RIAA wants the Internet shut down

Subject: Obit: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 09:20 PM

RIAA wants the Internet shut down

Interesting argument of the day

By Nick Farrell: Wednesday 29 November 2006, 08:38

ONE OF THE lawyers involved in defending cases bought against people by the RIAA claims that if the music industry wins a crucial case, the Internet will have to be switched off.
Speaking on the DefectiveByDesign anti-DRM campaign site, Ray Beckerman said the case of Electro vs. Barker has become very important for the web's future.

Barker was being defended by Beckerman who made a motion to dismiss the case because the RIAA had forgot to provide any acts or dates or times of copyright infringement as the law normally requires.

The RIAA argued that by merely making files available on the Internet Barker was making a copyright infringement.

Beckerman said that it was a shocking argument because if it were accepted by the court it would probably shut down the entire Internet. If you send any file on the Net the RIAA will be allowed to suspect that you are in breach of copyright.

What was more disturbing is that the RIAA called up its mates in Washington to back it up. Apparently the United States Government has put in motions supporting the RIAA. µ

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36027

(Seems like an obituary. Am I wrong?)

Subject: RE: Obit: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Malcolm Douglas
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 09:37 PM

So far, American law does not govern the entire planet, much as commercial interests there might wish (and sometimes try to pretend) that that were the case.

Subject: RE: Obit: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 09:50 PM

Even though the FTA (F*** The Aussies) agreement is gradually being implemented here - the bits that say that Aussie Law must now conform to US Law! - especially on things like copyright, etc.

Subject: RE: Obit: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 09:51 PM

America governs the OLD internet and will continue to govern it as it is beaten to death with laws like this. The plan is to kill it, then transfer all traffic over to the Internet 2, 3, 4, etc. THOSE will be controlled by the U.N. You will be told (if you live in an affluent country) that you need to pay taxes and licensing fees to help develop the internet in poor countries. Your anti-government uploads will be blocked. You will have to thumbscan to log on.

So this ruling has a worldwide ripple effect. If the Internet is killed, you won't like what replaces it.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 10:04 PM

"switched off"?????
How, pray tell, might they accomplish this? It would be like trying to eliminate locusts....

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 10:29 PM

Pull the router's power plugs - easy enough to do...

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 12:03 AM

Thousands of ways to physically shut it off. I've expected the next "terror attack" to be against the backbone servers for some time, but the banking elite can't do that now because they've tied their businesses so heavily into the Internet. So instead of physically pulling the plug, they're going to censure what you can upload.

I view this as a good development. The internet's just a mass of hyperlinks, and in America, when the Gestapo starts busting into homes to violate the First Amendment Freedom of Expression clause, well there will be a lot of Second Amendment response.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 12:12 AM

Danged right the banking elite can't do that. Nor can the business community in general.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST,Voice of Sanity
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 01:34 AM

Another one of those pesky squadrons of black helicopters.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 01:58 AM

Yeh, I too espy the black helicopter.

Bob Dole has it right though- after all, anyone who can speak tomorrow is a talented man.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 09:40 AM

Nothing speculative or "out there" about this. The RIAA story speaks for itself. Plus, you have Google with its worldwide censoring, Europe about to adopt "licensing" fees for uploading, Russia shutting down internet companies right and left, etc.

The Internet is a platform of open discussion, and our increasingly dictatorial governments can't have open discussion. They'd shut the thing down tomorrow if they could, but they can't, so it'll be the slow attrition route. You all know it.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: jeffp
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 10:55 AM

Note to self: Buy aluminum foil.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 12:25 PM

No valid arguments against. Just name calling. That's when you know you've won a debate. But this wasn't meant to be a debate, just informative. And then the gutless fear kicked in, and adults were reduced to childish name-calling.

How does it feel to live in such denial and fear? Seriously. I'm curious.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: MMario
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 12:38 PM

well - given the site linked to in the original post - how is one suppossed to take the thread seriously? I'm sorry - but any place that includes a "flame author" link on the same page as an article is not a site I would consider as a valid news source.

