The Most Beautiful Symphony in Recent History

[roger stancill]

Can you hear the music in this?

http://billionsinchange.com/film

[Olmnilnlolm]

 

 

Roger, please don't distract us, as we try to get this thread back on track.

 

Fredrick and others are helping us to get to the real issue under discussion here.

"The Most Beautiful Symphony in Recent History"

 

I had to think once more about this question of how old the universe is (So we can determine, for the sake of this thread what we mean by "recent history.")

 

Can you tell how old something is, through observation?

 

I was never able to tell how old Hillary Clinton, Sandra Bullock and Marilyn Monroe were, just by looking at them.  So how can I tell the age of the universe just by looking AT IT carefully ?  We can examine the birth certificates of the people in question, and even Barrack Obama's birth certificate, to get rough ages, within a few million years, or at least a billion years or so.  But I can't gain access to the birth certificate of the universe, or the Earth, nor can I find out whether it was really born in Hawaii or Kenya.   

 

The universe and the Earth are probably both much older than 6,004 years old, because of all the wrinkles,  the problems  with circulation, and the creaking of joints.  

 

Given all the breakthroughs in mathematics, how do we know whether the age of the universe in years is not best represented by an imaginary number, like 2.5 Billion times the square root of minus one?

 

So, based on this, I am going to suggest that the "best symphony in recent history" is Allan Pettersson's Symphony No. 12, which I have never heard before.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKO97YWeA14

 

He wrote this during the 20th century, which is one of the most recent centuries we know of in human history.  We can consult the professional scholars on this issue.  The 20th century is widely believed, by sociologists, to be closer to this century than any other one we have encountered so far.

 

 

 

 

[roger stancill]

Thanks Dave, for the most part I try to be 'nice' with all my attempts.

So, Fred doesn't care, and I don't care about the belittling... yet you do .   Why?

Don't you have a life?  Is your real name Holden Caufield?

And why are you using a picture of Janis Joplin for your profile?
 
Dave Dexter said:

That's a nice attempt to retcon a past conversation. But to no avail.

roger stancill said:

Dave, That's OK here to,  you assume that by my pointing out Fred's tactic,that I was unhappy

with him. Is it possible for someone to make note of this objectively, and then in a

sparring way, respond in like manner? I certainly don't take it personally.

I'm sure if you took the time to read previous posts and exchanges, you will find

a number of precedants. It 'seems to me' that you are attempting to make a

mountain out of the preverbial molehill. I don't think that either of 'us' care nearly

as much as you do. It's all just part of the dialog and fun that makes all this drivel

worthwhile. Some of it is constructive and some of it is just playing with words.

Also, if I thought for a minute that Fred or anyone else, would take it personnally and run crying

to his mommy, I simply wouldn't play so terribly rough.

Please forgive me Fred, I didn't mean to stress you out.             RS

[roger stancill]

Fred, I think she is....old enough  :+}

Fredrick zinos said:

 See what I mean?

[roger stancill]

Hi Dave, What do you call a conspiracy theory that in time turns out to be true?

I've spent some of my time over the last 2 1/2 yrs. trying to research some of the causes

of the problems we are facing as people , as communities, and as nations.

It isn't always easy sifting thru the propaganda and dis-information that is

displayed on TV and the internet.

Trying to be open minded, searching and listening, and slowly collecting and

attempting to put some of the pieces together, I have, by discernment and a

little common sense, put some of the pieces together.

How deeply have you looked into what really drives our reality?

Do you just skate across the surface in search of potential hypocrites?

( by the way, your judgement and conviction is a first- in 64 yrs.)

What's your take on Chem-trails, or have you ever heard of them-

hey, it's the air you're breathing. Are your government vaccinations all

up to date. Why would someone erect the 'Geogria Guidestones' at a

cost of around a million dollars stating an agenda that includes reducing

the world population to 500 million? Doesn't that seem a wee bit odd?

What if doubters and naysayers simply have a lot to learn?

