Planetside Software Forums

Sorry I'm a politics junkie :)
I know people can get sensitive about this kind of thing but you don't have to leave a msg saying which way you voted, in fact you don't have to do anything!! lol
I thought of adding in all the small parties, green, UKIP, the British Nazi Party (they really can't take a joke!!) but that would have entailed too much work, couldn't be bothered ...
So will this poll reflect tomorrows national poll?
Richard

Quote from: cyphyr on May 06, 2010, 11:10:41 AM
the British Nazi Party (they really can't take a joke!!)

BNP ?
British National Party ?

Yep, do you think I should remove that line so as to not offend, to treat all politics with the decorum they deserve?
Think I'll leave it in for now
Richard

I'm the one non-voter so far. ^^

You're damned if you do - damned if you don't, in my opinion. Whichever government gets the seat, they're still answerable to the invisible government running the show. Really, what's the point? I voted once, when I was 18 and eligible to for the first time. Jail me!

Ready and waiting a barrage of contrary opinions as to my apathy...

Quote from: cyphyr on May 06, 2010, 11:27:44 AM
Yep, do you think I should remove that line so as to not offend, to treat all politics with the decorum they deserve?
Think I'll leave it in for now
Richard

I hate politically correct stuff ^^
keep it as it is, maybe we'll have more troll ;)

"the invisible government"

Care to elaborate? N.B. I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm just curious what that phrase means to you.

LibDem for me. Labour seem incapable of following through with what they say and the tories are more contradictory than Nick Griffin's stance on foriegn policy. They keep saying they want to downsize or scrap targets for the public sector but fail to mention that they were they ones who created them with Margaret Thatcher and then increased their number under John Major, who had under his employ, David Cameron as a special advisor to the PM on a number of issues including setting targets for the NHS and schools.

A strong third party certainly makes things interesting. What I love, though, is the one-month election campaign. In this unnamed country campaigns take years and waste hundreds of millions...

:)

http://forums.planetside.co.uk/index.php?topic=9766.new#new

Of course, Dombib. I mean that no matter who will win the election in numbers, they will still be answerable to the major powers running the show, behind the scenes.
We have the European Union... Nothing but a dressed up way of creating a smaller area to be controlled by an ultimately one-world-government. We have a relatively new currency in the Euro, soon(maybe not in the next little while but, soon) we'll all be spending/trading with the World-dollar, or whichever it will be named.
With GB in cahoots with the U.S. and its politics, we are pretty much resigned to conforming with whatever is fed to us, in the form of 'alliance', be it wars, economy, whatever.
I believe the members of parliament/government(in our Western monopolies) are nothing but spokespersons for the actual ones running the show, Gordon Brown is recently mentioning more and more a 'New World Order', making it a more widely acceptable phrase for the general public to be used to when talking of the future of our governments. We do not/should not have the rights to name and claim an entire political movement, involving the entire world.

This is simply(I believe, I'm not forcing this issue on anyone) a way of bringing everyone together in a supposed democracy, and never forget, in a democracy, you'll only ever have the right to choose from a pre-selected number of choices given to you. That is not any kind of freedom for 'The People'. We invade countries and ultimately force this democracy upon the people of those countries.
Who set up and put in place a 'democratic government' in Iraq(as a popular example), a people who neither asked nor wanted one in the first place? Sure, a lot of people didn't like Saddam's rules there... A lot did, however. What gives us any right to be the judge of that and force our own setup on these people? It's called Globalization and it's happening behind the scenes.

Some viewing... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idUIQXMECGI&feature=PlayList&p=D0C955ED315BC2B8&playnext_from=PL&index=0&playnext=1
Dig a little further and you'll uncover more and more, you'll never see it on the news, the papers etc. The invisible government is running the show.

Quote from: dandelO on May 06, 2010, 11:51:49 AM
I'm the one non-voter so far. ^^

You're damned if you do - damned if you don't, in my opinion. Whichever government gets the seat, they're still answerable to the invisible government running the show. Really, what's the point? I voted once, when I was 18 and eligible to for the first time. Jail me!

Ready and waiting a barrage of contrary opinions as to my apathy...