YMMV

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 12:46 PM

Another bullshit conspiracy theory. The genie is out of the bottle, the internet is not going anywhere, and has shown, time and again, it's ability to evolve each time someone tries to inhibit its usage. Seems to me that we have to accept it for the virtual world it is and find ways to operate, protect our interests, etc., within that world. In many ways, it is a whole new planet and we are the life form trying to figure out how to survive and prosper in its unique bunch of wilderness environments.

Mick

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST,Voice of Sanity
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 01:14 PM

GUEST has manifested himself or herself on these threads quite a number of times now, always with the same kind of doomsday conspiracy. His/her implied solution to the 'threat' always seems to involve utilizing the 'Second Amendment.'   Load up your guns and prepare for Revolution!

This person is sad. Either a troll or a paranoiac. Probably both.

Get a friggin' life, GUEST!

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 01:45 PM

Perhaps it's lots of different (nameless) GUESTs coming up with the conspiracy theories. Maybe they are all in it together - a conspiracy of (nameless) GUESTs...

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: jeffp
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 01:52 PM

OMIGOD!!!!!! I'm blinking with my eyes!!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: MMario
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 01:55 PM

NO doubt about it jeff! You need that aluminium foil!

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: bobad
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 02:04 PM

"a conspiracy of (nameless) GUESTs..."

More like a conspiracy of dunces.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 02:28 PM

Chemtrails! It's all because of chemtrails! We are DOOMED!!

(or maybe it's fluride in our drinking water.)

(or maybe I'm a teapot.)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: bobad
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 02:42 PM

"When logic and proportion
Have fallen sloppy dead
And the White Knight is talking backwards
And the Red Queen's "off with her head!"
Remember what the dormouse said:
"Feed your head
Feed your head
Feed your head"

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Jeremiah McCaw
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 02:53 PM

"ONE OF THE lawyers involved in defending cases bought against people by the RIAA claims that if the music industry wins a crucial case, the Internet will have to be switched off."

"...if it were accepted by the court it would probably shut down the entire Internet"

Horseshit! Even if the 'net were declared illegal, that would merely change it, NOT eliminate it. Or as a man far wiser than I would say:

"Can't stop the signal, Mal." - Mr. Universe, from the film 'Serenity'.

:-)

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 04:30 PM

If you're up to more challenging reading, look at the interview the article is based on:

http://www.defectivebydesign.org/node/404

The ruling elite is dead serious about taking away free speech. It's the thing that's most dangerous to them. We now have "free speech zones" in America, where you have to stand if you want to "protest" during a dignitary's visit. 20 years ago such a development would have seemed like "horseshit"...couldn't ever happen in the "Land of the Free."

But then you all know this. What I find more interesting now in this thread is how you folks can be presented with real legal cases and announce it's all the stuff of conspiracy theories. That really is fascinating. Someone please tell me how you make the denial thing work for you.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 05:50 PM

If they shut the Internet down - no more viruses (except on floppy disks), no more spyware, no more spam etc., etc., etc. - what are Mr Norton and Mr McAfee going to do then?

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: jeffp
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 06:09 PM

There is nothing in that transcript that mentions anything like shutting the internet down. It talks about lawsuits against people who make files available on file-sharing networks like Kazaa.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: jeffp
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 07:07 PM

Interesting that right after I visited that site, my firewall detected and blocked 2 intrusion attempts. The EFF wouldn't be distributing spyware, would it?

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 08:10 PM

If all uploads are considered potential copyright violations, then no uploads will be permitted. That would lead to the "shutting down" the internet. The answer is to defy the "law" if it comes about and continue to upload what you want.

No one on earth has the right to deny your right to freedom of expression. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says so. And we have the Second Amendment to put teeth into the First. When they threaten to kick in your door because of what you say or think, then it's time to kick back. As in ballistically. This should be NORMAL American thinking. I find it sad that people have been so brainwashed that they think it's wrong to defend what the Constitution calls our "God-given rights" against bona fide federal gangsters.

