top of page

- We Need Revolt - New Politics - New World Order

Updated: Oct 29, 2022

Society IS

Connected. Culture - Economics - Government - The World - Fantasy/Reality (you have one life, one chance)

"We need revolt - New Politics - New World Order" --> Revitalization of democracy. Revitalization of hope (for the human spirit). That WE CAN and WE MUST. - "Break the set" -> Break free from the chains. Exit the matrix. - Revolutions felt round the world (butterfly effect).


First some interesting news articles I saw:

Give up the smartphone, get into reality, develop socially - yeah, that sounds nice and also smart:

Tik-Tok (time flying - Wal Asr!...):

Chris Hedges Fan Club • 86K views

Thomas Carl Hartmann (born May 7, 1951) is an American radio personality, author, former psychotherapist, businessman, and progressive political commentator. Hartmann has been hosting a nationall...

Thomas Carl Hartmann (born May 7, 1951) is an American radio personality, author, former psychotherapist, businessman, and progressive political commentator. Hartmann has been hosting a nationall...

We speak with national security expert William Hartung about the Biden administration's unprecedented military spending on Ukraine and the impact of U.S. arms sales on national and global security....

Allah Akbar Al Hamdu Lillah Rabbil Alameen Bismilliah Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem (for this blog, for everything):


Support the show with a contribution: Locals: Patreon: GiveSendGo:

Welcome Andrew, we welcome all people to Islam, congratulations:

Haven't watched:

This is pretty good but the full section is better:

George Galloway • 35K views

Helpful (remember Allah!):

Produced By One Islam Productions By Mufti Menk ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The ONE ISLAM TV APP is now available on Apple devices,...

Kind of weird:

True, though both sides are all corporate-backed, but Dems are a bit better and it's a very serious issue. It should be so easy and obvious but the devil is in the details and the Media doesn't care (owned) and the average American taxpayer doesn't know and doesn't read the text of bills that are passed through Congress (for the most part) and he's right, the Dems don't know how to promote their wins and rebuke the right and they are going to lose and it's almost set up this way seemingly by the media and mainstream press to steer America back towards Capitalist and more free-market types (possibly - conspiracy hypothesis, Biden was meant to fail - I mean, obviously, but even those progressive Dems in Congress have turned down their the socialist videos below - BLM was hijacked by these turned-out-to-be-fake sellout politicians (or maybe "Washingtonized", Allah knows best)) and the Democrats haven't done much though they've had majority control of Congress - if you want to call all Democrats in our country actual Democrats that is - not untrue because really, both parties in our country represent only a narrow band on the political spectrum and anyone who thinks outside the "box" is called a socialist or communist or whatever - a hippie, an out-of-touch with reality peace-loving you know, pacifist or whatever, you know, too weak to hold an office for the people of this country...whatever you know...we'd rather you, consent and sing the praises of Obama while he's using American soldiers and taxpayers money to drone strike (accidently) innocent people in various parts throughout the world and you know, cut corporate taxes under Trump while still spending 700 billion on the military every year and goes out golfing all the time (is all fun and games) all good and fine you know, but China!, watch out, China's the real threat! - Trump is Trump actually, it's okay, am not against my fellow Americans of course but yeah, can agree to disagree, don't let politics, especially the politics in this country divide us - that's what they want - for the people to be divided and looking at the leaf instead of the forest.

Democracy Now! 38K views



Really good videos - :

Awesome video (makes me think of climate change obviously in and throughout the video - kind of obvious connections but anyway):

Interesting - especially midway through about where it has visions of a new type of world - psychology, well, in reality (Allah reveals to us in the Quran), it is the truth but also to watch out for other's effects and actions you might inspire them to do as well - but psychologically our minds can be here and there and everywhere, and be negative and thinking bad about others or worrying about others when we can only do so much - (I try to fight it but..., now that I'm aware and have the fear of God, trying not to be negative and too judgemental about others is quite the hard thing to do - But I understand, is a part of the greater jihad against one's ego (NAFs)):

A pretty good video (news):

As Republican-led states clamp down on voting rights, we look at how Black voters are helping to organize unprecedented voter turnout ahead of midterms. "We are literally fighting for democracy,"...