`

Well, I'm with you here I think. I must admit I vote most of the times, but with much hesitation because of this very reason. I still do vote, for the sake of the people around me who expect me to do so. I try to vote sensibly but in the end, like you say, it doesn't matter what you vote it seems.

The invisible government = banks / oil companies / weapon manufacturers / pharmaceuticals / insurance companies etc. These guys run the show and control the political agenda world-wide. I guess everybody has once heard about the Bilderberg conference? Nowadays it's not that extremeley secretive as it used to be, hence that guestlists are public now, but once it was top-secret and subject of much speculation. People thought that at these conferences the political agenda was written for the coming year(s) and that arrangements were made in deep secret.

Nowadays you can see who joins these conferences. Who are the guests? The political leaders of the main industrial countries, top bankers, top oil guys, top weapon manufacturers, top pharmaceuticals, top insurance companies...top everything.
What they discuss is still a secret, but it is known that it is an "informal gathering" where all these people discuss the ongoing problems and strategy.
It is common sense to think that during these conferences ideas are being shared while chit chatting with a cup of tea and deals are made or leaders are convinced/persuaded by a lobbying top guy from whatever industry.
War in iraq, mexican flu (Dutch most renowned virus researcher was partner of a company which had to produce the vaccine), the Lissabon convention (the people of some countries voted against, but eventually this convention has silently been enforced without any possible public interference)...

Just a couple of examples which decreases my confidence in the system and voting...

Ha ha, I'm glad someone else here is a bit clued up on this, maybe it's a 'Martin' thing. :D.
Usually, I'd just get a funny, pitying, smiley look from a person if I bring up names like Bilderberg, Rothschild or, anything relating to these subjects. I wonder how many of you gave me that look when I typed there? ^^ :D It's the very look I gave my partner in 2001 when she tried to educate me that there was some terrible orchestration going on with the media/government. 'Get a grip!' said I. 'Of course the government wouldn't inflict these tragedies on the people!' :S Then's where I decided to investigate for myself. I'm glad I did.

I guess if it's not in the generally broadcast media, like TV, newspapers and such then, people just won't accept such things.
I'd encourage anyone to investigate these subjects, you might just be intrigued enough to dig in and enlighten yourself on some highly disturbing matters about the way our societies are controlled. Disgusting!

You're also free to just give me a funny, pitying, smiley look. It's up to yourself! :D

I'm clued up.

What does the word "democracy" mean. It essentially means mob rule.

The only system that is any good is a republic like the US with a decent constitution not simply a "democracy". Of course the US is not this any more. British Empire (New World Order, Globalist or whatever you want to call it) agent from Kenya, Barry Soetoro (Obama) will make sure of this even although he is of course just a prompt screen reading puppet. He was indirectly funded by City Of London bankers (the real tumour centre of globalism). I have already mentioned (probably years ago) on this forum that the aim is to destroy the US. When does this concept become clear enough?

You should always vote until it's clear that the system is completely dysfunctional then it's civil war. It's not quite that bad yet. Could be heading that way next week if dictator Brown decides to stay. I voted UKIP not because I believe everything they stand for but the basics are OK. Least worst option in my opinion.

The Euro is designed to destroy the countries that joined it like the PIGS. This is the bankers name for Portugal, Italy (maybe Ireland - not sure or maybe both) Greece and Spain. Any nation state that hands it's currency over to a foreign or supra government power is insane.

Actually, if you look at the state of each currency before the euro you'll find that most of them were pretty much worthless, that's why Greece, Portugal, Italy, Austria, and Denmark joined the euro, because their currency wasn't strong enough to be able to gain investment in their government bonds.

I really don't buy into this "New World Order" thing, no one would gain anything from it other than perhaps anarchists, because it'd be a lot easier to build support. You can argue that CEO's and other businessmen would become immensely rich from it, which could potentially be true, but their businesses would stagnate from lack of competition in trade which would have a knock on effect of the stock market grinding to a halt, all connected currencies plummeting in value and their immense wealth suddenly being worth less than if they'd left things alone.

