Big money controlling news in USA

[DoNotRemoveBeforeFlight]

I remember watching This Film is Not Yet Rated (2006), and I think it really relates to the media industries. The media distracts us from real problems to action flicks and other mediocre crap... but war documentaries are being censored. This discourages producers from filming stuff that matters and the higher-ups are attempting social engineering in a way that harms the country but benefiting the few. This can also suppress the inquisitive minds.

I don't get it. If they want to profit from it long-term, why not just guide the people into developing themselves, become more efficient at work, go into scientific advancement, sell those stuff to other countries. Profit! And everyone's happy. What they're doing now is unsustainable and myopic. Really.

[ThePest179]

I remember watching This Film is Not Yet Rated (2006), and I think it really relates to the media industries. The media distracts us from real problems to action flicks and other mediocre crap... but war documentaries are being censored. This discourages producers from filming stuff that matters and the higher-ups are attempting social engineering in a way that harms the country but benefiting the few. This can also suppress the inquisitive minds.

I don't get it. If they want to profit from it long-term, why not just guide the people into developing themselves, become more efficient at work, go into scientific advancement, sell those stuff to other countries. Profit! And everyone's happy. What they're doing now is unsustainable and myopic. Really.

 

Did you check any sources for the film? Make sure the film's contents are correct before assuming anything.

[DoNotRemoveBeforeFlight]

You are right. The film may very well be biased since it holds an extreme opposing view towards MPAA's CARA without an antithesis to what it stands for. But hey, the message is there. That's what the film is suppose to do, right? My point about "profit" is just an opinion, actually.

 

You are welcome to provide a counterargument to what the film is about. I'm only an outside observer. The only first-hand experience I had of USA is traveling in California, not bureaucracy.

[Xalder]

 

The problem with this is that those who do the initial ridding are not usually keen on submitting themselves to a voting process. You rarely find revolutionaries who do the revolution and then kindly step aside for someone else to become the top dog...

 

Regards

 

Oh man that's what happened at the end of the Underland Chronicles. Too bad we never see what comes of that since it was at the end of the series.

[Doom Shepherd]

So the war of independence didn't free us from the tyranny of England? Looks like you've got some reading of history to do...

 

No, the War of Independence freed "us" from neither the Hudson's Bay Company NOR the British East India Company, because they weren't major influences in the US in the first place.

 

East India. In INDIA. Eventually resolved by Gandhi, do we remember him for violence?

Hudson's Bay - In CANADA. Eventually resolved peacefully via economic and legal challenges, and eventually Canadian Independence.

Seriously, you need to read some history that DOESN'T take place in the USA. The world exists out just a BIT farther.

 

 

Except that HISTORY has shown that a civil war will do the opposite of destroy the country...

 

Why do I think you're arguing from a statistical sample of ONE? The US Civil War, and the Revolutionary War, for that matter, are pretty much flukes of history. Civil Wars RARELY replace a bad government with a better one. Usually, they replace it with an equivalent where only the names of the people on top have changed, or a worse one. Reign of Terror, Russian Revolution/Civil War, Iranian Revolution, the various revolutions in Africa and South America in the 70's and 80's... the list goes on.

 

You wanna know a commonality between the most effective revolutions? The ones where things actually got BETTER afterwards, at least for a while? They were bought and paid for by the wealthy.

 

England. Nobles rebelled against the king. Gave us the Magna Carta.

US. Rich white landowners rebelled against the king. Gave us the Constitution.

Color Revolutions. Eastern Europeans, heavily funded by Western business interests, rebelled against post-Soviet autocrats.

 

Why does everyone seem to believe that history doesn't apply?

Because things aren't frozen in 1866? Except maybe in small parts of the Deep South.

[ThePest179]

You are right. The film may very well be biased since it holds an extreme opposing view towards MPAA's CARA without an antithesis to what it stands for. But hey, the message is there. That's what the film is suppose to do, right? My point about "profit" is just an opinion, actually.

 

You are welcome to provide a counterargument to what the film is about. I'm only an outside observer. The only first-hand experience I had of USA is traveling in California, not bureaucracy.

 

Just saying man, don't assume everything a movie says is true (which it thankfully seems you're not).

 

Civil Wars RARELY replace a bad government with a better one.

 

Depends on what you mean by a "better" government, but you're correct.

[Vapymid]

Is the situation really that bad in the US?

 

My revolutionary theory is a bit rusty but I remember that Lenin stated that any revolution requires that a) the ruled classes were no longer willing to be ruled in the old way, b) the ruling classes not able to continue ruling in the old ways and c) the political activity of the masses was high enough to ensure sufficient following of the revolutionary leaders.

 

Later, he also added that to have a general support of the armed forces is also required, for obvious practical reasons.

 

Does all that really exist in the US now?

 

Also, if there were to be a revolution - what would be changed? The personalities of the people in charge or the structure of government institutions?

 

What will be the power base of the new revolutionary government?

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

We're working on A, but we have B and C covered.