If you don't know, now you know, (well and I'm still learning):

-- Horribly sad.

---Confirms my suspicions - they're using climate change now as a tool to enslave after having not taken action (for so long). - the U.S. as a leading role in it (not taking action, not doing anything) - I hear from a lot of folks: "well, even if we take action, what about China and all the rest?" - well, actually, China is a leader in green tech - "Oh, I know, they want us to buy their solar panels" - Uh...if we actually took action in 1990 or later and led the world - did the work - (just like we need to do the work and quit being lazy and nasty - a country that ships our plastic to everywhere else for them to recycle it...and dumps our all our old computer junk in the poorest countries for poor people to scavenge through trying to find the valuables...) - "Oh solar panels create waste" (true but so does basically everything, unless it's recycled (disassembled possibly and components or materials used again - "recycled") or can be biodegradable - "close all loopholes of waste" - circular economic principles). "They're not a good return on energy" - untrue - and all the rest (excuses/arguments) - "The world will always need/be dependent on fossil fuels/oil" - Okay, nuclear fusion would be nice, yes, but how about trying to conserve our fossil fuels (might be pretty efficient for us and useful for us humans as well) - everything takes energy - being alive takes energy - yes...anyway... - THE IPCC and scientists have been sounding the alarm for years, now, now we start taking action after CO2 levels are at 420 ppm and rising and Africa and other countries (including China and Southeast Asia - melting of the Himalaya's is quite a scary reality with obvious implications for the planet) are going to be hurt the most - Africa, after already having been colonized and everything else (put into slavery) - then "neo-colonized" (neo-liberal policies) now the plans are to keep up the neo-colonizing - "don't be independent and develop yourself and be free from bondage (debt) - turn to us, you must, its the only way". - We're horrible. Disgusting. Sad sad sad. Us Americans should say "I seek forgiveness from God" and "Oh God please forgive me" 70 times a day (is good anyway, - we don't even compare to people like Imam Shaafi, etc.)


Try this even though the above link I posted admonished not to do it or take too much clout from its results:

Good looking books here:

These look like good/decent reads:

Anyways, my results:

Download PDF • 3.58MB

Download DOCX • 324KB


I hate this - I hate my countries actions and the institutions they've created - it doesn't and has never represented me and I believe most any (the majority) Americans. They don't teach you this in school kids -

I hate this:

And this (look - at the political compass map (my results if you want) - who is on the left (Mandela, Ghandi, Castro (he's alright, is a bit authoritarian, quite a lot more than me and my opinions and I imagine, this scale, each movement is quite meaningful/powerful), Thomas Paine (seems alright, pretty far down, - kind of loosey goosey IMO I do believe in order - and Gov. and institutions - In people more I guess you could say or no, that is taking it too far as it could be argued that if you believe in people than why not go more down (towards more chaos), but yeah, no I believe in having rules and a strong state and levels - laws applying to and at different levels - for the actual protection of the majority - water laws for example, easy and great example, we need national laws regarding water, you can't just allow anyone to dump a pipe in a river and take as much as they want or discharge whatever they want into a river, there's law regarding everything pretty much - capitalism as we've made it (all these rules etc.,), itself, is a human construct),