We only have integration of nations, more substantial cooperation that we've avoided for centuries, prefering to war over territory and resources. Now we're pooling our resources instead. So I await the messages of hate with bated breath, more superficial evidence of globalism and possibly a photoshopped picture of Obama doing tequila shots with the Taliban.

Quote from: efflux on May 09, 2010, 05:10:46 PM

What does the word "democracy" mean. It essentially means mob rule.

agree

I don't vote anymore. I voted last time in 1995.

I think that conceptually, it's great to have a common european currency, and a pan european sort-of government. However, both come with a great deal of new responsibilities that have to be assumed. I'm with PG on this point:  as a considerable part of the world population and economy, we turn to collaboration and integration and mutual support, and away from wars, hate, isolation, of which we had plenty and well enough in the past. Everyone seems to understand this, except the UK maybe, but they can't be blamed, as they're slightly confused from driving on the wrong side of the road since generations.

If you ask me the EU has simply expanded too fast, and politicians have not done their due diligence before accepted new members. I mean, what happens if you let a poor guy in your house with the promise to equally share both resources and cost? Right, he'll eat half your food and sleeps on your couch, but cannot add anything really to the bottom line. So that's a stupid strategy.

@Franck: you should definitely vote in any case. At least, make your cross for the least worst option. Yesterday, where I live, there were elections and only 58% or so of people went voting. So what happened? The first time in history after WW2 we have an extremist party sitting on their extremist arses in parliament. Because the more moderate people did not vote, but the crazy guys, they sure as hell went voting.

Regards,
Frank

The American system works much the same way. Our extremists tend to vote more than the the people who are not so left or right wing. This has lead to the Supreme Court ruling on Presidential elections, and long term politicians getting too comfortable in their seats. It has all lead to our government mostly controlled by lobbyists and people who refuse to compromise on issues vital to our nation and states.

Vote.

Quote from: FrankB on May 10, 2010, 04:07:08 PM
The first time in history after WW2 we have an extremist party sitting on their extremist arses in parliament.

And last time you had one, it was because people voted for him ;)

Quote from: Seth on May 10, 2010, 05:09:37 PM

Quote from: FrankB on May 10, 2010, 04:07:08 PM
The first time in history after WW2 we have an extremist party sitting on their extremist arses in parliament.

And last time you had one, it was because people voted for him ;)

err, no Franck that is not correct. Back then they seized both legislative and executive powers (by the use of violence and surpression), and eliminating opposition. And it doesn't free you from thinking again for yourself whether it's better to vote for the least worse option or let the crazy guys pick the nightmare for you ;)

by the way the extremist party I was talking about who have won a few seats are left wing extremists, the successors of the party of the the old eastern german republic.

Ok let's go for my personnal reason not to vote anymore (left aside the provocation I usually use ^^)

I don't accept the fact that people that absolutely doesn't understand anything to politic, or to anything that Res Publica involved, can have the right to vote and that their voice has the same value as mine. That sounds not humble at all but i am honest (i truely always try to). I read almost every newspapers (well french newspapers) and some online news too, i try to keep my mind working and thinking and debatting with people that don't have my politic or social opinion everydays (what do you think Rhalph ? ;) ). I can assure you that the guys that lead our country, all over the world are not put in their thrones by people like me, or like you, that means majority of our citizens are just dumb people who doesn't even understand why they are voting and what does this or that imply politically or economically speaking.
I truely am against vote right for everybody. i think we should prove our value, to get the right to vote. people should be educated and should decide with mind and not with stupidity and heart what is best for a country, for people, for world and all.

As far as I know, politicians are jst fucking liers only fighting for power, not for any good for us all down there.

don't get me wrong here, I don't say that we should not have vote right at all, i just say that we need to educate people to give them the right to vote. where i work, during the last presidential elections, a woman with lond studies at school just asked me how long the president will be president in France !!!!! she didn't even knew that and yet, she voted every elections without even reading parties'programs !!!


that is not Res Publica, that is not, politic, that is not the right thing for us, that is buffonery and yet people think this is the best thing to do !

well maybe for you ! not with me dude, i don't want to be any part of it !


and you know what is the funny part of this reasonning ? listen, you, yes you, all voters, are responsible for all the problem our democracies are into right now, because you put all our leaders in their thrones ! we, the silent mass, we are just looking at you with pity and waiting for the so-called democracy to fall apart ;)

tell me Frank... what happened on January 30th 1933 ? oooh he was not directly elected Chancellor but he was named legally as the law stated...and as far as i rememeber in 1932 he get 30% then 36%... letting dumb people vote is far more dangerous than me not voting ;)

Quote from: FrankB on May 10, 2010, 05:40:50 PM
by the way the extremist party I was talking about who have won a few seats are left wing extremists, the successors of the party of the the old eastern german republic.

