(10-15-2010, 11:30 PM)Crimson Wrote: Basic premise is that the monetary system is used not only to gain power but to oppress/enslave. If money (theoretically) could have been used as a "neutral" way to do and exchange goods and services, these times were gone long time ago.
It seems to me, that some users here do not see the correlation of this with the Ra Material: There is an elite, the elite's way to be an elite (3d minions) is to create a "matrix" based on banking and commerce where not even the "socialist" countries can escape --(ideally).
The so called democracy and first world countries are only created because it is convenient to have a powerful army, powerful corporations to be used by the elite. And the social "progress" curiously, was made by the demands of the "little" people, not given to us by "good politicians in the government" and because it was convenient for the elite to give away some rights while it allowed it to better oppress other countries (seriously, you did not think Americans or Europeans were better than Africans, right?). The ideal situation for them would be a planet as a "Third World" and or fascism (enslavement) which is what they strive for.
Elite in "socialist countries"? Yes of course, but socialism/social complex cannot be achieved with a negative elite "in charge of business", at least in this planet. No country has been given the opportunity to develop a socialist model free of interference by the elite or risk of destruction. This means that a 4d + social complex cannot be achieved with capitalism, although the basis of a 4d- could be started with a fascist state of affairs which at least in this planet is the ideal type of capitalism for the elite.
Very well said, Crimson!
I would add that, just as there are many people working within religious structures trying to do good, so too is that true in governmental structures. Thus, there have been politicians who have worked for the good of the common people, from within the system. The founding fathers of the US certainly had good intentions and established some very high ideals. It's unfortunate that their original vision has been so corrupted, and current efforts to restore those ideals are met with censorship by the mass media.
But yes, overall I agree with your points. I would say that the positive changes, for the most part, were because the people managed to make them happen despite, not because of, the governmental structure.
(10-16-2010, 10:58 PM)unity100 Wrote: it 'separates' powers in the government divisionalization. but, the composition of that government, is open to the private influence from outside.
and that is what happens ; private interests support the party they need, they get into power, they staff the government branches with their own men, the government starts acting for minority private interests, the private interests get stronger, and they repeat the cycle. not having 2, but 100 parties, cannot change that fact ; the group which gets private interest support, wins, with only few exceptions. even when an exception, somehow, wins, private interests use their resources to make the public believe in their cause through usage of propaganda, media, and make it harder for their interests to get damaged.
I saw this firsthand when I was campaigning for a genuinely sincere and brilliant statesman, who refused to play the political game. He got huge grassroots support, which was downplayed, scoffed at, and censored by the mass media, and they succeeded in discrediting him, so that no one would consider him a serious contender in the election, even though he completely outclassed all the competitors.
It was very disillusioning to witness this.