A Contribution from Murph
I don't feel well today and Murph has graciously offered this piece to be pondered by all. If anyone else would like to send something to be published, feel free. It would be much appreciated for days like this. So, here's Murph's take.
Cyclone
What We Have Lost
Language naturally changes and drifts with time. The manipulation of our ability to understand concepts has been accelerated with the use of television. Through images and dialogue, the elite have virtually destroyed the ability of society to evaluate what has happened and make useful comparisons to other societies. Words will, over time, often change meaning, and those who have control of the media are primarily responsible for these changes. If there is an agenda for the changes, the changes are pursued with great vigor.
I would like to deal with one of those changes: the word ANARCHY.
Through various printed and spoken commentaries and accompanied visual images, this term has been relegated to the concept of CHAOS, characterized by irresponibility, cruelty, wanton destruction, social behavior that is destructive, vicious and without regard to consequences. Sorta sounds like our present government doesn't it? This however, is not what anarchy is about. Anarchy is a concept about governance, not chaos. Anarchy is about self actualization, freedom in spirit and action, liberty, responsibility, minimal government interference and love of living. And this is reason enough for the elite to want the word associated with chaos.
The original French anarchists were primarily concerned with the theoretical discussion of freedom and didn't talk much about how to accomplish it. If you examine our Constitution, you will find that many of the ideas concerning anarchy were directly stated as personal freedoms for the individual. Many of these concepts came out of the early colonists association with the indigenous Indian tribes. To a large degree, these tribes operated in free association and actually practiced much of the concepts of the French anarchists. For the most part, anarchy can be summed up in the cliché "Your freedom stops at the point of my nose". In the early formation of this nation, up until the middle 1800's, outside of a few large cities, the country was populated by small rural communities in loose association and communication with each other. Not absolutely, but to a large degree, these communities ran themselves pretty much in an anarchist manner.
Then came along a new concept called Social Darwinism. This concept was heavily dependent on 'Rule By Law'. And there was an explosion of legalistic chatter that in the end was primarily for the benefit of those who sought the accumulation of large amounts of money and power. This resulted in the period during the Industrial Revolution of the Robber Barons.
For those that have done any study at all of this period, there are many parallels to our present social and governmental structure. There are numerous novels and commentaries concerning this period. It was typified by the push to induce the society toward slave wage status. A lot of cruelty, exploitation and manipulation was the rule of the day, all in the attempt to amass fortunes and further control of society. And heading this movement was the concept of Social Darwinism. The main tenant of which was if you were not rich and powerful, it was your own inadequacies which caused it. Personal and social competition was the sole agenda; to acquire wealth and power at any cost. Accompanying this was also the Christian thought at the time that if you were poor and hungry, it was God's will and you were being punished for sin.
I do hope the parallels to our present society are not lost on you who are reading this. Consider what happens to a society that is subject to this type of propaganda, how it will affect attitudes and behavior. You want at least one reason for calling the population stupid? Well, changing and obscuring the meaning of words is one powerful method of dumbing down the population.
Our Constitution was set up to provide checks and balances to excesses of power that the colonists left in Europe, and to ensure social equity to some degree. It did incorporate protection for the land ownership by the elite. It was years before non-land owners had anything to say about how they were governed and women had any say in their lives at all. But, I rather imagine the people who drafted this document did not have any concept at all of how it could be distorted to its present state. The document in essence did provide for Rule By Law but the distortions that came out of this were also not anticipated. And, I do not think they had any concept of Social Darwinism at all. What they did have was a hold over from European societies concerning heredity of power and wealth. Unfortunately, those concepts were preserved in the document. One of several fatal flaws?
Most people when pressed on the matter, actually want to live under Anarchistic principles. But we have been taught, principally by the media, that this is bad. And, there have been, as in all movements, those that distort the concepts. In the case of Anarchistic principle, they take these principle to mean looting, burning, destruction and lack of responsibility. I would encourage you to look at the principles of anarchism. I think you will find that they suit your clothes.