With all the informations we now have, NSDAP is very hard to place in the politic's chessboard ;)

Quote from: Seth on May 10, 2010, 06:05:00 PM
tell me Frank... what happened on January 30th 1933 ? oooh he was not directly elected Chancellor but he was named legally as the law stated...and as far as i rememeber in 1932 he get 30% then 36%... letting dumb people vote is far more dangerous than me not voting ;)

I've learned a few things about it, and there were many circumstances that allowed this to happen. If it ever happens again, it's more likely to happen elsewhere in the world. But just to be clear, I do understand your thinking, but you're missing a few facts, for example I stated previously that surpression and violence was involved big time. Anyway, let's let this chapter rest and look at today.

Things are as they are, and that means if you don't vote (because of protest), someone else will take your share. So you not voting is indeed more dangerous than if you would. I mean, there's not much to debate, because it's just maths. No need to get emotional about it, just maths.
If there's no party for the silent mass as you call it, you are free to found one, aren't you? We have a green party around here. In the early 80's, they have been belittled by pretty much everyone on politics, and given, when I look at old pictures they were truly a bunch of freaks, However the core of their motivation resonated with quite a lot of people over the years (also a silent mass), and now they are the 3rd strongest political force in Germany. They have even been part of the reigning coalition for quite some years. So there you go, found a party :)

Cheers,
Frank

oh yes we had those green freaks in France too, and they are the third party in here too. they are still freaks though ^^
that's exactly my point frank : medias bring them to the front side of politics. not their ideas.

I am not a usual french democrat. i don't want universall suffrage. that is the most dangerous thing we invented. that gives full power to a given politician... and with the vote of stupid uneducated people :(

but, i understand your point of view, i truely do. it's just i really don't agree with the society you defend by being pert of it :) and i truely know that you are an honest guy trying to do best for his family and his kind ^^ it's just that i really am against all this corrupted way of political behavior.

Res Publica Frank ! Res Publica ! that is the only way ^^

green parties are like watermelons : green outside but red inside. and believe me, i truely hate communism ;D

I do agree that politicians do seem to be elected by the spack attack vote, but I can't say I agree with only giving the vote to those who can prove they're educated enough to make a conscious decision. It brings you within dangerous reaches of re-education, the majority party altering that education to be more favourable to them. I think the free vote is a good thing and something people have fought very hard for, so simply denying it to all but the sufficiently educated would be a mistake. Certainly in this country it would just lead to the Tories ensuring that only those who went to public schools like Eton getting the vote.

Instead, I think, we should focus on educating everyone, not on the particular policies of a particular group, or even anything close to that, but on how important the electoral system is to how we live our lives. How your vote really can make the difference. Many seats in our recent election (U.K.) had less than a 10 vote majority, especially in the so-called "super-marginals" seats that change hands almost with every election and are always very closely fought and almost always end up deciding our elections, similar to the likes of Florida and Ohio in the US elections.

I end up voting for the person who I believe will do the best job, and uphold the ideology I follow. I do not consider myself extreme. The weird thing about elected politicians is they act as a single organism. When this happens people get hurt; it like they forget who they are supposed to represent.

Quote from: njeneb on May 11, 2010, 08:18:31 AM
it like they forget who they are supposed to represent.

Couldn't agree more, just look at what David Cameron said today. "My party has shown that they are willing to put aside party interest for national interest by agreeing to a referendum on the Alternative Vote". But the Alternative vote isn't even close to what the Lib Dems wanted or indeed 60-70% of the British public want according to most polls. The AV system is the same as first past the post except you vote for a number of MPs 1st to last in order of who you want most, if there is no clear winner from the 1sts then they tally up the 2nds then 3rds till someone has a majority.
How is that in the national interest, it's not proportional to the will of the populace and as the polls suggest isn't what the country wants. But if you look at projected results from the Proportional Representation model of voting, the conservatives would get hammered right back to a state where all 3 parties are pretty much equal. So it's not in the public interest to avoid a referendum on PR, it's in the Conservative interest.

