Is Maurice Strong so wrong?

[ir]

My understanding of computers is close to ZERO, so I feed on what I hear and read from others who appear to be experts.<br>it sounded great, "the right thing to do", but then re checking the people who are the most vocal supporters, they seem to have another agenda, certainly (in ISRAEL, that is ) not socialist. Others, like myself would easily join in and support, because it sounds like a good thing to do, and socialist as well. <br>In Israel I think there were other incentives to start the movement for "open code" - 1. security reasons - Israeli computer guys keep spreading the rumour that windows is equipped with back doors that are used by the US government. I tend to believe some of it true, and Israelis don't like the notion of "dependency on technology" and vunlnerability to being "penetrated" ha he. more so from the back door...<br>---<br>2, mach competitive sentiments and instincts among PC types. Some of the people I heard talking about it seemed like they were motivated by an emotional need to overcome the giant. <br>3. and, the wiki format appeals to IT people, and so it follows they will apply it to their own field successfully.<br>Its like the dwarfs attacking Gulliver together...<br><br>-<br>However, regardless of the base motivations of some of the people who started the movement, it proves that the only viable way to have any achivement against the economic enslavement of the PTB is SOCIALISM ! Actually, BECAUSE the motivations is "egotistic", the example becomes more convincing. it doesn't require one to be "noble.altruistic" or something, just reasonable - to support socialism against NWO, slavery and depopulation (mass genocides). <br><br>I'll rest from my graphomanic mood, good night. <p></p><i></i>

[rothbardian]

To DreamsEnd:<br><br>I am enjoying the exchange going on here so I don't mind tapping away at the keyboard (I guess I like to think my hobby is 'saving-the-world')...but you sound almost unhappy about the whole thing. If you'd rather move on, don't let me keep you. I always feel like I can learn from these exchanges...as well as anybody else who gets in on the discussion. I certainly find it interesting to encounter someone who identifies as a 'straight up' socialist, but maybe other things are more interesting to you than a libertarian/socialist comparison. Anyway...<br><br>You were right about the Birchers being officially AGAINST neocons (and the Iraq war, for example). I slipped up on that one. But here's the info on the Rockefeller connection:<br><br>The Rockefeller/Welch deal was a matter of public record when it happened in October of '63. The transaction was published in Standard-and-Poor's Business Index. Author/investigator Morris Beale (who did a lot of work trying to expose the PTB's shenanigans in the drug industry) reported on this in the August '65 edition of his little newsletter, Capsule News:<br><br>"Robert Welch (and his brother Jimmy) received a tremendous payoff from the House of Rockefeller two years ago, for organizing the John Birch Society and sitting on the communist lid for the past seven years. The total pay-off was $10,800,000, less the value of the family candy company, which is reputed to be maybe $100,000 or $200,000." <br><br>"On October 1, 1963, Rockefeller's National Biscuit Company announced the "purchase" of the James O. Welch Candy Company of Cambridge, Massachusetts. In Moody's Manual of Industrials, and in Standard-and-Poor's Business Index, NBC gave the alleged purchase price as "200,000 shares of National Biscuit common stock." According to The Wall Street Journal for Oct. 1, 1963, NBC common stock was selling for $54 a share on the New York Stock Exchange. Today it is selling for $58. Thus the Welch brothers were given $10,800,000 just like that."<br><br>"Candy people say the whole family business, with plants and five sales offices, [was] hardly worth $200,000. Welch will tell those dopes who will believe him that National Biscuit is not a Rockefeller concern."<br><br>"Again, Moody's Manual will trip him up. It lists as two of the directors the names of Roy E. Tomlinson and Don. G. Mitchell. [Both are] members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Further, they are a pair of Rockefeller's "professional directors." Tomlinson is also a director of their Prudential Life and American Sugar Refining."<br><br>"It also appears that the Rock[efeller] Mob financed and promoted the organization of the John Birch Society. How else could it have gotten millions of dollars worth of newspaper publicity by the phony "attacks" on Welch that came with dramatic suddenness."<br><br><br>In an earlier newsletter (June 19 '65), Beale pointed out that Robert Welch had declared Bealle's book, The Guns of the Regressive Right—which accuses the CIA of direct involvement [in the JFK assassination]—to be "all wrong". Hmmm.<br><br>A quote from Beale in that same newsletter: "We examined thoroughly all of his 1964 bulletins... [which] were filled with attacks on Earl Warren and curious expressions of hearty agreement with him on the myth that 'a communist [meaning the Decoy Man Oswald] killed Kennedy.'"<br><br>Could this be a disinfo operation? How could Welch and the Birchers, on the one hand, be keyed into very secretive facts about the PTB/Rockefeller/Illuminati thing...and yet not have had the slightest clue as to the JFK conspiracy? That smells pretty bad.