- Who is on the right - Ayn Rand, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, Angela Markel, Mussolini, Boris Johnson - all people I dislike, I do like though Churchhill, Von Mises, Jordan Peterson. - And I'm not the most educated person nor do I pretend to know who a lot of these people even are at an in-depth political level - if they have even researched politics and economy (and how much) and published their thoughts on how they believe society should be organized and what all they believe and all that they know and their life history - it's okay - we are only you know, products of our time but...yeah, results can be bad and disagreeable and Allah (God) knows best)) but uh, is fine to disagree on things such as the best most preferable system for societal good and progress...matters...(whats the intent - I think Jordan Peterson for example has good intent, good understanding of a lot of things but also I can still disagree with him and those on the right who's understanding is that power always corrupts - so let's put our faith in a more "free" market, - this doesn't make sense to me...never has. 17th+ Century Capitalism dressing itself as human progress - the only way of progress" is, in my opinion, an ideologue - a God nearly of sorts (if you will) for a lot of people but these people of course would argue, well, Government is your God, I would argue no, Government is Government, it can and does do a lot (giving us rights and freedoms, which they argue for, yes and understand), so it should be set up in such a way that protects people (from capitalism and slavery, bondage) and directs society towards what should be a good path. He would say yes, but your interpretation is wrong and I disagree, I would argue no, look at small business in this country and the attacks against it (capitalist demolishing forces, monopolizing, profit is the only thing that matters - so how can compete? especially when everything is capitalized and everything is constantly being inflated because "assets" - who controls the most assets? - The richest of the rich, so who has the most vested interest?) and how hard it is - That is, how much Capitalist Gov. makes laws making it harder for people to compete with big business and how much they take products and services - such as credit/debit card machines (payment processing) and turn it into a service for which the small business owner has to be locked in and pay a monthly fee in order to provide this convenience and therefore making them more competitive with the rest of the competition who all have that ability and so people expect it (this convenience), and they charge a monthly fee and take a cut of their profit off the top...that's wrong(!)...They (the service provider in this instance) only have to set up their system and product, (which is designed for easy, guaranteed profit creation) and work within the confines of the built society (internet being key in this instance), and they just get money and income every month for basically doing nothing. Peterson might argue, well, this is the progress and innovation of capitalism at work and so...something along these lines and effect, basically, I would argue, no, if a public service could do the same and charge say, ten cents off the top (or less), that actually protects people from the exploitative system and so, if you free people more, and they aren't locked into a system (enveloping society in a way so that we can't even see or think of a better system - is the system they've built in a lot of ways against all forms of socialism) and make things easy for people, this would free people and drive innovation (and healthy competition) in a society where government is built up strongly with the best systems and supports - and so, it becomes more boring - less headline news worthy - it should be efficient (maximize efficiency for the society and the welfare of the people) and not as changing because its foundations are good, much like's hard to improve upon what is the foundation of what is known, it um, you know, can improve and be more efficient so to speak, little by little, piece by piece, but mostly, the core, is pretty solid...and it keeps improving with time...


I got close to this guy (I differ still but anyway. he seems like a pretty nice and good guy) and this is an interesting article:

Municipalism and communalism[edit]

Bookchin's vision of an ecological society is based on highly participatory, grassroots politics, in which municipal communities democratically plan and manage their affairs through popular assembly, a program he called Communalism. This democratic deliberation purposefully promotes autonomy and self-reliance, as opposed to centralized state politics. While this program retains elements of anarchism, it emphasizes a higher degree of organization (community planning, voting, and institutions) than general anarchism. In Bookchin's Communalism, these autonomous, municipal communities connect with each other via confederations.[35]

Starting in the 1970s, Bookchin argued that the arena for libertarian social change should be the municipal level. In 1980 Bookchin used the term "libertarian municipalism" to describe a system in which libertarian institutions of directly democratic assemblies would oppose and replace the state with a confederation of free municipalities.[36] In "The Next Revolution", Bookchin stresses the link that libertarian municipalism has with his earlier philosophy of social ecology. He writes:

Libertarian Municipalism constitutes the politics of social ecology, a revolutionary effort in which freedom is given institutional form in public assemblies that become decision-making bodies.[37]

Bookchin proposes that these institutional forms must take place within differently scaled local areas. In a 2001 interview he summarized his views this way: The overriding problem is to change the structure of society so that people gain power. The best arena to do that is the municipality—the city, town, and village—where we have an opportunity to create a face-to-face democracy.[38]

Libertarian municipalism intends to create a situation in which the two powers—the municipal confederations and the nation state cannot coexist.[38] In other words, it strives to expose the inherent power imbalance and tension that exists between the nation state and the municipality, in order to challenge and overcome state power. Its supporters—Communalists—believe it to be the means to achieve a rational society, and its structure becomes the organization of society.

Legacy and influence[edit]

Though Bookchin, by his own recognition, failed to win over a substantial body of supporters during his own lifetime, his ideas have nonetheless influenced movements and thinkers across the globe.