And notice how the Democrats are going to restrict your speech with a "Hate Speech" bill and Newt Gingrich is calling for revising "Freedom of Speech." Far left and far right are in agreement that your words threaten their power hold, so they're going to shut you up.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 08:20 PM

(This is a total waste of time, but what the hell, it's a slow day here at the skunk works.)

I don't see that this is anything new.

The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) has had a war with the internet ever since such things as Napster started appearing and file-sharing, particularly of copyrighted material, became popular. The movie industry also leaped in, but then their unhappiness goes all the way back to the development of VCRs and videotape and the ease of copying movies.

Once can certainly understand their concern. They stand a chance of losing a wad of money. Also, there is the ethical consideration of creative artists not getting royalties and residuals because of indiscriminate and uncontrolled copying and distribution of their work. The very recently developed YouTube is beginning to get some flak for the same reasons. Electronic books (downloading novels or other material from the internet) also has the publishing industry and many authors pretty upset for the same reasons—unless, of course, they are the ones who are doing it and charging for the downloads.

One would expect lawsuits about this. The RIAA may be acting like a five-hundred pound gorilla, but that's their job.

If one just happens to be one of those "unemployed people, disabled people, housewives, single mothers, home healthcare aids, all kinds of people who have no resources whatsoever to withstand these litigations" that Beckerman is talking about (a blatant and somewhat sleazy appeal to the emotions of the listeners) who just happened, at one time or another, to have downloaded copyrighted material from Napster or Kazaa, one should not be surprised if the RIAA comes looking for their pound of flesh. Beckerman claims that these song files are found on the computers of completely innocent people by some "secret process." That's pretty spooky all right. And just how does this "secret process" get through firewalls and other security measures that come pretty standard on most computers these days? Has anybody bought a computer within the past few years that didn't have a security suite pre-loaded?

Now, I'm quite sure that there are people in government, especially in the Bush administration, who are not happy with organizations like MoveOn and AlterNet Headlines and other organizations that distribute frequent e-newsletters and use the internet very heavily to disseminate their viewpoints. Nor are they happy with the fact that it's also possible for people to get their news and information from sources all over the world. But I don't think they are so stupid as to not realize that anything like trying to shut down the internet—EVEN IF IT WAS POSSIBLE—could turn around and bite them in the ass. If the incumbents suddenly become "out-cumbents," they will want to use every device available, such as the internet, to try to get back in again. Cheney may be as crooked as a dog's hind leg and as greedy as a shark, but he's not an idiot.

A couple of points:   

1. This is not a legal transcription as GUEST seems to be trying to imply. It is a transcription of a recorded telephone conversation.

2. The RIAA is not a government agency.

GUEST, you see problems everywhere, and even though I've asked you on a number of occasions for a reasonable plan of action against your various bugaboos, about all you can come up with is to accuse me (and others) of naivety or of being in denial (de-Nile is a river in Africa). The nearest thing you offer to a plan of action is "Man the barracades! Storm the castle with torches and pitchforks." Okay, so I load up the Smith & Wesson. Who do you want me to shoot first?

When you have one of your paranoid spasms and post stuff like this, I check out your sources. I used to be a newsman in broadcasting and I know how to check stuff. And springing from that news experience, I have a pretty efficient bullshit filter. When I check your sources, more often than not, the BS filter's needle slams hard against the peg.

Might I suggest that you seek professional help?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 08:51 PM

You're right. I made it all up. The govt has nothing but good intentions for us. The war in Iraq ends tomorrow, the scheduled national IDs are going to be cancelled, the internet will be cheap and uncensored forever, the Democrats will quit obstructing justice and move ahead with the impeachment of Bush. What was I thinking about? Thank you for slapping some sense into me.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: jeffp
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 08:54 PM

Glad to see you've gotten over that exaggeration thing.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 09:16 PM

Now, now, GUEST. No need to pout.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 09:39 PM

No habla sarcasm? Or do you really believe what I just said?:

*The government has nothing but good intentions for us.
*The war in Iraq ends tomorrow.
*The scheduled national IDs are going to be cancelled.
*The internet will be cheap and uncensored forever.
*The Democrats will quit obstructing justice and move ahead with the impeachment of Bush.