<br><br>Notice the timing on the Rockefeller transaction-- October of '63. In the 'ramp up' to the JFK assassination, the PTB would be anticipating the need to misdirect anyone who might be inclined to 'conspiracy' theories. <br><br>So the PTB props up their handpicked 'champion' of the conspiracy crowd, Welch, who quickly gains admiration from conspiracists for saying a lot of 'bravely' radical things about the PTB ...but then at the critical moment, Welch does a little 'slide' on the truth and endorses the lone-gunman/soviet-agent official cover story of the PTB/Warren Commission. (As late as 1988 the Birch Society was re-endorsing the Warren Commission)<br><br>It seems similar to the complaints about Ted Gunderson...who apparently says a lot of the right things..but people complain that he somehow ends up muddling and obstructing things. <br><br>And that was a pretty good deal-- selling a company that others valued at 200K, for almost 11 million dollars. Rockefeller made Welch a wealthy man so it's more than a little strange that within months of his golden Rockefeller transaction, Welch commenced a career of railing against Rockefeller.<br><br>Interestingly, I got tripped up on the Birch anti-war/anti-establishment posturing because I've paid no attention to them (other than this strange Rockefeller/Warren Commission story I'd heard years ago). Birchers are of no interest to me, and so the only time I ever hear of them is when the media is (as I only now realize) sloppily and inaccurately lumping them with the 'right wing'. The righties by definition, support all the big American wars and staunchly support the military-industrial complex, unlike the Birchers. <br><br>It just goes to show the inherently 'rigged' nature of the popular right/left political spectrum. Not only is there no real 'correct' place for the official position of the Birchers...there is no place for a classical liberal like myself. Where should I be placed? At the right extreme is national socialism, and at the left extreme is communist socialism and presumably varying degrees and varieties of socialism in between. For me this spectrum is utterly inadequate as it literally leaves no option for those who are against all or most government.<br><br>The spectrum should really be a scale that goes from zero government up to totalitarianism. <br><br>--------------------------<br><br>That was a lot more of a John Birch tangent than I had intended. As to the subject of Rockefeller and socialism-- let me see if I can explain this differently because you just keep confusing my statements:<br><br>There is one huge point of commonality between a PTB guy like Rockefeller and socialists/socialism-- they both like and need...coercion.<br><br>Rockefeller loves the idea that Allende is the central figure in a coercive/centralized government because that makes his (Rockefeller's) objective of 'taking control'...a hundred times easier. All the power and controls reside in one convenient location-- the person of Allende. (Kill Allende, install puppet Pinochet, 5 o'clock...time to go home.)<br><br>Even more importantly, Rockefeller also loves the coercive/centralized government that is his BASE... the US government, because in his parasitic position he and his people have very strong access to free money (tax dollars), vast numbers of soldier/slaves (if needed) and enormous numbers of creepy US government agents crawling all over the globe, doing his dirty bidding.<br><br>I don't know what it is you don't understand about the great tragedy of coercive and/or centralized government. If Rockefeller did not have a centralized government to attach himself to...and suck the lifeblood from to sustain his operations...he wouldn't/couldn't be gallivanting around the world, Allende would still be alive...and in fact there wouldn't be anything even close to what we now have in the way of a predatory PTB because their entire reality is based on vast, economy-crippling sums of free money and millions of 'free' soldiers...the resources of an entire nation.<br><br>Again, I don't know what you're misunderstanding: Classical liberalism doesn't argue that ALL evil can be eliminated...ONLY THE MEANS TO MASS PRODUCE IT." <br><br>Let me mention for a third time (you've had no comment) the example of the Civil War (quoting my previous post): <br><br>"Would that [war] have been anywhere near as large a conflict if the prosecutors of the war had to use their own money...and could only hire voluntary mercenaries? That's not to mention that the whole underlying cause of the war was a corrupt government that had colluded with corrupt PTB insiders to impose a 50% tariff on southern merchants." <br><br>"The greatest likelihood is that there would have been no conflict at all...because the luciferian, masonic PTB creeps who concocted this tariff wouldn't have had any coercive and/or central government to collude with...."<br><br>Another quote from my post:<br><br>"How dramatically would wars, death and destruction decrease throughout the world if predators had to pay for their own wars and rely only on hired voluntary mercenaries? How much would the dangers therefore decrease, how much better would the world be?"<br><br><br>I would argue that if we want to kill this parasite, we are going to have to let the 'host' die. The host for PTB predators is the coercive/centralized government. <br><br>Socialism does two things that tragically plays into the hands of the predators-- It creates 'centralized control'...a central location of power and control over the community members. And secondly, having established coercive authority, it then proceeds to collect huge percentages of the community's assets...financial, human or otherwise...into The Collective.