Among these are the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) and closely aligned Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Turkey, which have fought the Turkish state since the 1980s to try to secure greater political and cultural rights for the country's Kurds. The PKK is designated as a terrorist organization by the Turkish and United States governments, while the YPG has been considered an ally of the US against ISIS.[39][40] Though founded on a rigid Marxist–Leninist ideology, the PKK has seen a shift in its thought and aims since the capture and imprisonment of its leader, Abdullah Öcalan, in 1999. Öcalan began reading a variety of post-Marxist political theory while in prison, and found particular interest in Bookchin's works.[41][42]

Öcalan attempted in early 2004 to arrange a meeting with Bookchin through his lawyers, describing himself as Bookchin's "student" eager to adapt his thought to Middle Eastern society. Bookchin was too ill to accept the request. In May 2004 Bookchin conveyed this message "My hope is that the Kurdish people will one day be able to establish a free, rational society that will allow their brilliance once again to flourish. They are fortunate indeed to have a leader of Mr. Öcalan's talents to guide them". When Bookchin died in 2006, the PKK hailed the American thinker as "one of the greatest social scientists of the 20th century", and vowed to put his theory into practice.[41]

"Democratic confederalism", the variation on Communalism developed by Öcalan in his writings and adopted by the PKK, does not outwardly seek Kurdish rights within the context of the formation of an independent state separate from Turkey. The PKK claims that this project is not envisioned as being only for Kurds, but rather for all peoples of the region, regardless of their ethnic, national, or religious background. Rather, it promulgates the formation of assemblies and organizations beginning at the grassroots level to enact its ideals in a non-state framework beginning at the local level. It also places a particular emphasis on securing and promoting women's rights.[41] The PKK has had some success in implementing its programme, through organizations such as the Democratic Society Congress (DTK), which coordinates political and social activities within Turkey, and the Koma Civakên Kurdistan (KCK), which does so across all countries where Kurds live.[43] Interesting: Interesting: HTTPS://HOWIEHAWKINS.US/THE-ECOSOCIALIST-GREEN-NEW-DEAL-BUDGET/

From parts of it (lots of stuff /\, but some of these economic ideas are of real interest, to me at least, anyway):


PUBLIC BORROWING: GREEN QE Pending enactment of this radical greenback demand of the Green Party, the US can borrow almost without limit as long as the dollar remains the reserve currency of the world and as long as the economy is below full capacity, as the Modern Money Theory (MMT) proponents note. In this vein, a Green QE (Quantitative Easing) program could create the investment funds for the Green New Deal. Unlike QE during the Obama/Bernanke years, this time we bail out the people and the climate instead of too-big-to-fail banks. The Treasury Department would sell bonds on the open market and use the proceeds for green investments and other federal programs. The Federal Reserve could support this debt financing if need be by creating money on its books with which to buy these bonds once they have been sold into the open market. The Fed cannot legally buy treasuries directly from the Treasury Department. Though we would prefer to add public money as debt-free Greenbacks, we would accept Green QE as the lesser evil to not making the investments we need to convert the economy to zero greenhouse gas emissions and 100% clean energy. It will cost us more in economic losses due to radical climate change if we do not make the needed investments even if we have to borrow to raise the funds. A recent study in the scientific journal Nature found that if global temperatures rise 2ºC, global GDP will fall 15% by 2100 from the 2010 level. If temperatures rise to 3ºC, global GDP will fall 25%. If nothing is done, temperatures will rise by 4ºC and GDP will fall by more than 30%. That’s deeper that the economic contraction at the peak of the Great Depression when global GDP was down 25%. The difference is that this economic shrinkage would be permanent due to the destruction of environmental services upon which the human economy depends. It’s possible a contraction of this magnitude would lead to general collapse, an authoritarian regime, or both. LIMITS OF MONEY CREATION The difference between Greenbacks and Green QE is that, with Green QE, the Treasury Department (i.e., the taxpayers) ultimately has to pay the interest and principal on those treasury bonds. The Greenback dollars (both digital money and paper United States Notes) would be debt-free, while the QE dollars (both digital money and paper Federal Reserve Notes) would be created by incurring public debt. Either way, debt-free Greenbacks or borrowing through public banks and Green QE, the amount of new money that can be created to finance government programs and investments should be limited to what the economy can use for commerce at full capacity. Above that threshold, more money may cause inflation. SERVICING AND REDUCING THE NATIONAL DEBT According to the Congressional Budget Office, interest on the national debt will grow over the course of this 10-year Green New Deal from $460 billion in FY 2020 to $928 billion on FY 2029, or an average of $700 billion a year. Because the very wealthy and foreign central banks own most of the national debt, paying interest on the national debt is an upward transfer of wealth to the rich. It crowds out spending on public goods and services. Because taxation is required to pay the interest and principle of the national debt in the current system, it also crowds out private investment in the real economy. If the Greenback reform is passed, we should use debt-free money to pay interest on the federal debt and gradually zero out the national debt over 30 years. The wealthy hold most of the federal debt as treasury securities and these entities do not use their extra income to buy goods and service in the real economy, but instead use it mostly to invest in financial instruments that simply rearrange and concentrate ownership of real productive assets instead of creating new productive wealth. Phasing out this upward transfer of wealth with publicly-created debt-free Greenbacks will not increase spending on real goods and services that could cause inflation. However, the national debt should be reduced gradually because to reduce it quickly would cause a massive flow of investment money into corporate bonds and stock markets, resulting in massive volatility in these markets and most likely damaging the value of pensions. FURTHER READING