"I really don't buy into this "New World Order" thing, no one would gain anything from it other than perhaps anarchists, because it'd be a lot easier to build support. You can argue that CEO's and other businessmen would become immensely rich from it, which could potentially be true, but their businesses would stagnate from lack of competition in trade which would have a knock on effect of the stock market grinding to a halt, all connected currencies plummeting in value and their immense wealth suddenly being worth less than if they'd left things alone."

PG. This is exactly the plan which we see unfolding. It is text book Marxism but Marxists are just useful idiots. The real plan is really more like Fascism, at the moment anyway.

It will be left to Americans to save the system because their system is the only one that can work. This will probably only be realised after Europe has been wiped out (again) because only then can the real attack on the dollar begin. United States is the only country ever in history where people have been properly free. There are other countries that have given a degree of freedom but that has been almost totally reliant on the United States.

I can assure you without question that all of us would be living in total tyranny if it was not for the United States. Sadly, the US has been taken over. This has happened over many many years. Obama is a complete traitor as are most of our leaders but they are just useful idiots for the real controllers who are behind the banks.

Quote from: efflux on May 13, 2010, 09:33:20 PM
United States is the only country ever in history where people have been properly free. There are other countries that have given a degree of freedom but that has been almost totally reliant on the United States.

???
it is a joke, isn't it ?!

Yeah I was just gonna say that, how exactly is the US a free nation when it's run by the free market (and it has been ever since Regan). You're not free, you're just run by a system you can't see, the power of numbers that the markets use to organise and predict consumer spending and investment was used by the neo-conservatives since Regan was in power and they've been using it in every administration since, bit because they want to control the world but because they wanted to free the world from bureaucracy by instilling what they saw as the indisputable logic of numbers.

This is why we see things like targets for waiting lists in hospitals given exact figures, targets for everything from arrest figures by police to the level of international conflicts in the world (which was agreed by the UN to be reduced by 6% by 2030. All of these targets have taken over the running of government from the politicians who actually have very little power now as everyone is motivated by hitting these targets, including those who you say are trying to destroy the system they created.

It is a kind of freedom I suppose, you have targets to hit but you're not told how you need to hit them, and otherwise you're free to do in your own time what you wish, but that's true in nearly all systems of governance. Still it's a peculiar kind of freedom, where you're only motivated by serving your own self interest, so long as you hit your targets everyone else be damned.

Still, think of the alternative. Control by governments, politicians, who believe they know what is best for us. But that's the choice, you're either told what to do and how to do it but are free to participate to any level you wish, or you are told exactly how much to do and given the freedom to do it how you wish, but are severely punished if you should fail, pushing a self interest on you to achieve no matter the cost.

If you want a more vivid image of what this really means, go back to the Vietnam war when this method was first being tested. GI's were given the "body count", to kill a set number of VC in a specific time but were given no framework on how to achieve this, threatened with disciplinary action if they failed most simply made up their tallies or even shot civilians just to hit their quota. The "Body Count" was created by a man called Alain Enthoven. He also later brought this to the medical establishments of the US and UK.

There have been a lot of different methods tried and tested to bring about spontaneous freedom to different parts of the world and so far all of them have been twisted and corrupted not by people, but by the system itself. Always seeking to improve it's maximum advantage but by doing so engaging questionable methods of control.

And if you think this is all an elaborate scheme to see the US as the all powerful force controlling the world, then just look at the man who invented the system. John Forbes Nash, a paranoid Schizophrenic who believed that he was part of a secret organisation who could stop a soviet invasion and that those around him who wore red ties were communist spies.

Quote from: PG on May 14, 2010, 07:46:59 AM
There have been a lot of different methods tried and tested to bring about spontaneous freedom to different parts of the world and so far all of them have been twisted and corrupted not by people, but by the system itself. Always seeking to improve it's maximum advantage but by doing so engaging questionable methods of control.