Have you considered at all that your arrogance may be blinding you?

Your pointless childishness does indeed raise a lot of questions.  RS

[Olmnilnlolm]

 

 

Roger said,

 

"Thanks Dave, for the most part I try to be 'nice' with all my attempts. So, Fred doesn't care, and I don't care about the belittling... yet you do .   Why?  Don't you have a life?  Is your real name Holden Caufield?  And why are you using a picture of Janis Joplin for your profile?"

 

Please, Roger.  Can we get back to "The Most Beautiful Symphony in Recent History."  Let's just ignore any of the insulting banter that distracts people here so often.

 

Fredrick has given us a photo of a woman (we don't know how old she is, or how old the photo is) to help us determine what the term "recent" might mean.  I am not sure I can accept your definition of 75-100 years.  I don't even know whether we can even use such units as "years" to address the problem what is meant by "recent history."

 

Recall, I said, I didn't think you can tell how old a person is simply by looking at them.  You would agree, I think.  So, I want to know whether you believe we can say how old A YEAR is just be looking at it?  Take a gander at this year, so far, and you will observe it's much younger than last year was, this past December.  Some years are older than others.   

 

We need a more reliable unit of measurement then, and a better definition of "recent."

 

We might also want to consider the definition of the word "beautiful" as applied to symphonies.   For instance, many people would agree that Beethoven's Fifth is one of the GREATEST symphonies every written, though I don't think everyone would say it's the "most beautiful."

 

Have you heard of Egon Joseph Wellesz?  He wrote nine symphonies, and some were written "recently," during the last century.  This may take us a bit off the topic, just slightly, but I wonder if you would consider the possibility that Egon Wellesz' String Quartet No. 6 is one of the most beautiful symphonies in recent history?  (Let's not get too caught up in the question of whether a quartet can be called a symphony, or whether a symphony can be called a quartet).

 

Egon Wellesz: String Quartet No. 6 Op.64 (1947)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzUcMyCtGwg

 

 

Roger, since you are the originator of this thread, isn't it your responsibility to  comment upon the candidates that have been put forward so far for the title "the most beautiful symphony in recent history?"   I think everyone here has agreed (at least by default) that the Five Hour Energy Drink Video cannot be considered the winner of that title, since it is neither beautiful, nor even a symphony (either in the perfect and absolute literal sense, or in the imperfect, imaginary, metaphorical or figurative sense).   It doesn't even have movements, like Maestoso, Adagio, Lento, Allegro, or Vivace, as so many symphonies do. So given its dismissal, what can we put in its stead as "the most beautiful symphony in recent history?"

 

Maybe you would consider the Triangulum Galaxy (the third largest in our Local Galactic Cluster, after the Milky Way Galaxy and Andromeda) as a candidate for the most beautiful symphony in recent history.

 

Here's a recording of it:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulum_Galaxy#/media/File:M33_-_T...

 

It might be a bit too old, though, and so therefore, not recent enough.

 

 

Roger, you asked, "Why would someone erect the 'Georgia Guidestones' at a cost of around a million dollars stating an agenda that includes reducing

the world population to 500 million"

 

Roger, what's wrong with reducing the population to about 500 million people, gradually, over time?   I recall H.G. Wells in his novel, "Men like Gods," posited a distant future, or alternative earth, which was an advanced utopian world with a population of about 500 million people.  Perhaps that's a good population for our planet.   You seem to be very fixed upon the problem of these "Georgia Guidestones" for some reason.  Why?  What is there in them that really bothers you?  Perhaps those Georgia Guidestones are "the most beautiful symphony in recent history," because they present the notion of planet living harmoniously within its means, without war, hunger and poverty.   It's simply someone's vision, and probably not a bad one.   People have spent more than a million dollars on worse monuments, what some might call architectural monstrosities.  More than half of our skyscrapers fit into that category, and they cost a lot more than a million dollars.  We think nothing of spending millions to commemorate many of the useless wars of the past.    