  • Stacey Mitchell, Institute for Local Self-Reliance – Public Banks: Bank of North Dakota

  • Green Party of the United States – Monetary Reform: Greening the Dollar

  • David Graeber – The Truth Is Out: Money Is Just an IOU, and the Banks are Rolling in It

  • Ellen Brown – Monetary Policy Takes Center Stage: MMT, QE or Public Banks?

  • Positive Money New Zealand – Clearing the National Debt





The military budget has been a significant drag on the American economy since shortly after World War II. As the many writings of Seymour Melman have shown, the role of the Pentagon in the economy has been very negative, because the nation’s skilled workers, engineers and scientists have been diverted from working in the civilian economy, the money that has been spent on the Pentagon could have been spent on building the civilian part of the society, and the incredible inefficiencies of military production have warped the entire manufacturing sector, causing much of the damage to manufacturing that has led to its decline in the last 50 years. The national security problems of the United States, and indeed for most of the rest of the planet, have nothing to do with military problems. Climate change, ecosystem destruction and depletion, and out-of-control income and wealth inequality are much more important for the continuing wealth and health of the United States and other nations as well. It is therefore imperative to redirect as much of the military budget as possible towards a Green New Deal. Indeed, we find in the following that cutting the military budget by even 75% would not impact the military defense of the country.

According to the final report of the Sustainable Defense Task Force of The Center for International Policy, in 2019 dollars, the 2000 Department of Defense budget was $425 billion, while for 2019 the budget is $750 billion. The 2019 figure includes about $200 billion for the various wars, particularly in Afghanistan, that we can safely assume should come to an end. But let’s suppose that the $425 billion spent in 2000, before the military escalation that started after 9/11, was already a very bloated budget, full of unnecessary and much too costly programs. That would mean that we could safely take $325 billion out of the current military budget, just for starters.

Trying to figure out what the Pentagon spends money on is an extremely difficult thing to do, partly because the Pentagon likes it that way, but partly because of the sprawling nature of the U.S. military establishment. However, Lynn Petrovich calculated that the hundreds of overseas bases probably cost in the neighborhood of $50 billion per year. But that is just the expense of having people on the bases. According to David Vine, who wrote a book about overseas bases, if you include the expense of moving people and material around, including all the exercises, the cost is $85 billion per year — conservatively, he says, and that’s not including the bases in Afghanistan and Iraq. So let’s say $100 billion is a conservative figure for the cost of maintaining American military overseas bases.

Let’s assume that we close all those bases — and perhaps get something back by selling them, as their assets are worth about $1 trillion, according to Petrovich, and we can save an extra $100 billion. So now we are up to $425 billion in savings, fully 50%, but now we turn to all the weapons systems that are not necessary and could easily be stopped.