Contributed by Murph
posted by cyclone @ 5:00 AM
32 comments
32 Comments:
Lilac,
From the previous posting.
I used to raise rabbits, strictly for gustatorial chemistry. Never tried angoras. Interesting, didn't know they were bad eating. Any explanation for that?
An interesting nickname you have, I find it rolls off my tongue very pleasingly.
Murph,
I am in favor of the anarchist lifestyle, too. But as I understand it, historically, anarchism has not been very viable as a political entity, due to its inherant lack of structure. It's more like a philosophy or faith. Believing that mankind is capable of being free, you may then need to work within another group to get much done. The only group I know of that anarchists have worked with are the International Workers of the World. That's where I first met both groups back in 1970 or so. Currently, as you know, anarchists are doing great work putting out literature, CD's, organizing direct actions, etc. But, they, by nature, have no identifiable leaders, and do not get on any ballots. The closest thing one can do to further the anarchist agenda (which there isn't one, of course) is to work within a political group and strive for tactics that do not compromise individual liberty.
Murph
Angora rabbits are all fur no meat.
Meat rabbits are eaten at 3 months of age, any of the fancy breeds do not put on weight fast enough to be good eating.
The only bad part of my nickname is the way other hikers in the mountains back away after I introduce myself. When they do, I never explain where it comes from.
I think homophobics are hilarious to watch.
Lilac
Nice work Murph, good reading and a topic that relates to freedom in general. We have been controlled and programmed indeed.
Most are so lost in the program that they are no where near their true nature.
I only agree with freeacre if you consider mankind as he is now. If man was not taken advantage of in the first place and a model put in place that allowed growth of the human spirit in its truest sense then man would not now be destroying himself blindly.
If we go to anarchy now there will be certain accelerated destruction, which is why I think that the language has been twisted as such and no longer means its original intent.
Technofreak,
Well, somebody read the post. Thanks.
Besides what I wrote in the posting, I will expand somewhat.
Anarchy is a life style. It relationship to governance is only peripheral. If it is lived, then all the rest follows. All the things that we give lip service to as ideas. Here is a quote that I think you will find interesting.
YOU MAY ALREADY BE AN ANARCHIST
It’s true. If your idea of healthy human relations is a dinner with friends, where everyone enjoys everyone else’s company, responsibilities are divided up voluntarily and informally, and no one gives order or sells anything, then you are an anarchist, plain and simple. The only question that remains is how you can arrange for more of your interactions to resemble this model.
Whenever you act without waiting for instructions or official permission, you are an anarchist. Any time you bypass a ridiculous regulation when no one’s looking, you are an anarchist. If you don’t trust the government, the school system, Hollywood, or the management to know better than you when it comes to things that affect your life, that’s anarchism, too. And you are especially an anarchist when you come up with your own ideas and initiatives and solutions.
As you can see, it’s anarchism that keeps things working and life interesting. If we waited for authorities and specialists and technicians to take care of everything, we would not only be in a world of trouble, but dreadfully bored—and boring—too boot. Today we live in that world of (dreadfully boring!) trouble precisely to the extent that we abdicate responsibility and control.
Anarchism is naturally present in every healthy human being. It isn’t necessarily about throwing bombs or wearing black masks, though you may have seen that on television; (Do you believe everything you see on television? That’s not anarchist!). The root of anarchism is the simple impulse to DO IT YOURSELF; everything else follows from this.
technofreak,
...boy, I have to think about that one. I wonder what it would be like to grow up really free - what would life morph into?
Reminds me of the beginning of the women's movement, when we wondered what being a woman would be if nobody told us how. It wasn't about becoming manlike. It was attempting to explore what womanhood is and valuing it. Then, it got picked up by the mass media and changed into the barest slice of itself that it is now. I guess a lot like "anarchism." Humm...
Kinda fun being gender unspecific, eh, Lilac?
technofreak,
That last post was from me, I just goofed up the name part. oops.
Dude,
From the previous post comments.