 

Hopefully, we'll be getting back to the Constitution, and make a law limiting the length of any law to 50 pages (1 page = one side of an 8.5"x11" sheet of paper, at standard 10-12pt font size) or less. The law has to come with a "layman's vocabulary" version in that 50 pages, cannot cover more than one specific subject, and is not allowed to be voted on unless it passes a Constitutional inquiry. (basically, it can't even be presented if any aspect could violate the Constitution)

[Vapymid]

Then, in addition to Lenin's postulate that simultaneously with the seats of government, the revolutionary forces must take under control the post office, the telegraph, bridges and the police stations, I strongly recommend to arrest and intern all lawyers the moment you take over the power - because they will be you main deadly enemy...

 

Regards

[ThePest179]

We're working on A, but we have B and C covered.

 

Hopefully, we'll be getting back to the Constitution, and make a law limiting the length of any law to 50 pages (1 page = one side of an 8.5"x11" sheet of paper, at standard 10-12pt font size) or less. The law has to come with a "layman's vocabulary" version in that 50 pages, cannot cover more than one specific subject, and is not allowed to be voted on unless it passes a Constitutional inquiry. (basically, it can't even be presented if any aspect could violate the Constitution)

 

You're not going to comment on @Doom Shepard's post? No?

[BTGBullseye]

Nope...

 

Why?

[Seattleite]

The problem with revolutions, other than the violence part, is that it damages the infrastructure enough to cause massive economic problems and potentially even outright collapse. Economic problems, especially economic collapse, ALWAYS result in an increase in corruption. The only way to avoid this is to find a way to keep the violence, and thus the damage to the infrastructure, contained. Like, if one side of the US went to war with another the damage would be (mostly) on the front of the war and spread across the losing side, leaving much of the infrastructure on the winning side intact enough to sustain the economy. The front, as it moves across the country, would suffer economic collapse but only where the fighting occurs, and when the front is pushed away towards one side, the other side's intact infrastructure makes recovery possible in the damaged area and prevents a collapse. If anything, the war might actually be GOOD for the economy as many sectors will see a sudden, massive boon due to the increased demand, and that means the money of the corporations and the wealthy will have to actually be spent instead of sitting in immense overseas bank accounts stagnating, something that doesn't happen normally because they spend very little under normal circumstances compared to the amount they take in.

 

The problem is that this isn't the case. The US doesn't have a geographically defined schism. The fighting would be everywhere, leaving no places with an intact enough infrastructure to allow recovery. There would be no places where people would live regular lives, working regular jobs to produce goods and perform services related to the war, or unrelated to the war for that matter. The war would collapse the economy outright, because instead of increasing demand without hurting supply, it'll decrease demand and cripple supply. The economic collapse will not only make it easier for corruption to occur, it'll also leave a dangerous power vacuum, leaving room for radical parties to enter. These two things do not combine well. A revolution in the US is the nuclear option. It is an absolute last resort we should only ever use if things are so far gone that a complete economic collapse is better than the present course. We're not North Korea, we're not so far gone that becoming a third world country would be a step up. Anybody who thinks we are is completely insane.

[ThePest179]

Nope...

 

Why?

 

So you concede he was correct in his statement?

[BTGBullseye]

Nope.

[Xalder]

Nope.

 

So you're purposely ignoring facts in order to live in your little dream world where a bloody revolution will make everything wonderful.

[ThePest179]

Nope.

 

So you're purposely ignoring facts in order to live in your little dream world where a bloody revolution will make everything wonderful.

 

What he stated.

[BTGBullseye]

Nope... Not that either... I just don't want to go through and post a reply again concerning that aspect of this subject... As a matter of fact, I don't even want to post this, but not doing so would leave you with the wrong idea of me.

 

Ok, I'll reply to the first part of Doom's post at least...

 

We separated from England, and that separated us from those who were both influenced heavily by the corporations, and from those that influenced the corporations heavily. In addition, it separated us from the crown's excessive taxes and tariffs that they imposed on virtually everything. (some of which were increased even further by certain corporations, and then pocketed)

 

And his last reply:

 

“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it” - George Santayana (a revolution is going to happen again and again until the people in charge learn to quit being assholes)

[DoNotRemoveBeforeFlight]

What the... you know history is repeating itself, right?

Corporations are acquiring one another... in the same bed... it's close to a complete monopoly.

Ordinary folks can't escape it, unless they farm their own stuff.

 

Hey, anyone watched the news? Fort Hood shooting.

Meanwhile, many are starving, shot, bombed, and mauled somewhere in the open. Does the mainstream media ever covers PMC shooting people for no goddamn reason?

[BTGBullseye]

Does the mainstream media ever covers PMC shooting people for no goddamn reason?

No.

[ThePest179]

We separated from England, and that separated us from those who were both influenced heavily by the corporations, and from those that influenced the corporations heavily. In addition, it separated us from the crown's excessive taxes and tariffs that they imposed on virtually everything. (some of which were increased even further by certain corporations, and then pocketed)

True, but there were still more peaceable solutions to the problem, as India and Canada can attest. The Americans? Violence of course. And you didn't bother to refute the very valid things Doom Shepard said about how revolutions/civil wars commonly turn countries into crapsack worlds.

 

 

“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it” - George Santayana (a revolution is going to happen again and again until the people in charge learn to quit being assholes)

 

Unfortunately humans will NEVER stop being assholes, especially those at the top.