Jan Irvin and Bob Tuskin at the Free Your Mind Conference. Recorded April 10, 2011.
The Intel Hub
http://theintelhub.com
Jan Irvin
http://www.gnosticmedia.com
Tragedy And Hope
http://www.tragedyandhope.com/
The Trivium method
http://www.triviumeducation.com/
Jan good video,I don’t think people understand how important the trivium and quadrivium are.
Looking forward to David Harriman’s interview,If It’s not done yet ask about the electric universe and ayn rand.
Agreeable and engaging video Jan.
I want to add a brief observation about “new world order”, or world government sui generis and the whole string of questions raised by Bertrand Russell in his writings, since I have already tried to draw attention to the problems associated with misreading or arbitrary “sound bite” sophistry in my previous long comments. I too have very real (and I believe, legitimate) concerns about “pragmatic” (read: fascist) totalitarian rule in the name of democracy, freedom, science, Monsanto, Islam, “corporate zionism”, neo-classicism, clerical paedophilia, drug peddling or whatever – ad nauseam. The point is that we can no longer pretend to live in separate compartments in a shared planet, a global commons with mutual resource needs – like fresh air, water & food. World government is therefore a de facto inevitability, simply because in order to function proportionately, we must face the reality of an exponentially growing coalition of needy stakeholders, including the animal kingdom or even more comprehensively, the entire biodiversity of life on Earth itself. The real question is whether the administrative task of managing our affairs will itself be governed by the international rule of (ecological) law through the ICC, or by some kind of pseudo-morality or phoney idealism put about by puerile, but deadly, gangsters and hoodlums like Syngenta, Dow, Gaddafi, Assad, Putin, Belasconi, the “Pope” & the “continuity/real” IRA…to mention only a few of the leading criminal bastards and their allegiances.
I too look forward to hearing from David Harriman. Please ask him, if you can, about his thoughts on the invaluable contribution of Sir Karl Popper to the evolving discourse on the philosophy of science.
Many thanks, you are greatly appreciated on this side of the Atlantic as well.
For me this is a great comment as it mentions “World government is therefore a de facto inevitability”, as, most of what I read/watch in the alternate media is commentary on, what is, but rarely any discussion on ways to ensure the evolution of, an honourable “WG” that is corruption free, or better yet, beyond corruption.
PS. The Trivium is a good place to start though.
This belief that there can be a benevolent government is perhaps the most evil lie ever taught. Human slavery depends on it. Please don’t promote it.
Indeed, good comments from everyone so far. I must admit, that whenever I hear the NWO discussed I have a visceral reaction in opposition to it. However, these comments give me pause to reflect and consider the possibility a WG may (at some point) be necessary.
But are we really there yet? Is it even feasible that a WG could be conceived (with the nature of man being what it is as demonstrated since day 1) that wouldn’t end up corrupted or hijacked by power hungry people that prefer to live off the sweat of others rather than contribute something of value to their fellow man / society?
If it is possible I contend it isn’t right now. The evidence is all around us of just how easily swayed people are and how morally corruptable they seem to be. Until principles such as the trivium / quadrivium take root and become the prevalent thinking mode of the majority of people on this planet I will remain skeptical and rather pessimistic on the possibility of a benevolent WG.
I really respect these responses, and the critical thinking in evidence here.
I’d just like to add this observation: government does not have to be conceived as a council of Platonic sages contemplating the unfathomable infinite, but arguably could be conceptualised as a coherent body of pragmatic legal instruments & ecologically sensitive mechanisms reflective of a complex social reality and planetary commonwealth; capable of regulating & enhancing the processes of regional biodiversity, public health, food security, resource management, trade, finance, constitutional praxis, education, criminal law etc. In other words an open forum or assembly of fora, through which the pre-eminent issues of our time can be addressed intelligently and representatively. The Internet can facilitate this, and in my opinion already does in some measure. As Lao Zi advised, it is frequently more helpful to remove inappropriate restrictions and rely on the innate wisdom of the “common man/woman” and trust in Nature, than impose ever more complicated artificial rules – so it seems to me “Do what thou wilt” can be understood as a reasonable injunction to operate with in this universal context of global fecundity, natural well-being & humanity’s true purpose…
Jan, I really thank you for your acknowledgement in the previous thread that I’ve only just noticed. You’ve been extremely attentive to your listeners. I’ll take a look at the Reed material you suggest. You may want to add to your intellectual ordinance the valuable short vernacular testimony of Eva Figes “Journey to Nowhere” http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/jul/06/biography.features
Now Mr LaRouche is a tricky customer. I’ve got “That Doomed and Brutish Empire” that is extremely reactionary. I find him deeply biased & extreme. Does he think Russell being jailed in 1961 at the age of 89 for civil disobedience was a stunt? The main Russell archive is in Canada at McMaster & you can read an effective, very short summary of his life and activities (with CND, Einstein, Pugwash etc.) here – http://www.globalautonomy.ca/global1/glossary_pop.jsp?id=PR.0026
LaRouche purports to be expert in everything from classical philosophy to Hiroshima & Nagasaki (actually incorrect I believe, about both weapons being fission devices…) He is a prolific axe-grinder to say the least, highly selective, cynical and dogmatic in his use of evidence; & although nobody today could deny the unpleasant truths about empire (including the US) and European colonial history, nonetheless, it is also true that no single “history” can ever be complete; as historiographies are so multi-variant they must inevitably be selective & therefore replete with omissions. Far better to strive to catch that elusive devil in the detail, than appease a greedy publisher’s appetite for grand narratives, in my opinion. Whilst we certainly do need to recall “our” past continuum in order to engage with an emergent present…(for example see the superb BBC documentary “The Bible’s Buried Secrets” by Exeter’s Francesca Stavrakopoulou qv – http://humanities.exeter.ac.uk/theology/staff/stavrakopoulou/ hey! she could be a great interviewee, Jan)…personally, I am enthusiastic about the need to influence the shape of our future endeavours by intelligent stewardship and the liberation of genius, however it may choose to manifest itself through time. So I applaud your commendable efforts in that direction. Kemal Ataturk wisely insisted that to subordinate women effectively suppresses the potential of half the human race. Tell the Taliban that.
By the way, I believe I was wrong about Weishaupt, but I am still persuaded of the legitimacy of my assertion about the Jesuit counter-reformation tactic of infiltrating authentic Lodges and thus discrediting them from within. This would make a worthwhile topic for in depth research, of course.
As I have mentioned before, it would be extremely interesting to hear what D.Harriman has to say about Karl Popper…all best from me.
Government is immoral.
Charles: if that were literally so, you could not negotiate your own existence, since someone has to take responsibility for you, namely you. Hence either you govern, or you are governed. Is autonomy and self- determination immoral? My idea of “government” is that it ought to be a direct function of the highest purpose of its constituents. Just as in the case of the individual, who must respect the organs of their own body, for any given community, the government must reflect both collective (ie reciprocal/mutual) and individual needs, (ie one’s genuine intention/aspiration/purpose.) Anything short of that in my opinion, is either a tyranny or a kindergarten.
Government is a loaded word, and it’s ugliness is in the eye of the beholder
Preventing the free exchange of services, goods, or ideas in any way is immoral (taxes do this).
Governments are fine by me as long as they don’t tax… But what government doesn’t tax?