an archeologist exposes the bankers and government

[thelizardking52]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiVROBhwHUM

 

 

this is a long video, 2 hours. It's worth the watch. The first one hour and twenty minutes is about history and archeoligical finds in Africa but then it turns to world society and the bankers/government/corporations and the answer ultimately being anarchy.  

 

I have trouble being a capitalist with the concepts provided in this video, as there appears a better solution.I always linked capitalism/free markets to freedom but maybe there is more than what we have been taught to see. I am not and never will be a government supporter, this is a form of anarchy society that most wouldn't grasp right away but makes sense. Let's get the violence, greed, consumerism, and waste out of our society at the same time as we get the government out of it. 

 

 

[Andrew79]

I have trouble being a capitalist with the concepts provided in this video, as there appears a better solution.

This made me curious, so I had a look into the "better solution".It's something called contributionism and - surprise, surprise - it's just another form of socialism.What makes you think that a philosophy that's been thoroughly debunked in both theory and practice appears to be better than capitalism?

[J. D. Stembal]

I have trouble being a capitalist with the concepts provided in this video, as there appears a better solution.

 

Just because you can find an example of a culture that once practiced collectivism, it doesn't follow that the current manifestation of the state is not a violation of voluntarism and property rights, and by extension, freedom. Capitalism is the philosophy of property rights, manifesting in free trade, and incorporates the psychology of individual economic interactions. If you want what I have more than what you have, and I want what you have more than what I have, and we come to an agreement on an exchange, we are exercising free and voluntary trade. If we come to some other agreement, such as sharing our goods cooperatively, it is still a voluntary interaction. Cooperation and collectivism can always coexist with Capitalism as long as they do not invalidate voluntarism. Therefore, collectivism does not necessarily exist to the detriment of free trade.

 

I haven't yet watched the linked video, but I intend to do so and thank you for sharing it.

[Demosthenes_]

I think he is proposing a lot of radical ideas and it is very hard to digest his other ideologies.

1.Aliens exist

2.Atlantis was destroyed via poor control of death ray or technology related to it.

3.Aliens cloned us to mine and give give gold to them

4.Aliens invented currency; it is not a human invention.

 

He does a good job of bringing the audience to his conclusions, but I feel I would need to see the hard data to believe it.

After you hear all of this, you are informed that he has a political party in South Africa and is running for president, as suggested he is forced to if he has a political party.

He has a political party to protect him against those who would fight his ideas of aliens, technology and currency.

When/if he is president, he will eradicate banks, give pardons to debts, and more importantly have no currency.

 

He never really shows hard numbers of his findings, he mostly just says, to paraphrase, we found these results. Most of the times he shows pictures and the patterns. Everything else is sorta a we did the experiment and these were our results, kinda thing, but no numbers.

The no numbers thing could have been that he was trying to compress a 4 hour presentation into a 2 hour, as he explained in the beginning.

Again, this is all a lot to digest. The beginning started out fun and fine but then are clashed with this tornado of information and implications. Only to land in Oz to be taken down a yellow brick road. It is easy to follow but what he is saying is hard to accept. It would be much easier if he gave us the hard evidence other than saying he found these results showing the patterns in monoliths and in dirt.

 

Edit: Michael Teller is a theatre actor, singer, radio host, and sound technician. He has also got his bachelors in pharmaceutical. His research is based on the of the writer, Zecharia Sitchin. Sitchin believed in austronaut creationism, much like Teller suggests of our origin. In Sitchin's work has been regarded as pseudoscience. He mistranslated many of the Summerian texts and is noted by his archaeologist critics that he often quotes out of context or distorts evidence. Teller's information which he reached the conclusion in his political party comes from a writer with stretched or misleading evidence. I would argue that Teller has much of the same methodology of stretching or misleading information, dominately because much is left out and much is being suggested with a hard backing. 

 

For contributionism, Teller/Ubuntu owns all of the main information sites on it. On contributionism.org, the summarized explanation between contributionic economy and contributionism is, "99% of the people work like slaves their whole life for little to no reward, so the other 1% can live an absolutely fabulous life. ", but then says, "Contributionism is a slight shift. 100% of people work together so that 100% of people live a great life." It continues down to explain that the current system is made to promote the banks and that "You can’t, it’s a fool’s battle. They are too big and will financially ruin you with litigation." Yet he is plugs in his political party and explains how he will fight the banks. Ubuntu promotes using bitcoin and to stop doing business with the banks entirely, which is not something I can completely disagree with. What is disturbing is the promotion of Ubuntu of how the party is the answer and less about contributionism of a life style. I would compare his argument to the proletariat against the bourgeois and there is information which needs to be filled in the lines. Why are the banks bad? Why is living without the banks better and why wouldn't we be slaves?