Your situation is about norm I think. What you do is find a fairly self sustaining community and get there at the first opportunity. You are going to not want to be in large population centers if you can possibly avoid it if things get as bad as predicted. Start forming those friendships now. \Start planning for bad times, take action, don't be one of the sheeple. Be an Anarchist.
Sorry, but this is off topic (or is it?)
The following may be a sign that the bushco house of cards may be soon to fall.
"At Conservative Forum on Bush, Everybody's a Critic"
By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, March 8, 2006; A02
If the ancient political wisdom is correct that a charge unanswered is a charge agreed to, the Bush White House pleaded guilty yesterday at the Cato Institute to some extraordinary allegations.
Bartlett argued that Richard Nixon "is the model for everything Bush is doing."
"He is not a responsible human being; he is a phenomenally reckless human being," Sullivan proclaimed. "There is a level of recklessness involved that is beyond any ideology."—referring to bush of course!
link
I think that small communities will organise themselves along these lines in the future but I can’t see it working for New York. However after all these bad things happen, who are the ones who are actually going to do the willing work and will they be capable of doing it?
The problem with altruism and self control is when someone in the community is brought to task and says “I didn’t know I wasn’t supposed to murder anybody, nobody told me”. So you say “From now on you can’t murder anyone otherwise bad things will happen to you”.
A bit later another person complains “Someone has taken all my things”
I think you can see where this line of argument is going; authority and control, for the good of everybody of course. It is all a question of how it is handled.
But hey, if you want to get your message over to as many people as possible and there are any clever programmers out there why not write a game called “After Sim City – Managing the Crash”.
From Belgium
I am an anarchist...I am a musician. My small music community HAS to live in an anarchistic way in order to function. BTW, I am talking underground independent music here not corporate Pop/Rock music (advert. jingles as we call them). Purely cutting edge stuff.
Belgium,
You are still trying to compare apples with oranges. The thing is we have lost our balance and our true nature. To try and understand what our true nature is is very difficult when all you know is corruption/power and greed based society.
I think too that there has to be a type of leadership (not authority) such as elders. A type of overseer(s) who through discipline and knowledge can assist with important decisions when necessary.
Consider how most important decisions are made today...??
Money is the main factor in these decisions, not future repercussions or benefits for civilisation or the environment. Pretty stupid when you look at where those decisions have got us...up the creek!!
At the end of the day we first have to lose our ego and wanting. We have to realise that we coexist with all life and that we only need very little. We also have to focus back on the real values of self, discipline and service/work for the sake of it. Once you know your 'self' it becomes clear what you have to do and you will be driven purely by this knowledge and have no trouble getting out of bed in the morning to do your tasks for the day.
This is the way I live anyway and I can say it is bloody easier than running on that treadmill everyday. I may be poor financially, but, I am filthy rich in everything else. I get by with enough not to live like a stinky drop-out but I never have more than just enough. I have no stress.
Chasing a carrot on the end of a pole only works for a short time, after which it becomes a chore that aint worth it. Laziness follows.
btw, being non-genre specific is a perfect way to live ;)
I read your comment with interest until the last line when I read “Non gender specific”. That’s what happens when your eyes and brain are not in sync.
After the big event, are you proposing a pre-existing model or are you going to make it up as you go along. For instance do you foresee what is now the USA having a national leader or not? Sitting over here in Euroland I have the impression that most Americans (USA), see rising fuel and food prices etc, and generally their wages not going as far as before. I may be very wrong but I see many people being grumpy to pissed off but not too many angry yet. The angry stage will come, then some sort of hiatus and then a regrouping of society. It is what happens after that and how the ordinary people play the situation that has my interest. There will be an ‘after war’ feeling of having got the monkey off your shoulders and pulling together for the common good. But like being in love with love, that feeling will pass if something doesn’t happen to keep it alive. This is the most important stage! In my lifetime, one of the poorest and happiest peoples I have seen were the Cubans in the first year after the Castro revolution. Castro then engineered the situation for his own ends; proved to be a mini Bush and is now custodian of a prison camp for his big neighbour. This is where the checks and balances need to be if the thing is to succeed.
