don’t argue anything you just try to criticize others you disagree with. That makes you a bigot. And clogg because he is either a paid shill or a bot because nobody on peak oil blog is dumb enough to believe in renewables and hitler.
And I am not going to waste my last years arguing with some right winged Canadian imbecile who is an anti Semite. Go ahead if you want to attack my post I dont care…And i hope you survive the post collapse world living like the Unabomber..LOL
MASTERMIND on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 2:03 pm
Dear Reader,
Here are seven peer reviewed scientific studies authored by top experts that prove beyond any reasonable doubt that global civilization will collapse within the next decade.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800914000615
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016236114010254
https://www.permaculture.org.au/files/Peak%20Oil_Study%20EN.pdf
https://www.scribd.com/document/367688629/HSBC-Peak-Oil-Report-2017
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1754/20122845
http://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/MSSI-ResearchPaper-4_Turner_2014.pdf
http://www.feasta.org/2012/06/17/trade-off-financial-system-supply-chain-cross-contagion-a-study-in-global-systemic-collapse/
MASTERMIND on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 2:25 pm
When collapse happens — there will be no energy available… none. No petrol – no electricity – nothing. Governments will cease to exist.
And that means starvation – it means chaos — it means violence – it means disease — it means mega radiation releases from spent fuel ponds…
To summarize .. it means extinction.
Cloggie on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 2:37 pm
“Here are seven peer reviewed scientific studies authored by top experts that prove beyond any reasonable doubt you will be dead within the next decade.”
Millimind, you are a pear-reviewed drama queen.
Cloggie on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 2:40 pm
“That is why I was a state chess champion in High School.”
The one you didn’t finish?
“Greg that will be the last time I ever reply to you or cloggie. ”
Promises, promises, promises.
MASTERMIND on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 2:45 pm
The Great Depression 1929-1940 Economic Growth 1% GDP
2006-2017 Economic Growth 1.5% GDP
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression
http://www.history.com/topics/great-depression
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth-annual
GregT on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 2:54 pm
“The Great Depression 1929-1940 Economic Growth 1% GDP”
Many committed suicide during the great depression. Many more did not, and survived to this day.
GregT on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 3:03 pm
MM,
Do yourself a big favour, (and everybody else for that matter), go and talk with a mental healthcare professional. You are in dire need of serious psychological intervention.
If you prefer to live your remaining short time here on this Earth, before you kill yourself, in a complete state of misery and desperation, then why not just get it over with now?
You are not adding anything meaningful to the discussions here. Your conclusions are not reflected in the articles that you continue to link to, over, and over, and over again. Your name calling, childish rhetoric, and delusional accusations, are nothing more than a reflection of your own state of mental deprivation, and you are not nearly as intelligent as many of the other posters here.
Get help, or get it over with. Enough already.
fmr-paultard on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 3:13 pm
((MM)) could you tell us what happens to other empires such as PMBB post peakoil? I was hoping civilizations to survive after discovering new source of fuel.
kthx
MASTERMIND on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 3:16 pm
Dear Reader,
Here are five peer reviewed scientific studies authored by top experts that prove beyond any reasonable doubt that global civilization will collapse within the next decade.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800914000615
https://www.permaculture.org.au/files/Peak%20Oil_Study%20EN.pdf
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1754/20122845
http://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/MSSI-ResearchPaper-4_Turner_2014.pdf
http://www.feasta.org/2012/06/17/trade-off-financial-system-supply-chain-cross-contagion-a-study-in-global-systemic-collapse/
When collapse happens — there will be no energy available… none. No gasoline – no electricity – nothing. Governments will cease to exist. And that means starvation – it means chaos — it means violence – it means disease — it means mega radiation releases from spent fuel ponds…
To summarize .. it means extinction
GregT on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 3:22 pm
Moscow is still a net exporter of coal, oil, and natural gas paultard. They are not expected to peak until sometime after the middle of this century.
MASTERMIND on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 3:25 pm
Paultard
Here is my motto in life
Reject ideology, trust your intuition, avoid pied pipers.
MASTERMIND on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 3:27 pm
No great mind has ever existed without a touch of madness -Aristotle
MASTERMIND on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 3:28 pm
The last law of nature says: that any creature that despoils and out-breeds its natural habitat will be culled to bring its numbers under control and restore a stable environment.
https://imgur.com/a/6dEDt
GregT on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 3:31 pm
“When collapse happens — there will be no energy available… none. No gasoline – no electricity – nothing.”
We have at least a 10 years supply of propane. If need be, we can reduce consumption, and have enough left to outlast my natural life.
We heat with wood, and have 3 separate solar systems for electric. If higher output is needed, I have a propane powered generator.
“Governments will cease to exist.”
No more centralized control? Bring it on.