 

I have looked over the information on the "Georgia Guidestones," and I see nothing seriously wrong with them.   Tell us what you really think, but keep it in the ballpark having to do with "the most beautiful symphony in recent history," if you don't mind.

 

 

[Olmnilnlolm]

GUIDESTONES GUIDELINES

A message consisting of a set of 10 guidelines, or principles, is engraved on the Georgia Guidestones in eight different languages: English, Spanish, Swahili, Hindi, Hebrew, Arabic, Chinese and Russian.

• Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.

• Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.

• Unite humanity with a living new language.

• Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.

• Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.

• Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.

• Avoid petty laws and useless officials.

• Balance personal rights with social duties.

• Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.

• Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.

[roger stancill]

Admiral Ondib, the guidestones are just a 'beginners' referrence point,

that is why I use it as a 'tool' so to speak.

It is something from recent history that is to say the least, a bit unusual- agreed?

I could use other referrences, but that one is basically simple to grasp, at first acquaintance,

and might perk the interest of a sleeper or at least get them to look a little bit more into it.

500 mil. might be a comfortable number of earth inhabitants but it is the method

of achieving this that is in question. Suppose that the sponsor(s) of these edicts don't like

music,musicians, composers or dairy farmers and develope a means to eliminate

them first. I think even Bart Simpsom would have a cow about that.

The guidestones are just one manifestation of an agenda that has been insidiously

creeping into our everyday lives. Just ask any of the Bush's or Kennedy(who died

trying to expose this) GHW Bush was actually right in your face about it.

As someone who seems to lean towards socialism, you are probably blind to the

trap of bigger government. Ah yes, A benevolent tyranny... it ain't gonna happen.

Remember all those sayings about how power corrupts.

Let's all fund altruism, it sounds so friendly and helpful. Not!

I know you and I have strong feelings and beliefs about these matters and

I enjoy the back and forth dialog. We can both learn from each other.

If we could, for the sake of this discussion, elevate the' beautiful symphony' idea

 to the music that is the ideas, and the harmonies vs. the discord of the

prevailing mentalities performing that music, then maybe we can get on the same

page and get to the heart of my intention.                   RS

ps- it just dawned on me.... if you don't see the death of 7 billion people as a

problem, well hell. then it is a 'moat' point.      er moot  :+/

[roger stancill]

Fred, you get it- hurrah, I especially like the comment.' Nature bats Last '

and would add, that no matter who makes the laws. in the end it's the law

of the jungle that prevails... ie- survival of the fittest     RS
 ps- tho' yes, we can learn to work together   fit and strong
Fredrick zinos said:

Terrible ideas.

Who is it that decides who lives and who dies to "maintain" 500,MM humans?

Guide reproduction. I presume this is a euphemism for selective breeding. Didn't the Nazis try that?

New Language, means the 500MM living in this utopia will have to give up their cultural heritage which is frequently encased in linguistics. I wonder how they'll feel about that.

Rule passion faith tradition. Oh really? How do you rule passion? With reason? That never works. Our glands are bigger and more in control of us than are our brains. And who decides which passions faiths traditions are valid?

Fair laws and just courts. Never going to happen. The function of the law is to preserve the law, not the people.

a world court presided over by whom? The emperor Ming?

Petty laws and useless officials. These are not useless at all in fact they are a necessity. What else are you going to do with the people 250MM (out of 500MM) who are functionally illiterate and constitutionally lazy?

Prize truth. truth as defined by whom?

Leave room for nature. Nature will triumph I am sure. As the saying goes "Nature Bats Last"

And will preserve the most beautiful symphony in recent times.

[roger stancill]

O. I'm not saying that some of the 'proposals' aren't noble sounding

or have no merit... it's the source that I question.

Have you heard of Sasha Stone, and the new International Tribunal

for World Justice.? It seemed a bit 'out there' and whacky at first, and I wish them well.