Poland seems to have done a bit better out of its internal strife. It had an initial leader who worked with and for the people and it is now trying to make it as an outpost of capitalism instead of an outpost of communism.
Perhaps you see the situation developing as small enclaves without a national leader like the original inhabitants of your land.
The Kibbutz is another model you may want to consider but whilst the idea seems good, in practice it has the appearance of being authoritarian and remote from the people; as if the people are not really sure if they like it.
The Hamish is another model based on the self sufficient simple life for you to consider.
I am just curious to see how you envision it playing out when the business is done but not yet dusted.
By the way, is there something wrong with advert jingles?
From Belgium.
ANONYMOUS FROM BELGIUM
A thoughtful post; exactly what I had expected most people to say on this subject.
I am going to try and answer your specific and implied questions and assumptions the best I can.
First off, you come from a culture that in many ways has attitudes and thinking that are older than American thinking and attitudes. True, American culture is an amalgam of the European immigrants. But it has some rather distinct characteristics that the Europeans love to make fun of, and sometimes emulate. Europe has seen it all. And that is where you have a distinct disadvantage. Keep in mind, that the ‘Great American Experiment’ was a new idea for Europeans in the 18th century. Well, it didn’t work out as planned, and much of my focus is on what to do different.
In my view, European culture may have seen it all, but is also unable to look beyond what they have seen. From some period of written history beyond 4000 years, what I am talking about has been brought up before. I hate to use this as a reference, but in the Old Testament, The nomadic Jews begged God to give them a King. God refused and counseled them that they wouldn’t like it and would be bad for them. They insisted and finally God relented and gave them a King. They were not happy with the results and neither are we. The implication here is that people can live without a top down paternalistic hierarchy, which would be anarchy by my definition.
What we are dealing with is a problem that has been attempted to be solved with a little tweaking and some changes which in the long run changed nothing. We still end up with elites telling you what to think, how to live, what freedoms you can have, and legal systems and confiscatory laws of such complexity that they cannot be used in a practical manner, that is, to serve any concept of justice, fairness and for the common good. It always ends up with the elites setting the rules for every one else and virtually no rules for themselves. This is called hypocrisy. And this was the sin that Jesus most condemned.
You simply can not make a system of authority in a top down hierarchy that does not evolve into a similar paradigm to what is happening now.
If there is a solution to be found, it is going to have to be a completely different model. That means that the people of good will that are capable and willing to deal with this are going to have to think in other terms, out of the box thinking. There are and have been many who have done this. As far as I can tell, they always end up with something akin to what I am calling anarchy. You might like to pick up a book called “The Probability Broach” by L. Neil Smith. It is a conception by one man on how a larger society can operate in Anarchy. It is one of my favorite reads.
The fact that people are unable to envision a larger society not being run by top down authority is our undoing. The fact that they cannot envision how to accomplish it is mostly a matter of imposed thinking patterns. Look to who is going to benefit from either line of thinking. The top down hierarchy in the end, only benefits that group we call the elites. Trickle down economics DOES NOT WORK! Competition in the end is inefficient. Cooperation always accomplishes more. A hierarchy always becomes oppressive.
Within these parameters, what else do you suggest?
way off the track but cracked up at alternet blogs at peek entitled
what's in the water in texas
for got to sign about texas ,
montana freeman
Montana Freeman,
Tried to find the article you mentioned. Can't find it. Not unsual for me unless you make direct link or reference. I could use a good chuckle, even though I had some direct experience with water problems in Texas. It was horrible.
Hi Murph,
I think you know that I was asking questions and not really proposing anything. It is not my place to hand you something and tell you that this is the way you have to do it. And your predictable reaction to that would be quite justified too.
We are getting a bit further now. I will try for your recommended reading but it will not be in the very near future unless it is on the internet. You are proposing a bottom up system without a national leader. How are you proposing to channel public opinion into actions?