 

Teller promises and suggests a lot, but I feel there needs to be some fact checking behind what he says. His idol became famous for his ideology but when his facts were checked he was shown to not be as legitimate as people found him to be. This is important because if he builds his way of living on something which is not true, everything else falls with it. In the video Teller suggests that he created a political party for personal protection and ran for president because he needed to as being the owner of a political party. Yet it seems there is constant promotion of this political party and much less information on his original beliefs of ancient technologies and astronaut creationism. Contributionism sounds fair as 100% of the work helps each other and themselves instead of the 99% helping the 1%, as is argued. When explaining the contributionist economy, his explanation of contributionism is blatant propaganda. There are details missing from the explanation of contributionism such as how people will live their lives and only gives the explanation that there will be a 100% employment if the banks are gone and people work for themselves. Contributionism is presented like it is good for the people, but a lot of it also sounds  like a promotion of his personal agenda of Ubuntu and it makes me paranoid.

[thelizardking52]

This made me curious, so I had a look into the "better solution".It's something called contributionism and - surprise, surprise - it's just another form of socialism.What makes you think that a philosophy that's been thoroughly debunked in both theory and practice appears to be better than capitalism?

I'm throwing out my ideas kind of jumbled so please let me know if I'm not expressing my thoughts in an understandable way.

 

Well, I'd say that I am against socialism for sure. That is a failed ideology. I am wrong if I say the fault lies within capitalism. I believe in voluntarism. However, I would point out that it's the mindless consumerism that is a big problem in society and eats away at our principles and ability to think independently. This is a side effect of free markets,becoming complacent and victims of our own success. I don't think he's advocating socialism. I think he's advocating anarchy and cooperation within community. He is also questioning the positions of authority and hierarchies. I particularly think the banks are a force for bad, debt is slavery.

 

I believe that the banks do have a bigger hand in what governments are doing and abuses around the world than most people think.  The manipulation of money is  another form of enslavement and it's much more sneaky than direct enslavement. I think the banks and governments go hand in hand, at least at this time period they do.

 

I have no problem with the ideas here appearing radical. Society and rulers want us to feel like "nut cases" when there is an idea that may challenge them. Normalcy bias is a handicap to learning. Regarding the evidence in numbers, I think if we want to learn more to validate its truth or not,  we'd have to do further research. Probably the best validation would be to actually see these places first hand.

 

I also think it's healthy to hear a challenging viewpoint. I don't recall him advocating forcing people to give up their stuff but he did advocate freely and willingly helping community and it sounded like another form of voluntarism to me.  

 

I'm not throwing out my capitalist/free market viewpoints but I am willing to challenge them and always seeing how they may be improved.  The video had some very interesting concepts that may be helpful in the future. If there were a technology that brought us energy that we could all use freely and manipulate for our wellbeing then some of his ideas may very well work. We aren't there yet but we likely will eventually get there one day if we don't destroy ourselves first.  I'm sure there are flaws here  and I haven't thought it all out enough yet. I wanted to share this with everyone here.  What would society become if we all could wield a free and powerful form of energy rather than having to work with finite resources? 

[Andrew79]

However, I would point out that it's the mindless consumerism that is a big problem in society and eats away at our principles and ability to think independently. This is a side effect of free markets,becoming complacent and victims of our own success.

"Consumerism" is only a problem in non-capitalist economic systems because people have to struggle just to stay alive and so their entire focus is on getting the material goods necessary to do so.But in capitalist economies, these basic goods are abundant and cheap meaning people can spend time discussing political philosophy, going to opera, or fiddling with the latest iPhone if that's what they want.So, as usual, a critique of capitalism that actually only applies to non-capitalist systems. And even then it's only if you're snobbish enough to decide for other people what is and isn't culture, art, etc.

I don't think he's advocating socialism. I think he's advocating anarchy and cooperation within community.

Here's the overview of contributionism: http://www.michaeltellinger.com/ubuntu-cont.phpHe's saying that people will contribute what they can and then receive what they need, in other words "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".He's calling for public ownership of just about everything.And he wants to get rid of money.That is socialism.

[thelizardking52]

I want to look at this objectively as if I wasn't an anarchocapitalist or any other ideaology. 

 

I see problems in the idea of distributing everything freely. How would this happen?  I still don't equate it to socialism as I look to see where is the force being used onto those who choose not to participate.  Getting rid of money isn't socialism either and some of his points on money are correct. Paraphrasing "to each his own" has no relevance , no where was that on his website and I don't believe it's correct to attribute that to him.  If I overlooked that language then please show me.

 

I am cherry picking here but he puts this on the site, 

• A society with a new set of laws based on the needs of the people where everything is provided freely to everyone who contributes.