This goes to the heart of my curiosity about denial. How can you folks engage in such PROFOUND denial? Do you even know you're engaging in it anymore? Has it become second nature?

You talk about black helicopters and tin foil hats the way you talk about "conspiracy" organizations like the CFR. Does the CFR exist? Dick Cheney says it does. In the clip at the link below he admits he was its director when he was a congressman but, "I never mentioned that when I was back home campaigning in Wyoming." (David Rockefeller titters):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVF3q1go_8Q&mode=related&search=

People who refute things like the existence of the CFR when DICK CHENEY HIMSELF SAYS IN THIS 2002 CLIP THAT HE WAS ITS DIRECTOR, well you people are a curiosity to me. Like bugs. And I've come to classify you into 4 categories. Either:
1) You're truly ignorant, or
2) You're terrified of the changing world and you think that if you parrot the govt's lies you'll be able to extend your existence, or
2) You're protecting your investment in the system (either a pension or a job or some imagined "standing" in the community), or
3) You work for the govt as either an active employee or a passive employee doing some kind of community service assigned to you by the court system.

Really, those are the 4 categories I've been able to come up with for the denial/debunkers on forums and bulletin boards. But I'd like to know more about the process of denial, so please tell me your stories about how you first came to embrace this type of behavior.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: jeffp
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 09:48 PM

What's the CFR?

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 09:53 PM

Just as I said, a total waste of time trying to discuss things with you.

I am fully aware of the various dangers to our freedoms. One helluva lot more than you are, because I focus on the real threats rather than getting lost in the kind of fantasies that you indulge in. You're spinning your wheels, wasting your time. No denial or lack of awareness on my part or on the part of most people here. It's just that we chose to deal with reality, not paranoid delusions.

As I said, get professional help.

Over and OUT!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Don Firth
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 10:10 PM

CFR = Council on Foreign Relations. It's a think-tank, not unlike the Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute.

"Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an American foreign policy think tank based in New York City. It describes itself as 'A nonpartisan Resource for Information and Analysis', that is 'dedicated to increasing America's understanding of the world and contributing ideas to U.S. foreign policy,' and accomplishes this mainly by promoting constructive, closed debates and discussions, clarifying world issues through research and analysis, and publishing the noted journal Foreign Affairs and related content online."

Sound like worthwhile goals to me. What's so scary about it? There are think-tanks up the ziggy. None of them are government agencies, not even the Project for the New American Century, despite the fact that several members of the Bush administration are in the PNAC. I'd be more apprehensive about them that I would be about the CFR.

Sometimes I suspect that GUEST's aim is to divert us from the real issues.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 10:47 PM

The problem with the CFR is that its goal is to bring in a world government. So, Cheney was its director when he was a congressman and under oath to uphold the US Constitution. That's a conflict of intrest, and it's also treason.

Look at the number of elected politicians on the roles of the CFR. They too are violating their oaths.

And as far as Firth, I would classify him as...oops, made a mistake in my numbering above. The corrected categorization is below:
1) You're truly ignorant, or
2) You're terrified of the changing world and you think that if you parrot the govt's lies you'll be able to extend your existence, or
3) You're protecting your investment in the system (either a pension or a job or some imagined "standing" in the community), or
4) You work for the govt as either an active employee or a passive employee doing some kind of community service assigned to you by the court system.