As I remember, this was the essential difference in viewpoint between Lenin and Rosa Luxembourg. He said “How can you organise something the size of Russia from the bottom up? It is so big it is just not manageable”. She said “If you don’t you are heading for trouble”.
I don’t know the answer to this because as you have said, in 4000 years of history it has never happened yet but that doesn’t mean it can’t happen.
Two ideas which come to me off the top of my head are to forget about the national picture and co-exist as many small manageable communities which interact with each other (or don’t). The other idea is to use the internet to conduct national referenda on issues of importance.
One thing all that history has taught me is that there will always be somebody out there ready to misinterpret altruism as gullibility.
I have my ears open so let’s hear some more of your thoughts.
Looking forward to the link, could do with a bit of light relief.
From Belgium
Belgium,
Good questions, and those are the ones that are pretty hard to answer. And, of course unless you propose some absolutes you are then considered just to be blowing in the wind.
Not sure what you mean by ‘being on the internet’. I am sure that with some searching you could find someplace to buy the book. It will be in the SF classification. I would not expect the book to be printed on the internet. It’s 264 pages. Out of print now, was last printed I think in 1980 by Ballantine Books. Like I said, it is one of my favorite reads and I reread it about once a year or so. The capper at the end of the book is that the U.S. constitution had one word changed that made all the difference. Instead of majority consent, it read unanimous consent. That just plain made the government ineffective for all but the most important issues. It actually was a battle between Hamilton and Adams. Hamilton won.
Yes, bottom up decision making for sure. Obviously top down has not and is not working for the common citizen, and is set up for the elite to win overall every time.
Now I do agree that conceiving how that would be implemented in a very large society is the problem, but I think not unsolvable. Since I figure that we are gong to have a huge population die off through various circumstances in the relatively near future, the problem with making a big change in a large society is going to be solved. There won’t be much left with the scenario we are envisioning, and we will be starting over to a very large extent. The technology won’t be gone, but the people to keep it running won’t be there, much as what happened in the fall of the Roman Empire with its huge population die off. The real problem that has repeated itself over and over is going backwards to a state of ‘dark ages’ in thought. This scenario is brought out in movies of the Mad Max genre.
I envision more of a “The Postman” type of scenario. Small communities again, working at getting by. Hopefully, there will be enough people with the realization that the top down hierarchy society just doesn’t work in the long run. If a different tradition and way of thinking is begun, then it becomes imprinted and after a few generations people forget what it was like to live otherwise. (This is the problem today; People cannot imagine not doing it the way it has been done.). As the society grows, if this change in attitude is perpetuated, it will enable the society to find solutions that actually work to everyone’s benefit, except those that crave power of course and if they are ignored, tossed out of the communities, that problem is solved. I am not envisioning a society without conflicts or problems, but one that solves these problems and conflicts in different ways than we do with a top down hierarchy.
I am not sure how you would get public opinion operational in a large society. In small societies, it is not a problem. The book Probability Broach does take on that issue. Technology could be an answer. Keep in mind the rather large population we have is the result of cheap and for a while available energy sources, principally oil. If that source goes away, would humans then be able to build up another huge population? I am presuming not.
Lenin was correct for the knowledge base of the day. And Rosa was correct from a practical standpoint of consequences. One of the problems I see is that people are so entrenched in thinking in terms of the large complex societies we have that they cannot envision anything else. It is true that if we do not have a huge population reduction world wide, changing the existing structures will be damned near impossible. The only way it could happen is to have a huge change in consciousness. And, because of social inertia, probably won’t happen.
You are quite right that there is always someone out there that wants control and gets greedy for what is available. That can only be made ineffectual by a change in the way we look at things; money, organizations, hierarchy, dependence, freedom, cooperation and a host of other concepts. It’s possible for those changes to happen. Are you willing to take up the support for the changes? I have been preaching it for so long my throat is raw. Some buy in, most do not because they can’t shake off their social conditioning and think outside the box. Almost to a person, when you talk about the ideals of living, they agree, but they cannot see that there has to be other ways practiced to achieve these ends. It begins with personal attitudes as in any social movement. Again, WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO DO IT THE SAME WAY AND EXPECT A DIFFERENT OUTCOME.