I think the key part there is, "to everyone that contributes". However, who is to decide that and who is to determine what is a contribution. In an infinite resource world this could work, but in a fininte resource world I see it problematic. Here's where the ideas in the beginning of the video seem promising to me. Energy from sound and light, especially sound. If his video encourages others to study this and we get new inventions that help humanity, then his work wil have helped lead to forever changing the world positively.

 

I would have to contend that yes, mindless consumerism is a problem, and moreso in the societies today that have the disposable income to splurge.   Gluttonous, wasteful, selfish, narcissistic behavior is a symptom sometimes found in people with disposable income. Having the income to spend as you like is great, but so many people  are valuing the wrong things in life. I'm refering to the people who stampede others, get in fights at the mall on black friday. I'm referring to people camping outside the store for the next pair of jordans' or the new videogame, or people who MUST have the newest Iphone simple to say they have the latest version (yet they have a perfectly working Iphone already)etc. Far too often, people are valuing their " stuff" more than the personal relationships in life.  People have become enslaved to their stuff, they don't value their time as they should and money does have a lot to do with this.  Too many times, we see an advertisement and now we are compelled to buy this stuff, some people even go into debt (servitude) over it, and it's sad. There is little to no education about money and debt and so many people are knee deep in this and its harmful.  This is where I see the bankers and the system in place as harmful, they do prey on the ignorant masses and the government is happy to sell us off as cattle to inquire new debt. 

 

So, yes I see problems in Ubuntu and how it could be carried out, but that doesnt mean there isn't some good stuff in there as well . I'm not convinced it's socialism either. 

[StylesGrant]

The annuaki and lizard people remains a popular trend. I knew a VERY smart person who seriously believed the lizard people. My opinion is that, its worth listening to, not because lizard people are real, but because people seem to be very keen on David Icke.

 

And there isn't exactly proof against Atlantis, at least not as a civilization in general, albeit maybe not death rays. Randall Carlson's ideas are cool. I've listened to Mark Passio, who is another off the fringe sort of guy, and its honestly got some strong logical points. 

 

They say that after a while Icke cooled down and stopped talking about the lizard people. And it isn't lacking in its interest. I really like Star-gate and the Alien series and Acharya S's perspective. Still waiting for a Prometheus number two.

 

I can't remember whether it was Michio Kaku, or Graham Hancock, or someone along those lines on a podcast was talking about how science fiction is the only school of thinking that still asks spiritually and philosophically relevant questions.

 

Here's a link to even weirder stuff. http://projectavalon.net/forum4/archive/index.php/t-1630.html

[Andrew79]

Paraphrasing "to each his own" has no relevance , no where was that on his website and I don't believe it's correct to attribute that to him.  If I overlooked that language then please show me.

I took it from the opening quote, but you nailed it more accurately with the quote below:

 

I am cherry picking here but he puts this on the site,

[*]A society with a new set of laws based on the needs of the people where everything is provided freely to everyone who contributes.

Having the income to spend as you like is great, but so many people are valuing the wrong things in life.

Value is subjective.

 

 

I'm not convinced it's socialism either.

Everything free, public ownership, and no money is socialism no matter how you want to dress it up.

 

The zeitgeisters use computers as their hook. This guy seems to be using aliens. But it's all the same.

 

They grab you with an emotional story of how terrible things are now and how wonderful they'll be under their system (it's fairly common for them also to have a story of how wonderful things were hundreds and sometimes thousands of years ago).

 

Even laughable bullshit like consumerism is a socialist story: throughout the first half of the 20th century socialists claimed socialism would produce more wealth than capitalism. When it didn't, the story changed from capitalism not producing enough, to it producing too much. That people take it as a serious critique is astonishing and shows the power of story over reality.

 

And they won't give you any concrete details. Because they can't.

 

Even Marx advocated to his followers not to try to explain how socialism would actually work. And to quote a founder of the socialist movement known as syndicalism, Georges Sorel, "If you place yourself on this ground of myths, you are proof against any kind of critical refutation."

 

And that's all this contributionism is. Just another rebranding of an ideology that's cost tens of millions of lives and left millions more in grinding poverty.

[Demosthenes_]

 

A society with a new set of laws based on the needs of the people where everything is provided freely to everyone who contributes.

 

Communism(MerriamWebster)- a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

Socialism- a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather by individual people and companies.

Marxism- a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society. (ie there is only the proletariat class).

 

I'm not sure if you see it, but by definition, they are all synonymous in that they promote the power and unity of the working class and all in the same method. This sounds good on paper, but we know what it is like in practice.

[thelizardking52]

Thanks for sharing the thoughts guys and I hope you don't see me as trying to prop up socialism because I am and have always been against that, as it's the most or right up there most oppressive form of government.  