This is why the US is the only country that can do anything to solve the present breakdown. Because it has a constitution to stop what you describe here. That constitution has been bypassed right back to when the Federal Reserve was created. There is a whole other issue about exactly who this constitution applies to but no need to get into that. The people in the US know hay have this constitution and all they need to do is claim it as the law.

My experience is that most people know absolutely nothing about the law or their rights in their own countries. I would say goodbye to those nations. They aren't going top be around very long.

Ask anyone what type of law jurisdiction their country has. The most basic question you could possibly ask them about their country and most people will not even know but a lot of them will know what the latest celebrity is up to.

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
 --  Thomas Jefferson

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
 -- Benjamin Franklin

People vote for safety rather than freedom and get neither. Politicians also vote for the safety of their cash flow from financial backers.

ask Switzerland if they are not free ^^ sorry to hear you really think only usa are free country. that only show nombrilistic view of geopolitic. i surely don't want my old free country to look like your free country. :)

"Ask anyone what type of law jurisdiction their country has. The most basic question you could possibly ask them about their country and most people will not even know but a lot of them will know what the latest celebrity is up to."

same applies to the US mate :D
Personally I like our system in the UK, it's evolved over a thousand years, it evolved with the country and the people, it's not been created in a month by a bunch of aristocrats who think they know best for everyone else.

Yes, I agree about that, Switzerland is quite a free country. You will also notice it is not in the EU.

I talk about the US because it is a major power and capable of forcing the rest of the world to act but I would also say that the US is not very free anymore.

I am also not American but I recognise what America originally stood for. I come from Northern Ireland and I live in England.

It is true that the freedoms many people currently have around the world are due to the US. Many countries copied their system including Germany before the first world war. This is why the war was started. To destroy Germany. People escaped Europe to go to the US exactly because it was free.

There is another map somewhere which shows all the law jurisdictions but I can't find it. These are the common law countries. Supposed to not be ruled by corporate law.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Common_law_world.png (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Common_law_world.png)

Well there was also no money left in Europe anymore (sounds familiar) and they were told how free it was, when they got there it wasn't quite how they imagined it. Especially as most of them were forced to live in a 2 block area of Manhattan. Anyway how can the US possibly be considered free, civil rights didn't come in until 1964 and it could hardly have been said to be enforced at that time. Plus women didn't get the vote till 1913. Not that free. They were also one of the last countries to make slavery illegal

Yes, I agree that not everyone was free in the US but the constitution would facilitate that. In general the US was the most free country. It was the only country where people were free but not all of them. Their system (if adhered to) is the only system that can work. Things like slavery have existed all over the place and slavery in the US was backed by other countries such as Britain.

The US was the only country where individuals were sovereign. We are not sovereign individuals in the UK. The Queen is the sovereign. I sold a house a while back. It was protected by agreement with the queen to uphold the rights of her citizens under common law and my house was not registered at the land registry. No law says you have to do this. The Government now owns your house in the UK if it is registered with the land registry. This is just a government corporation. Same with your car. Do you have anything that says these are your property? Notice how you pay no capital gains on sales of these because they aren't yours. Did you register your children at birth? They are property of government. This is the marxist EU superstate.

Quote from: efflux on May 15, 2010, 09:50:17 AM
There is another map somewhere which shows all the law jurisdictions but I can't find it. These are the common law countries. Supposed to not be ruled by corporate law.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Common_law_world.png (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/Common_law_world.png)

This one ? Go to the " Common law legal systems in the present day " section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

Understanding that map is crucial. Many countries have civil law but this gets corrupted by being controlled by corporate law or other forms of power because this law is not truly created by the people. The corporate law or UCC or maritime or statute law (has many names) is the "Empire" law of commerce. You'll notice that is not mentioned on the map. It is not meant to be the law of the land of people not involved in commerce. It was the law of the sea because Empires were built on sea power hence why one name for it is maritime law. There are many examples of the distortion that people consent to. You car is called a vehicle because a vehicle is a commercial machine.