It is difficult for society to see the grass roots when it is riding high in the saddle. Now it has stepped off the horse and soon it will be on its knees to take a closer look.
Have you done any studies of less, (read more) advanced societies? If I read what you are saying correctly society will consist of more regional groups (aka tribes) but with technology which will be used so far as is possible. How do you envision the structure of a new society? I have not thought about this but first impressions may be like a mix of the Native American tribes in organisation; the early West in starting over. Maybe even the Amish without the religion or the aversion to technology. I only ask these questions to see if there is a plan. The plan can always be changed but without one nothing will happen in the way you expect and the result could be far from desirable.
Where do you expect the big die off to occur? I would expect the dependant nations to go first; most of Africa and lower Asia or are you talking about closer to home?
By the way what was this new source of energy Bush was hinting at a few days ago? I missed the outcome, kinda suspected it might be HAARP trotted out again as a diversion from the ports deal.
From Belgium
Hi again Belgium.
Well, between the two of us, we are certainly covering some bases.
Die off. Well, obvious to me is that societies that are so completely dependent on oil for agriculture and transportation will be hit the hardest the soonest from oil expense and availability. Think about a society with no plastics or so expensive you can't afford it. Drugs that are the same. Here in the U.S I am of that ageing population that is stressing out the neocons on how to keep us in diapers and kayopectak. I was reading that last winter England had around 30,000 winter related deaths due to no heat. Here in the U.S. I would expect it to be as bad or worse in that context alone. In the U.S. there is an average of 1200 miles from producer to the table for food. Make fuel expensive and guess what will happen.
Societies that are not dependent on oil or imports will fare best. Some of the more remote ones may even wonder what all the fuss is about. Example. I lived in Arkansas for a while, out in the middle of the mountains, relatively remote. The old timers there that had lived through the depression said that at the time they couldn't figure out what people were talking about in the news. Their lifestyle hadn't changed a bit.
Cuba is obviously well set up to do without oil They learned the hard way when oil from Russia was cut off and they did fine. Their population is well educated, they are exporting medical services (highest ratio of medical services to population in the world right now) and no one is going hungry. We get a lot of negative info about Cuba, but it appears to me they are doing just fine without our help at this time.
Yes, occassionally I have delved into how people live in less mechanized and what we call primitive societies. Some of them sound like they are doing just fine. Others are not so friendly or being obliberated from culture shock and exploitation.
I do expect if this all comes down to have a more regionaized small societies. Maybe something similiar to American Indian organizations. We shall see. There were some very commendable aspects to many of these early tribes, some not so admirable. In my opinion, the Cheyenne had the most sustainable lifestyle and the most individual freedom. But then again, I haven't studied a lot of the tribes. The tribes that lived around Lake Tahoe before the white man came in also seemed to be pretty sustainable and peaceful.
No matter what, if things hold together long enough for the oil problem to gain traction, societies are going to downsize and down power a lot. Complexity is going to have to go. Probably a good thing from my perspective.
Bush bleating in the news about alternative power is so much bull shit from what I have learned. Tain't so. I further think he probably has been advised of this but power feeds on itself. Pure Macavelian drive behind what he is doing. It is the result of way too many folks in power buying into Straussian political thought. Say and do anything to keep the power cause we are better than them unwashed masses and are entitled to tell em who to live, what to believe and when and how to die for Christ sake. And for this we keep shoveling money and priviledge on them. A truly insane system we have.
murph,
you know i live on a reservation and in a small town on that res that has mostly whites and there are a few problems but,i leave the house unlocked the keys in the little truck that hardly goes anywhere and am giving serious thought to these posts.first your right about the cities,god help them,what a mess they are now ,the future is really going to be crappy.
i'v know that for many years and have stayed the hell out of them unless nessesity took hold.small groups are the only way that i can think of that will make it if thats even a possibility,we'll see.
montan freeman
Mountain Freeman,
You are fortunate in having found a place you feel good about. Yeh, if the disaster comes in the form of oil depletion or economic bust before the oil, the cities are not going to pleasant places at all I figure.