<br><br>It is absolutely a dream come true for the predators: Create one big bag of goodies (the Collective) where a huge massive percentage of a particular nation's resources, wealth, human assets etc. are contained. And then create one convenient 'pick-up' location, where the predators can go to seize control of the goods. Socialism is doing a spectacularly efficient job of turning the world over to Luciferians.<br><br>I know you want to argue that what is going on in the US isn't 'socialism' (yes, I know..Bush has yet to produce his 'socialist' ID card) and I think you're wrong, but as I said before, as 'the little guy' I don't really care what anybody calls it because it certainly is, if nothing else, an exact replication of the socialization process...1) an increasingly huge collective and 2) an increasingly authoritarian government. Socialism has PRECISELY those two processes. Where the process finally stops is (from my reading of some 'mainstream' definitions) the difference between socialism and communism.<br><br>But why would I bother with those distinctions? I do not recognize those distinctions. Coercion is coercion. Neocons, liberals, socialists, PTB...when they come to collect something else into their Collective (my son, the fruits of my labor, my fingernail clippers) it's still the same injustice. In fact from my vantage point, it is outrageous that the various 'thieves' want me to make careful, delicate distinctions between them...AS IF there is a difference between the unjust coercion of a socialist and the unjust coercion of a neocon. <br><br>There is no distinction among any human beings who unjustly coerce another human being into giving up his children or the work of his hands or his freedom.<br><br> <br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

rothbardian, I will leave it at this for now, since I mainly want to answer IR's question about Linux.<br><br>We agree that Rockefeller and the very few others around with that level of wealth are not interested in the health and wellbeing of the rest of us.<br><br>We agree that they will do all kinds of things to make it easier for them to obtain wealth and power and to protect that wealth and power.<br><br>We agree that they fund all kinds of things, and that some of them, on the surface, look as if they are about helping the planet. (We disagree that this somehow is projected as "socialism", but definitely they are into fuzzy, feel-good things such as "world peace" and "the environment") <br><br>We don't at all agree about the nature of (even the definition of) actual socialism as opposed to your use of the term as a sort of synonym for centralized state power. <br><br>As for John Birchers, I can accept that...even assume that groups such as the Birchers can be intel ops or privately funded versions of intel ops, since it happens all the time. I had actually figured out that you must have been talking about the candy company, but, other than Mullens, I didn't find any contemporary references that verified that this had happened. I actually visited many websites about the history of candy companies. And whatever ills Welch is responsible for, he also gave the world "sugar daddies" and "sugar babies", the joy of children and bane of orthodontists everywhere.<br><br>"Sugar Daddies" and the like ended up with the "Tootsie Roll" company. They got them from...I forget the name right now, but it was a drug company that also had a division of chocolate and candy, oddly enough. That's as far as I could trace the remains of the Welch candy company, though I learned a lot about that section of (was it New York? I did this really quickly the other day) where the street was lined with candy vendors and small candy shops. It was a nice diversion. However, the Rockefeller "buyout" that you quoted about smells fishy to me. And since Welch openly named the Rockefellers constantly in his writings as "the bad guys" I'm not sure exactly what the game would be. So, I don't know about the source you used for that info, as it sounded almost like a rumor started specifically to discredit Birchers by those even FURTHER to the right, but I'll put it in my "unknown" file.<br><br>One of the questions I have these days is this: One of the biggest "opponents" to the globalist movements are actually the fascists (I mean those openly identifying as such.) They don't mind big corporations, but they are very nationalist, and distrust control of anything from outside their national borders. This, actually, would be a bit like the Birchers. <br><br>Well, what's a good opponent of the globalist movement to do? Fascism is about allowing very strong central control and also state involvement in controlling the economic sphere. The difference with socialism is that fascism does not move to remove private ownership of industry. And though they never say it out loud, a look at history shows that fascism, in fact, is when the state acts in all ways to make the country subservient to the major industries and corporations. That's why socialists CALL strikes, while fascists OUTLAW strikes.<br><br>But my point was not to revive that discussion but to express genuine confusion when I see the globalism/fascist anti-globalist "rivalry" and notice so many points of contact between them. So many areas in which they don't seem all that different. But that's another story.