“And that means starvation – it means chaos — it means violence – it means disease — it means mega radiation releases from spent fuel ponds…”
Plenty of food for the hunting and gathering in the forests around here. Not enough people for chaos. Any violence would quickly be taken care of. We’ve already stocked up on antibiotics, and the nearest upwind nuclear reactor (that hasn’t melted down already, is an entire Pacific Ocean away.
“To summarize .. it means extinction”
No extinction in the forecast, unless BAU is allowed to continue on for a few more decades. Then all bets are off.
GregT on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 3:33 pm
“that any creature that despoils and out-breeds its natural habitat will be culled to bring its numbers under control and restore a stable environment.”
Correct, expect a die off.
Move as far away from densely populated areas as possible, get involved at the small local community level, and learn how to provide your own food.
Cloggie on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 3:40 pm
Cost parity hydrogen – fossil
https://youtu.be/uJ1CQMSGZ_Q
Expect Norway to become to large scale electrolysis what Denmark already is with wind.
Norway has the advantage of the availability of cheap hydro-electricity and a government backing the hydrogen economy.
http://nelhydrogen.com/assets/uploads/2017/01/Nel_Electrolyser_brochure.pdf
Norway had a hundreds of MW electrolysis industry 90 years ago, used for heavy water production (Norks Hydro). They know what they are talking about.
Cloggie on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 3:42 pm
“No great mind has ever existed without a touch of madness -Aristotle”
The idiot no doubt refers to himself. Complete self-absorbed narcist.
GregT on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 3:45 pm
He isn’t playing with a full deck Cloggie.
fmr-paultard on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 3:51 pm
((MM)) tnx for your answer. A cheerful happy new year for you.
fmr-paultard on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 3:55 pm
Mr. greer is a supertard and he’s beyond reproach. He said in this piece that there’s a better political system. According to Supertard Hanson, there’s no workable political system for coping with peak oil. There’s only a system for dieoff.org
GregT on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 4:00 pm
“Hanson, there’s no workable political system for coping with peak oil.”
Hanson advocates bringing an end to the burning of fossil fuels, peak oil or not. He also advocates nuclear energy as an alternative.
Cloggie on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 4:10 pm
“He isn’t playing with a full deck Cloggie.”
Aha, that’s the English expression?
German: “er hat nicht alle Tassen im Schrank” (there are a few cups missing from his cupboard)
Dutch: “hij heeft ze niet allemaal op een rijtje” (he doesn’t have em all in a row)
GregT on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 4:13 pm
A couple more english expressions:
“He’s not the sharpest tool in the shed.”
“He’s a few bricks short of a load.”
MASTERMIND on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 4:30 pm
The “Black Elephant” is a combination of two common phrases.
The “elephant sitting in the room” is the thing which everybody knows is important but nobody will talk about. It is a taboo.
The “black swan” is an extreme or unlikely event which shreds prior risk management strategies.
A “black elephant” is an event which is extremely likely and widely predicted by experts, but people attempt to pass it off as a black swan when it finally happens. Usually the experts who had predicted the event – from the economic crisis to pandemic flu – go from being marginalized to being lionized when the problem finally rears its head
GregT on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 4:40 pm
“Usually the experts who had predicted the event – from the economic crisis to pandemic flu – go from being marginalized to being lionized when the problem finally rears its head”
Which is exactly why I stopped talking about the subject of collapse with friends and family members over a decade ago. My father still doesn’t understand why I left my 32 year long career, and million dollar plus home in the burbs, to become a hunter gather (his words) way out here in the wilderness.
MASTERMIND on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 4:42 pm
I just let go. Lost in oblivion. Dark and silent and complete. I found freedom. Losing all hope was freedom.
-Chuck Palahniak “Fight Club”
MASTERMIND on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 4:51 pm
Greg
He doesn’t understand because only an idiot would think they could make it all on their own or with a small group if society totally collapses. Duh…You got scared and you bugged out based on fear. And when you are scared you tend to not think rationally. And its very anti social to move away from society like you did and bug out..That puts up all sorts of red flags about your mental health…And combine that with all your ant government rants about being a tax farm. You are stepping into Unabomber territory. Ill bet your family is scared of you now. And they should be for good reason.
Cloggie on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 4:58 pm
“A couple more english expressions:”
My alltime favorite in all languages:
“he is not the brightest bulb in the christmastree”.rofl
MASTERMIND on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 5:02 pm
More the ego lesser the knowledge
-Albert Einstein
Makati1 on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 5:02 pm
Greg, either they understand and are preparing, or they are in denial/disinterested. It is difficult to not understand the current situation we are in and the direction we are headed if they read the news and are over 20 years old.