According to Defense News, the Pentagon will spend $143 billion next year in procurement, much of which is for new, unnecessary military systems, and about $100 billion for research, development and testing, again, mostly for unnecessary systems. Out of this approximately $250 billion, let’s be nice and only cut $150 billion, and now we have $575 billion in savings. But wait — it turns out the back office operations of the Pentagon are incredibly inefficient (who knew?).

According to the Washington Post, one the authors being none other than Bob Woodward, the Pentagon could save at least $25 billion per year just rationalizing their back office. The entire back office operation costs $134 billion per year, of which $23 billion is for ‘property management’, meaning taking care of bases, which we would close altogether, saving many more billions. According to the figures they provide, the Army, Navy and Air Force together spend about $100 billion per year just on full-time outside contractors — not even people employed by the government.

Taken together, and even assuming some overlap in savings that have been shown, it should be straightforward, with no impact on national security, to cut the military budget by 75% or by about $550 billion per year. Here again are the savings: $200 billion: cutting out all foreign wars and current operations (OCO expenditures, the ‘off the books’ part of the pentagon budget). $100 billion: closing all overseas bases, not including money made from selling $1 trillion in assets $150 billion: cutting 60% of procurement/r&d/testing budget $100 billion: cutting waste in operations While there might be some overlap here, remember that even simply getting back to the bloated year 2000 budget would cut $325 billion, so there is probably enough waste to negate the overlap.

It could take several years to ramp down this spending, because we might want to provide an easy path for military employees into the new Federal infrastructure programs, which will take a few years to ramp up, but this will require more advanced planning. Thus, just as in the case of fossil fuel workers, military workers would have an opportunity to land an equivalent, socially useful job. In fact, since much of the engineering and scientific skill of the nation is being wasted in the military sector, and since we may have a deficit of such skill when it comes to building a green economy, it may be crucial to use these personnel in civilian industries, as Brian D’Agostino points out in his article, Demilitarization and the Green New Deal


Does sound much like me and a lot of what I would do and support; though there are differences.


According to Econofact, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TNAF) costs about $20 billion, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) costs about $60 billion, and the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) costs about $70 billion. Together this costs about $150 billion. Since between the Job Guarantee, the Green Economy Reconstruction Program, the doubled Social Security and the Income Guarantee, everyone would be above the poverty line, and these programs would not be needed




Revenues from Interstate Renewable Electricity System TBD

Fees for manufacturing and agricultural machinery TBD

Fares for Interstate High-Speed Rail System and transit TBD

Rent/Sales from public apartments TBD

Revenue from solar panels/geothermal/retrofit on buildings TBD

Billing for Internet High-Speed Internet System TBD

We have not calculated revenues from the sale of goods and services from the public sector industries created such as electricity sales, public transportation fares, public housing rents, and green machinery sales. These revenues will reduce the net costs and could fully pay for the Green Economy Reconstruction program over time. What those prices should be are policy decisions that will have to balance the need for revenues and the need to provide some goods and services at lower cost like clean electricity and public transportation to encourage their use.


Sounds pretty good. Very ambitious. Is a lot of what I would want and envision for my country (already).


Looking at things after looking at this:


A lot is about presentation (of information) - Context: --- >Just looking at the numbers for my state (I'm always shocked how rich/how much money people make but this is showing estimated cost of living decently in your area:


Not the greatest video but wanted to talk about it (in my notes, in my pictures):


10:44 go back to the source of the religions

10:47 and you'll find that all of the

10:48 religions are based in tawheed in the

10:51 Oneness of God it will take you right

10:53 back to the source and when you think

10:55 about a Muslim now

10:57 realize it's not somebody who's thinking

11:00 about blowing up the Empire State

11:02 Building

11:03 that's stereotyping that's Hollywood

11:06 that's Hollywood

11:07 Islam is based on peace submission to

11:11 the Creator when we meet each other we

11:13 say assalamu alaikum peace be upon you

11:16 and we pray for peace for all people

7 views0 comments


bottom of page