<br><br>I will caution you again, however, despite listing our agreements, that when you sling terms like "socialism" around, especially in the U.S. in which the term has been used to justify everything from COINTELPRO to the overthrow of democratic governments, you risk discrediting genuine working class movements and falling into the same rhetoric that the state uses to villify such movements. Maybe those movements don't adopt a libertarian framework, but they are in genuine opposition to the power structure. <br><br>To IR:<br><br>The open source movement is not literally "socialist" in that it isn't really the basis of some country's economic system. But it's about providing a product to the public absolutely free. (Actually "open source" and "free software" are not completely synonymous. The free software movement is about open source software that remains entirely free of any kind of commercial component. You can sell Open Source software, and businesses are doing so, such as Red Hat linux.) <br><br>And it has a libertarian flavor as well. The linux movement is very, very decentralized. There are MANY different versions (called "distributions"). And the way advances are made in the core of Linux as well as in all the groups putting out their versions of it, is fascinating. You simply sign on as a volunteer and accept assignments. If you can do the work and are motivated and effective, you'll get to contribute lots. Any person "off the street" can send in suggestions and even send in code that could end up incorporated into the final product. In fact, it happens all the time. "Hey, look at this neat modification I made. Can we include it in the latest version?" And it is.<br><br>The libertarian is also about the fact that what hierarchy there is, is voluntary, specific to a given task and based purely on merit as judged by peers. Even the companies that sell their Linux based products often have a vast army of such volunteers working to improve the product.<br><br>So, decentralized, limited "authority, but also socialist in that the product is free. Decisions about what to do and what not to do ARE based on what is popular and desired by the "consumer" but these decisions are NOT arrived at through any medium of exchange. The only "marketplace" is having a look at feedback from those using the product and noticing how many people are downloading it.<br><br>I don't know about Israeli connections. The guy who created Linux from Unix code is from Scandinavia somewhere. And believe me, the entire Linux community is incredibly decentralized. So there may be a group pushing open source in Israel, but they are not in charge! (send specifics and I'll look into it). <br><br><br>As for security, it's funny you mention that. Windows, the most popular commercial operating system, is constantly being criticized for it's security flaws. When one is discovered, it can be several weeks before a fix is created. <br><br>Security flaws in open source products are usually fixed within 2 days of discovery because there is a much wider base of people out there looking at the problem and the lack of secrecy allows such problems to be discovered and fixed more quickly. <br><br>Since no one outside Microsoft is allowed to see the code, it's much easier for those flaws to sneak in. Also, Windows integrates so many features, that once a virus or "hacker" gets access at any point, he's got access to just about everything of importance.<br><br>There are other basic features of Windows that are inherently insecure. For example, when you log onto your windows account, unless you are unusual, you are logging on at the HIGHEST adminstrative level. That means that anything can be done without permission, such as installing programs. In LINUX, you are NEVER signed on at that level unless you are specifically doing something such as installing a program. <br><br>Signing on at the admin level is a HUGE security risk and it's why programs can be secretly installed and run on your computer. To me, it is one of the biggest security flaws in Windows and also, perplexingly, the easiest to remedy. The Linux model would be easy to implement. Sign on at a lower level and then give a password anytime administrative tasks such as installing a program are required. <br><br>I'm no expert on security, and I admit that one reason there are few Linux viruses is that the user base is so small. However, everything I've read suggests that if you are concerned about security, dump Windows and move into Linux. This is true at the corporate/government level as well. More on Linux and security if you are interested. <br><br>In any event, a decentralized movement, developed by people working together in minimal hierarchies, creating products that are absolutely free in most cases, or even in the case of commercialized products a free version is always available (that's how the open source licensing works. I can sell you a version of Linux, but the code is available somewhere for free. Companies attempting to make a profit from this, do so by providing services connected with the software and often put together a slicker package.)<br><br>Ironically, by using Linux as an OS, some groups, like Walmart, are actually making lots of money selling really cheap computers. And some Asian companies are doing the same. Linux may, ironically, become the basis of many, very profitable companies. <br><br>Linux, by the way, is also often the code used in computerized components of various appliances. If you have a TIVO system on your TV, for example, I believe that is Linux based.<br><br>Wasted too much time on this, this morning! I originally brought it up as an example of how a product can be made without the profit motive driving it's creation. And it is possible to respond to "consumer demand" in ways other than allowing the marketplace to determine demand by influencing price. <br><br>And expect an all-out assault on Linux and the open source movement by Microsoft in the near future.<br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>