When I moved out of the US and to the Ps 10 years ago, most of my family did not understand why. I tried to explain about the collapse of the US and the rise of the police state, but only a few understood. A few even argued with me about it. All did agree that it would be a ‘nice experience’ as they knew my interest in Asia and Africa and Africa was/is not a good place to go for Americans.
Interestingly enough, the arguers were those with the most to lose if I was correct. My niece even told me to not talk about it or send her articles about it. “It was upsetting her”. She is married to a VP of Giant Foods. My step-sis agreed with me and since has gone back to college and has become a registered nurse. I will note: While raising a family of 4 kids with her carpenter husband. she was 44 when she decided to do this. She also cashed in her 401k and they bought a farm. She is a believer and prepper and very intelligent.
I could go on with the story, but it narrows down to most in denial/disinterested and a few doing some prepping. About like the group debating here. Typical, I guess.
Makati1 on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 5:15 pm
MM, Do you EVER think for yourtself?
How did humans manage to survivor for the thousands of years before Oil and coal?
Answer: Tribes/communities.
Why did this work for millenia?
Answer: Because there was no dead wood that didn’t contribute to the tribe’s welfare.
A small group, where everyone knows everyone, can easily manage. The young start contributing at a young age. The elders are revered for their knowledge and experience. Survival does not require a lot of “stuff”. BTW: It is not unusual to see a 10 year old selling something on the street here. They learn to work early. One of the reasons I have confidence that they will survive.
Don’t regress to a childish reply, MM. Either give an INTELLIGENT reply or don’t bother. I get tired of you and Davy throwing infantile tantrums.
Davy on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 5:16 pm
Mad Kat, tell us the real reason you moved and the resulting extreme hatred. Your fantasy story makes you look so smart. This is just more marketing of Mad Kat image. There is more going on then you care to discuss. Probably something legal or just a painful family break. It may be the boyfriend. Saying you did this move becuase you are smart shows how delusional you have become over 10 years.
Boat on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 5:16 pm
Clog,
Your two croutons short of a salad.
MASTERMIND on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 5:16 pm
Madkat
“Survivorship bias” or survival bias is the logical error of concentrating on the people or things that made it past some selection process and overlooking those that did not, typically because of their lack of visibility. This can lead to false conclusions in several different ways. It is a form of selection bias.
Survivorship bias can lead to overly optimistic beliefs because failures are ignored, such as when companies that no longer exist are excluded from analyses of financial performance. It can also lead to the false belief that the successes in a group have some special property, rather than just coincidence (correlation proves causality)..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
I feel sorry for your family. You most likely really upset them dearly..And now you cant even see your grandchildren grow up.
Makati1 on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 5:20 pm
Davy,Is your insanity so bad now that you cannot accept what someone says as the truth unless they totally agree with your warped view of the world? Maybe there is a drug for it? Ask your local pusher. Or … are you already ‘using’?
MASTERMIND on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 5:21 pm
Davy
I bet he molested one of his kids growing up or grand kids even. And he wanted to leave before they got older and told everyone else. I mean just look how he wishes death on millions of people including members of his own family every single day. I mean even though i dont think for example Gregs plans will work out. I still wish and hope the best for him and hope they do work out. Just because its un natural to wish death on other strangers of your own species. Madkat is a very deranged person. And someone who wishes death on others is willing to do anything. That is why Ill bet he molested his kids. And he worked for the church and that is an obvious red flag. They use the trust of the church to gain access to children.
MASTERMIND on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 5:24 pm
Davy
Bingo Davy, I think you nailed it. Notice how defensive Madkat got right after you questioned him. If he was hooked up to a lie detector his heart rate would be threw the roof..People don’t usually get so defensive over things they are so sure about….
Davy on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 5:26 pm
Mad Kat, I have exposed your real motives and behaviors. It’s called neutering. You can get real, be honest, and show balance or else you will be moderated. You are a disgusting extremist degrading this forum. You are an extremist enabler and I am your nemesis cleaning up your mess.
Makati1 on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 5:32 pm
MM,is your “fantastic” memory so short that you cannot remember what I have mentioned often here? My “family” is scattered all over the US. I would not see them, even if I lived in the US. I rarely saw them when I did live there. Most American families are not close. The current US society does not promote or even encourage ‘closeness’. You have a Disney/50s version of family, not the real one, in your mind. It’s called brainwashing. The US is very good at that.
My family members have relocated for a number of reasons (job/lifestyle/wanderlust) over the 18+ years since they left home. You would have no idea because you have no experience with family. I would have to travel thousands of miles to visit all of my family today. Not practical. We keep in touch over the internet and I can talk to them anytime by phone. They all support my being here, not that any of this is your business.
Makati1 on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 5:36 pm
Davy, all you have “exposed” is your immaturity. arrogance and narrow mind. Only your ‘sock puppets’ agree with you. You are the enabler that makes the US terrorist mafia work. A brainwashed 1%er. Get help.