I would classify Firth as a 2 or 3. He thinks denying reality will buy him some extra time perhaps, or, he's protecting a pension. These types display EXTREME knee-jerk reaction when presented with irrefutable proof. They claim victory and get out of the dangerous waters of truth with all possible haste. The Category 1's are the best because they just need a little education, and some of the Category 4's are not beyond education...they're just working off their community service and actually learn something while they bicker with you. But those Category 2 & 3's are a tough nut to crack. Category 2's just need to develop some spine and may do so after a personal run-in with the truth in the form of an abusive cop or a visit from Homeland Security after a "questionable" posting. Which leaves the Category 3's. There's the rub. They think they need to go along to get along...protect their investment in the system at all costs. After a hundred years socializing America, most Americans have something to protect...a pension, a job with a promise of a pension, money in the bank, etc. Can't speak out and run a risk of losing all that. Unfortunately, this Category will fight to the bitter end to protect what they think they "have." They feel they're part of the system, but they're just part of the digestive system, soon to be discarded in the natural order of things.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 11:27 PM

I should have emphasized that the CFR is like the poster child organization of the denial/debunkers. Sift back through the mudcat posts and you'll find people denying it exists until pretty recently. Yet there's Cheney chuckling about how he lied to his constituents while he was head of the CFR. The below is a pretty good summation of the CFR:

"The CFR is the promotional arm of the Ruling Elite in the United States of America. Most influential politicians, academics and media personalities are members, and it uses its influence to infiltrate the New World Order into American life. Its' "experts" write scholarly pieces to be used in decision making, the academics expound on the wisdom of a united world, and the media members disseminate the message.

To understand how the most influential people in America came to be members of an organization working purposefully for the overthrow of the Constitution and American sovereignty, we have to go back at least to the early 1900's, though the story begins much earlier (depending on your viewpoint and beliefs).

That a ruling power elite does indeed control the U.S. government behind the scenes has been attested to by many Americans in a position to know. Felix Frankfurter, Justice of the Supreme Court (1939-1962), said: "The real rulers in Washington are invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes." In a letter to an associate dated November 21, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt wrote, "The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson." February 23, 1954, Senator William Jenner warned in a speech: "Outwardly we have a Constitutional government. We have operating within our government and political system, another body representing another form of government, a bureaucratic elite which believes our Constitution is outmoded."

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/council_on_foriegn_relations.htm

I need to formalize my Categorization process. Latin names would give it some class, I think, so looking at the postings above...let me see...

I think Ebbie would be a good example of Category # 2, "You're terrified of the changing world and you think that if you parrot the govt's lies you'll be able to extend your existence." How does "Ebbie Hystericus" sound for that category?

Don Firth would be a good example of Category # 3 I suspect, but I can't use "Firth" in the name because that could be misread as "First." So I need to incorporate Don or Donald. Hmmm. "You're protecting your investment in the system (either a pension or a job or some imagined "standing" in the community)" Don't know. I'll have to work on that one.

jeffp seems to be an example of Category # 4. "You work for the govt as either an active employee or a passive employee doing some kind of community service assigned to you by the court system." Jeff seems rather bright, but he resorts to name-calling quickly, as if he's been doing this for too long and no longer has the patience for argument. He's just putting in the hours, either as a govt-paid debunker or as a petty criminal working off his debt to society by taking on critics of the govt. His arguments have degenerated into grunt-like, pissy bureaucratic sounds, so "grunticus" something. "Grunt" also denotes a soldier just doing a job, so the designation becomes doubly apt. "Jeff Grunticus?" Not as readily understandible as "Ebbie Hystericus," so maybe it needs some more work. No..."DISgrunticus". He spreads disinformation, in grunts. And Jeff sounds too informal, so Jeffrey Disgrunticus. Nah. This one just isn't coming together.

As far as Category # 1, I hate to call anyone ignorant, so I'll come up with some good generic name for that one.

All I can say for sure at this point is that the type of debunker who is terrified of the changing world and thinks that parroting the government's lies will buy a bit more life is known as the Ebbie Hystericus.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 11:37 PM

Aluminum Foil Helmets at the ready!

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 12:34 AM

Some of you laughed when it was pointed out that a group called the Project for a New American Century had made plans to dominate certain oil rich countries with a new elite technological army.