Common and civil law are all eroded away by UCC law. Common law gave the people God given rights of freedom from slavery and this was judged by the people, possibly not very well still but it was a law of the people. It came from Christianity but it doesn't matter about the religion. It is just basic rights of freedom. You either have these and are free, you use the corporate law to give yourself freedom or you are simply property of a corporation. Nobody should need to use the law to get freedom it should be inherent at birth.

according to this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_indices_of_freedom, the USA are not even in the top 10 free country ;D

Well yes, unfortunately the US has lost freedoms.

Wikipedia is also a propogandapedia these days:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redemption_movement

Yes, it's a a conspiracy this idea of sovereign individuals. Freedom is an absolute conspiracy. Interesting that they should mention the Wizard of Oz here. Dorothy's slippers were silver in the original book and she travelled the "yellow brick" road to find the Wizard Of .oz who was a old guy behind a curtain.



Keep watching Fox news or the BBC or whatever your local propaganda channel is. I have never owned a TV in my life.

The inhabitants of the emerald city were forced to wear green coloured spectacles but it was all an illusion.

Quote from: efflux on May 15, 2010, 08:12:13 PM


Wikipedia is also a propogandapedia these days

I don't like wikipedia, but as you use it for your argumentation, I did the same. :)
I don't see the point in not owning a TV. That doesn't make people more intelligent, that just keep them away of something that can put some fun sometimes. That also means you never saw some great documentaries and have no idea of what the majority of people do when they are at home.
oh not mentionning the fact that it must be sometimes a pain in the ass to keep an eye on political meetings "live" :)
even in France we do follow UK election and had some live debate of the candidates.

The live TV debates etc generally revolve round what is known as Hegelian Dialectic.

One reason why it is difficult to get people to see what the real issues are. They are presented with sides of an argument while the real argument remains undiscussed.

If you want to see how bad TV is then don't watch it for six months. Go on every so called "conspiracy" site etc. Read books. Investigate everything properly then return to TV. You will think you just stepped into Stalinist Russia or some such like. Radio is even worse. BBC Radio 4 is total propaganda.

In the US, the mainstream media looks as bad or worse as it is in many other places but they have alternatives. TV and radio in the UK is completely controlled by the government.

They also have alternative money in the US and guns so although the US government is now completely corrupt it is the place where the revolution will come from.

Any country where the population are not allowed arms, property, alternative currencies and free speech is a tyranny. This is why the US was the only free country. It was never perfect but the model was there.

The real money and the debt token. They have now even made it look similar to fool you debt slaves:



The "sovereign" is still the real money of Great Britain. The £ coin is an IOU debt token. You can not pay a debt with a debt. A debt still exists. The sovereign is worth about £200 (for rough arguments sake). The £ of sterling (silver) was worth a sovereign in gold. Where did the other £199 of value go? It was stolen by the banks who now operate in bankruptcy. This is why they give you an IOU note or coin or digit on a computer. Anyone who says the banks are "too big to fail" is a fascist.

You could explain the current financial scam to a five year but not to an adult because they are generally brainwashed to cabbage state.

Also, since when was it morally fine to be constantly in debt? This is the root of the problem.

What have morals got to do with debt? Next you're gonna say the government is conspiring to push us all into so much debt that we have to kill each other just to survive the wrath of the Baliff's.

I'm just trying to open up some thinking about current dire situation and why it exists. I'd rather be posting pictures.

Debt is bad. I am not religious (actually an atheist) but why does Islamic law not allow usury (interest). Notice how we are constantly at war with these countries. None of which has had any clear justification. It used to be a Christian ideal that debt was bad until people forgot about it. Why did Jesus cast out the money changers?

Western civilization has become morally bankrupt as well as financially.

A debt based monetary system can not survive. The problem is that people are in denial about it. This is why I talk about the US system. It is not meant to be a debt based monetary system. It is now though.

they are against eating pork too...
no logic in religion.

Good logic in not eating pork in hot areas where islam/judaic religions came from bad logic in your comment and
the money changers thing was not about debt but people making money out of religion.He have a laff in USA now.

come on, it is 2010, even in hot area, there are refrigerator. no logic in religion, only blind faith

They were logic in the time they appeared , if you know what i mean !