As a prerequisite to understanding what they are trying to achieve, you first

need to grasp the idea of 'Corporate Law' and the difference between Common law

and Maritime law. (I'm just starting to get into that) but the legal ramifications are

beyond your everyday knowledge and beliefs.)  

An old guy I met that worked the at local municiple court as a guard for a long time told me ,

Quote, " this ain't nothin' but a money makin' machine". (the courts)

More than the Guidestones, if you want to trace and track the reasons that there is not

more money granted to the Arts and the hungry and free energy and peace and genuine

non-propandga education, then you have to question the powers that be and 'follow the money'.

Once you truly do some reseach and start to uncover the lies and deceptions, you start to see

things in a new and different light.      RS
 
Olmniln said:

GUIDESTONES GUIDELINES

A message consisting of a set of 10 guidelines, or principles, is engraved on the Georgia Guidestones in eight different languages: English, Spanish, Swahili, Hindi, Hebrew, Arabic, Chinese and Russian.

• Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.

• Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.

• Unite humanity with a living new language.

• Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason.

• Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.

• Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.

• Avoid petty laws and useless officials.

• Balance personal rights with social duties.

• Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite.

• Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.

[roger stancill]

Hey Dave, I have a favor to ask of you.

If you get some slow time, would you watch this video and, using your

best discernment and intellectual prowess, tell me if you think this interview is a

sham or does it have some realistic validity. I certainly don't want to be the

'chicken little' of the day and I know that you won't let any lies or hypocracy

get past you. What have you got to lose?       Thanks, sincerely- RS     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqsZhfHH-Q8

[Olmnilnlolm]

"O. I'm not saying that some of the 'proposals' aren't noble sounding or have no merit... it's the source that I question."

 

I think you are suggesting that because you know the "source" of the stones, you know that what it "proposes" is evil. 

 

But you don't know the source.  No one does.  There is rampant speculation, of course.  But there is no evidence that this is other than what it says it is, a set of stones expressing some ideals.  (Furthermore, there are no specific proposals there, such as a plan to suddenly and massively depopulate the Earth, as some people assert without evidence—the same people who want to close down "planned parenthood" and ban abortions, i.e. the far right in US politics). 

 

 

"Have you heard of Sasha Stone, and the new International Tribunal for World Justice? It seemed a bit 'out there' and whacky at first, and I wish them well."

 

You use the word "they" a lot, and "them."

 

"As a prerequisite to understanding what they are trying to achieve ..."

 

Another example.  I think you have never denied that there are a plethora of groups of human beings, in all nations, some more powerful, some less powerful than others, constantly vying for control.  The people who produce the videos you have shared, and who are also trying to manipulate people to think a certain way, belong to various groups as well, and all have their agendas as well.  Some of them may not be as beneficent as they wish their followers to believe they are. 

 

So you might want to put your cards on the table, and say who "they are."  And you also might want to say, who "they are" who "on the side of light," as you conceive it.

 

You have already lost a fair amount of credibility (for me) in at least one way, when you produced a video that spoke of "gentiles hooking up with Jews" and which also propagated a plethora of anti-Semitic statements, implying Jews got what they deserved for allegedly "betraying Germany" during the first third of the twentieth century.    

 

you first need to grasp the idea of 'Corporate Law' and the difference between Common law

and Maritime law. (I'm just starting to get into that) but the legal ramifications are beyond your everyday knowledge and beliefs.) 

 

How do you know what others "need to grasp" or don't need to grasp, if you don't engage them, answer questions, and ask questions?  You still have not answered on this thread any of my pertinent questions.  I have yet to hear you explain why the Five Hour Energy Drink Video is NOT a pro-corporate video, a white wash of an entrepreneur (so-called) who poisons the public with his product, and then launders the money in a phony PR campaign, just as Shell Oil and BP do.  Then you want to tell us that we "need to understand" a certain distinction between corporate law and common law. How do I know you aren't propagating a pro-Corporate Agenda yourself, when it seems to me you always avoid the issue of economic democratization when I bring it up?