 

I still am having some issues with the banking industry that really I find highly unethical. That is where I actually ended up running into the video.  Fractional banking, the federal reserve, tricks like calling printing of money " quantitative easing" to confuse the average joe, and many other issues with the banks I find deplorable.  I would be okay with it if they were honest and not passing hidden taxes in the form of inflation, and actually physically had the reserves of money.  This is a major reason (ethically) to buy and invest in precious metals ( or to mine bit coin) to avoid supporting fiat currency and the crooked mafia-esque bankers.  

 

Researching the federal reserve and banking industry will make one's head spin if they dig deep enough. I feel I need to get back  to earth, the whole banking history and federal reserve stuff is insane. 

 

I am pro business but not pro chrony capitalism which the banking industry appears to be the mother of chrony capitalism. 

 

I also have hope that maybe there is another technology out there that will one day improve the lives of humanity like the ideas of sound energy that he presented. All the other stuff aside, what would society be if we were to develop a way to use an energy so effective yet cost nothing?  

[Phuein]

He is not a critical thinker.Sound does not travel faster than light.

 

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/emergingtech/sound-goes-faster-than-light/466

^ For a simplified explanation.

 

And that's where I know to avoid his lecturing. 

[thelizardking52]

He is not a critical thinker.Sound does not travel faster than light.

 

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/emergingtech/sound-goes-faster-than-light/466

^ For a simplified explanation.

 

And that's where I know to avoid his lecturing. 

when did he say that sound is faster than light?

[J. D. Stembal]

Five minutes in right after he mentions Tesla.

 

Personally, I started rolling my eyes at the point where he claims that Gaia provides us with an unlimited source of "free energy".

[thelizardking52]

Ok i watched it again and saw that part.  It's long and I posted the video on first view and didn't see it as a reason to disregard his entire speech.  I still don't see it as a reason to disregard everything he says, especially since he isn't arguing the speed of sound vs the speed of light. I'd also like to point out that rolling one's eyes at it gives me the impression that you disregard it without thoughtful criticism, which if true, then I'd rather not hear that criticism in the first place. If I'm wrong, and your criticism is sincere not purely argumentative, please tell me why. 

 

While I've heard some good points made I still see the discussion seems to be only on the points people are ready or willing to address. For example, I mention mindless consumerism and people valuing unimportant stuff more than personal relationships/ their time/ or just ethical behavior. When I did that, the idea of "value" being subjective dismissed this idea.  Well, I would have to respectfully say that it wasn't subjective, it was objective. Someone who stands in line for 3 days to buy a pair of sneakers is objectively valuing the sneakers over their time, someone who will physically assault another person to grab the last product in almost every case is throwing out their value of ethics ( non-violence) for that " stuff" they want to buy. This is objective, not subjective, that mindless (barbaric being a better word than mindless) consumerism is a problem. 

 

I'd also make the argument that money being taken out of society is not by definition socialism. Remember the guy is pointing out the dissolvence of government, just as most of us here would do too.  This is not an advocation for the loss of property rights, just a different system in which we can't be enslaved to money.  So what if we get rid of governments, if people still use money to control other people and money still influences us to make immoral decisions we know are wrong. Is that not still a fundamental problem humans will face? I feel that this issue was completely ignored/attacked when it was brought up.  So now, nobody can see the system of the use of money in a bad light and want something better where there is less ability to control and manipulate others without the idea being called socialism ( socialisim being equal to evil)?  

 

To further this, I'd say in an anarchic society, ultimately there is one dominating feature that trumps anything else, and that is free will ( which is free market and capitalistic in nature). You can and will be always to a degree capitalistic based upon this, no matter if you join a town that says they practice socialistic principles like sharing all their wealth equally. Each member is still sharing what they earned voluntarily and can leave at any moment they feel they are being taken advantage of.  Maybe it would fail depending on the morals and honest commitment to the members values towards their stated goal of sharing the wealth, but then it would fail naturally and not be forced into existence by the state, so in the end who cares, they are free to leave the community they joined with no strings attached. They would be free to stay and abandon socialist practices too. No matter how socialistic the society would be, it would still have to compete for people to be willing members of its society over other groups that had non socialistic practices, in the end, that competition they'd face is naturally capitalistic.

 

I also don't see anybody mentioning how the banks do( or the argument that they don't and I'm wrong) screw us over (all of us) and are more than likely the biggest single player in influencing the government to carr out its actions. They don't say money is power for nothing folks.  

 

I respect freedom, voluntarism, and property rights, among many other things. How would I personally get rid of the banks, I would and I still do tell everyone about the horrors of the banking industry, just as I do about the horrors of government.  It needs to be a voluntary dissolvement, not one of force. It would be an industry just as hard as government, to root out ( government and banking are like husband and wife).

 

I feel the need to bring this up because nobody here has successfully ( in my opinion) addressed these issues or appeared sincere enough about them.  The questions are worth being investigated.