Davy on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 5:43 pm
Obviously it is working since you defaulted to the “get help” nonsense. I don’t care if you get help. I will just neuter you. Your boyfriend can get you help.
Makati1 on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 5:46 pm
Why I want the US to collapse so they cannot promote war and chaos around the world:
“Southeast Asia, through the supranational Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) resisted attempts by Washington to realign regional policy to suit US interests at the cost of ASEAN’s growing ties with Beijing.
There were various components to the pivot including US efforts to undermine, overthrow, and replace with obedient client regimes the governments of several ASEAN states including Myanmar, Thailand, and Malaysia….
The final component of America’s pivot to Asia was the proliferation of terrorism sponsored by Washington’s closest allies in the Middle East. This included a 2015 bombing in Bangkok allegedly carried out by Turkish militants and the sudden appearance and spread of the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS) in the Philippines.
ISIS’ arrival and occupation of the southern Philippine city of Marawi was particularly “serendipitous” for US foreign policy – coming at a time when the Philippines had rebuked US involvement in the South China Sea dispute, Washington’s interference in the Philippines’ internal political affairs, and began calling for the complete removal of US military forces from its territory. ISIS’ arrival thus provided an all-too-convenient pretext for the US to not only remain in the Philippines, but to expand its footprint there.”
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-quad-us-searches-edge-of-asia-for-allies-to-contain-beijing/5624218
“Southeast Asia’s armed forces are also increasingly turning to China both for new hardware and for joint training exercises – two realms once dominated by the United States, but no longer.”
The world is turning away from the US and about time.
Makati1 on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 5:49 pm
Davy, Get help. Everyone here sees your glaring faults. Only you pretend you do not. Look in the mirror, bully boy. And get help.
Davy on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 5:53 pm
Come on Mad Kat. Can’t you say more than a one liner following a global research extremist article. Do you have a brain that can actually say something? We know you hate the US for the 1000 time, so what. We know Global Reasarch Dot Com hates America too. You are so boring and predictable.
Makati1 on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 6:02 pm
TRUMP:
“One of chaos theory’s central tenets is that the initial conditions of an event disproportionately determine its eventual outcome, so it’s with this in mind that Trump’s team believes that they can reshape the global order to a greater extent than their rivals if they take the initiative in destabilizing it first. That said, the oft-quoted “law of unintended consequences” has thus far proven that Russia’s judo master President Vladimir Putin has expertly exploited this in Georgia, Ukraine, and Syria, taking advantage of the instability that the US deliberately created in order to advance his own country’s interests, as well as positioning Moscow as the supreme “balancing” force in the Eurasian supercontinent for countering America’s chaotic designs. Not only that, but the US has inadvertently created the conditions for its top five Great Power adversaries to come together in the new multipolar continental framework of the “Golden Circle”.
Whether it’s on the home front in reversing the post-Cold War legacy of his Clinton-Bush-Obama predecessors or the international one in dismantling the same institutions that his own country at one time helped build, Trump’s policy towards the existing state of affairs can simplistically be described as resorting to the “nuclear option” minus the mushroom cloud (at least for now). The Kraken is purposely destroying all remnants of the “old order” that he touches from NAFTA to the Jerusalem status quo in his epic quest to “Make America Great Again”, though his weaponization of chaos theory might dangerously backfire if the Chinese and Russian strategic judo masters manage to get the best of him and decisively turn the tables on the US once and for all.”
https://www.globalresearch.ca/trump-agent-of-chaos-a-k-a-the-kraken/5624177
The Great Leveling…
GregT on Thu, 28th Dec 2017 6:10 pm
“He doesn’t understand because only an idiot would think they could make it all on their own or with a small group if society totally collapses.”
Not a small group MM. A community. And my Dad doesn’t understand because he spent his career in the intelligence services. His brainwashing runs deep. He is starting to come around though.
“Duh…You got scared and you bugged out based on fear.”
I have never been scared, and I do not plan on putting a bullet in my brain like you have said you will do. That would be a cowardly act. Cowards act out of fear.
“And its very anti social to move away from society like you did and bug out”
I lived in greater Vancouver before MM, with 2 million other people. Cities are free for alls, dog eat dog, rat races. No sense of community like here. Not even close. I live in a close knit society now. Everyone knows who everybody else is. When I lived in the city, I didn’t really know my next door neighbours, nor did I want to.
“That puts up all sorts of red flags about your mental health”
You obviously do not have the slightest clue as to who I am.
“And combine that with all your ant government rants about being a tax farm.”
Facts. You’ll figure that one out rather quickly when things really begin to fall apart.
“Ill bet your family is scared of you now.”
My own family left yesterday. My sisters and their husbands arrive tomorrow for New Years. My parents are getting up there in age, but they plan to fly in via floatplane in the spring.