 

I don't think you ever really clarify whether you believe in "old fashioned federalism of the founding fathers," "original intent," "anti-Semitic neo-fascism," "a kinder gentler Corporatism," "Savage Capitalism with a human face," or "Jeffersonian pre-mercantilism."  As a general principle, do you believe in Hellenic Democracy, as practiced in Ancient Athens (minus the slavery and lack of women's rights) or do you believe in the form of government of the early Roman Republic?  I find many of the critiques partly valid, but your solutions seem almost non-existent and definitely vague, except for the phrase "less government." That means nothing if Corporations are not restrained without at least SOME ADDITIONAL government which can help the people to control the excesses of the super-rich.

 

You have no positive view of the democratic control of land, banks, credit or economic production, as far as I can tell.  So you have no method by which to restrain the very powerful about which you have made your complaints. 

 

" ...  if you want to trace and track the reasons that there is not more money granted to the Arts and the hungry and free energy and peace and genuine non-propaganda  education, then you have to question the powers that be and 'follow the money'."

 

Hasn't that been said thousands of times, without your saying how to restrain the monied interests?

 

"Once you truly do some research and start to uncover the lies and deceptions, you start to see

things in a new and different light."

 

This is what I am trying to do, just with you, on this thread.  To determine what research you have done, and to see if you are not the victim yourself of lies and deceptions, especially those connected with anti-Semitic agendas, or others based on equally fallacious premises.

 

The problem is, Roger, you preach against reading, against books, against scholarship, against knowledge, against understanding history, whenever I bring up specifics, that it makes it hard for me to believe there is much substance (other than what is contained in a few superficial videos) in what you are putting forward.   And very few of the "information videos" you post, as far as I have yet to determine, appear to be the product of profound or systematic research and thinking. 

 

You don't seem to think it's a good idea for people to read Plato, Herodotus, Livy or any classical author, in order to learn about history and the rules of thought.  You don't seem to want people to read Jaures or any significant authors, like Kropotkin, Marx, Tolstoy, Gandhi, Martin Luther King (or even Adam Smith or Ricardo) to gain knowledge of modern revolutionary history and economic thought.  Nor are you interested in slightly more contemporary thinkers like Guy DeBord, Mandel or even Derida and the deconstructionists. 

 

You say, "Do research," and then supply us with ten minute videos, rather than actual books, written by thinking people who can do more than produce a lousy video for the thinking process, and certainly more than Madison avenue types and corporate hacks who produce a glossy visual product, like an add for a new energy drink or an infomercial.

[roger stancill]

Ondib, you stated; That means nothing if Corporations are not restrained without at least SOME ADDITIONAL government which can........... help the people to control the excesses of the super-rich.

That is rich, you have got to be joking. This also suggests that lobbying is a waste of time and money.

I may be wrong but I thought the Nazi's were defeated. Who and what is this antisemitism you keep

referring to? Is there some legitimate group agenda secretly at work.

I've stated already that I don't subscribe to any such thing. It's the hierarchy of the banks and their control

that is the problem, and 'They'are manipulating the world into an eternal debt paradigm.

So that raises the question, as you asked, who are 'They'? 

Lets start with the premise that 'They' could be any one  and of any of a number of cultures.

Read all the books you want, but I doubt that Plato can help us out here.

Read all the newspapers you want, but I doubt that you will find a list of names there either.

If these folks like to operate behind the scenes 'in secret' which apparently 'They' do,

hiding behind parent corporations to mask their plans, then you're going to have to

do the research where the information is to uncover it.

There are people who have done this resesarch and compiled lists.

A lot of the names, we are somewhat familiar with, but it has never been, in my mind,

an issue of Nationality.  Who knows, 'They' may turn out to be part of an 'Ancient Alien' race.

If the facts end up pointing to that, will you then accuse me of being anti-alien?  RS

ps- you also asked , 'why isn't French included in the G-guidestones?'        

my guess is that the plan is to eliminate them first- so then there would be no need to

address them.  do you have a better theory?