Well, maybe I've just had a long day and I've been reading too many other sites with too much info about the international conspiracies and big,old money factions, (prison planet)etc. But, our little plans will only play out if the Big Guys with all the money and all the history and all the experience fucking over and controlling populations for generations just happen to all die of bird flu or get eaten by their household staffs.
You can bet that THEY have plans, by golly. And, even if we win a pitched battle against them, the country would be so exhausted that we'd be easy pickin's for the Chinese to come over and put us to work,since they own much of the wealth of this country already. If we are lucky, we can set up lots of dude ranches and surf clubs and the whole country will turn into a sort of Disneyland for Chinese tourists.
I'd like to believe that somehow the really bad ones behind the Federal Reserve and the IMF and the international drug/money laundering bank cartels, et al, will go away somehow and leave us alone to figure things out and try new things. But, I've got a feeling that ain't the way it's going to go down. It would take an asteroid hit.
Sorry to be so negative. Sometimes it just gets to me.
Ahhh....Belgium....nevermind.
It aint rocket science or brain surgery we are talkin about here.
Its simply about realisation.
If it aint clear yet....give it a little bit more time. Soon enough you will realise.
Technofreak
You break me up.
The realisation is not too difficult but one thing for sure is that those with a plan are going to be a lot better off than those without one, no matter how simple that plan is. Do you have one?
From Belgium
Technofreak,
My sentiments exactly, about the "rocket science." Not aimed at anyone in particular, but the population at large.
Cyclone
freeacre,
Now, you are getting way ahead. I think that it will take a good long while after the shit goes down before the federal reserve, IMF and drug cartels go hunting. Now, the Chinese, I'm not so sure about. That's why one needs to be deep in the woods.
Cyclone
My Belgian friend,
My view of the "die off" is that it will occur in pretty short order here in the US, should the economy explode. A huge majority of Americans cannot live without the basic necessities, like cable TV and SUV's and Hard Rock Cafe's. I believe that a huge march on Washington would occur, (too bad that it won't happen before, as it should) and civil war will be inevitable. Civil war without real sides, if you know what I mean. People fighting for the sake of fighting. When I'm talking small communities, I mean SMALL. Maybe 100 people or less, hidden away, fighting for survival. Taking care of each other and guarding what they have. The people trapped in big cities will be wiped out in a month. Since most will refuse to leave, the carnage will be unimaginable. It will be neighbor on neighbor. Suicides will be uncountable. People who try to leave too late will fail, so they'll either hunker down as long as they can or they will die. The streets will not be safe for anybody in urban areas, nuts with machine guns will be killing people for water and fun. All in all, a grim outlook, but an accurate one I think. As for the rest of the world, those in America won't have a clue.
Cyclone
Belgian friend again,
I know the questions were not directed at me, but I'm answering anyway. Hah! I think the US will have a leader, but the leader will be essentially neutered. People will follow the lead or they won't, but no real power structure will exist for a long time. The armed forces will do what the New Orleans police did, after a short time they will take what they can get and go hide, along with everyone else. It will be pure survival, nothing more, nothing less. Everyone for themselves, or their small communities, and only the strong and protected will survive. Mass, utter chaos will be the order of the day, and most won't be able to handle it. But, no one believes it, just like peak oil, so few will prepare. Sad, but welcome to America where reality is but a word in the dictionary. And not one to be considered.
Cyclone
It looks like you will have a president presiding over a nation of unconnected Cajun like communities.
I suppose somebody has to live in the White House, I hope for him it has electricity and water. There again it could be Hilary.
From Belgium
My Belgian friend,
I think, in the long run, it's best if the White House does not have running water or electricity for a while. They (the politicians) certainly won't know how to survive in such conditions. But, I'm afraid that people with money will still have money, and those without.......
Cyclone
Post a Comment
<< Home