Members like Rumsfeld wrote that a Pearl Harbor event was needed to call America to arms. PNAC's manifesto also mentions the need to tightly control the internet (albeit not by the means of a music industry lawsuit)





PS Aluminum foil is actually bad for the brain and if injested in certain forms can cause dementia like symtoms.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 12:41 AM

Well, well, WELL! It looks like I sort of got up GUEST's nose a bit.

Actually, GUEST, none of the above.

But you might want to check this out. I think they're ahead of the CFR in the queue. Or rather, the CFR is merely a subsidiary organization. Clicky#1. Then, behind them are the Rockefellers, the Masons, the Zionists, the Catholic Church, Wal-Mart, Starbucks, The Men in Black, Aliens, and on and on ad nauseum. . . .

And about those black helicopters, this is pretty interesting. Clicky#2

Really. Get help.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 12:59 AM

Sardonic: Scornfully or cynically mocking

Category # 3, SarDONicus. That contains the name example of Don Firth. Working on it.

Actually the world can be viewed as an interlocking financial grid. Paddy Chayevsky summed that up in the boardroom speech in Network decades ago. Eisenhower summed it up with the term "military-industrial complex." I suppose the grid COULD have members from all the groups mentioned.

David Rockefeller founded the Tri-Lateral Commission and a dozen other globalization organizations. Such a loving guy. Some of his statements are below. I especially like the last one, where he praises the murderer of 50 million people:

"Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure---one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
--David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405

"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promise of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The super-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
---David Rockefeller, at a 1991 Bilderberger meeting

"Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history."
---David Rockefeller, statement about Mao Tse-tung in The New York Times, August 10, 1973

A unified global govt wouldn't be so bad if it were a benign, utopian govt, but the model being forced on us is anything BUT that. We have the communist Chinese DYStopian model being shoved in our faces. Rule by terror. And the people in the U.S. who are forcing this on us are breaking their oaths to the Constitution in order to pursue globalization.

Now back to the naming problem. Bulwark: any protection against external danger, injury, or annoyance. Sardonicus Bulwark. Bullwork Sardonicus. This is too much like work. May just stick to the numbers.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 01:09 AM

Well, as to a 'world govt' being supported by members of the civil ruling body of any country, and that such support is treason - then it is also true that any elected member of any local or state govt who support a federal govt in that country must also be 'treasonous' to the local voters...

wibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibble...

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 01:12 AM

All kidding aside, this stuff is SO obvious. When Nixon went to China, David Rockefeller was at his side. Nixon was the flunky on that trip. Rockefeller used a President of the U.S. to further his globalization agenda. I mean, Nixon was a "conservative Republican" and there he was opening doors for David Rockefeller. Nixon was a HUAC commie-hunter with Joe McCarthy, yet there he was a few years later cozying up to communist China. Didn't any of you think that was STRANGE?

The President of the U.S. has no power compared to David Rockefeller. The Heads of State are just puppets. The financial elite of the world are trying to do away with national borders. They're phasing out the need for national leaders, and what will be left will be one big mass of humanity lorded over by the elite and their armies.

Deny the Nixon situation. Deny Rockefeller's statements. I think the war of terror being waged against you may be having more of an effect than I'd supposed. Maybe more of you can be categorized as Ebbie Hystericus than I first thought. Interesting.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 07:57 AM

I have read 1984 by George Orwell.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Grab
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 09:46 AM

Guest, if you want a complete set of categories, I'd suggest adding the following:-

* Category #5: Over-reaction to genuine but minor threats. Mr. Mount-Mitchell-from-Midwestern-Molehills.

* Category #6: Over-reaction to non-existent threats, seeing conspiracy where there is none. Pedro Paranoid.

* Category #7: Correctly responding to a genuine threat. Sam Second-Amendment.

Me, I suspect you're either category 5 or 6. Sure, you think you're #7. So does everyone at this link.

Graham.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 11:20 AM

No, those aren't valid categories. Humorous, but not valid. The post about Orwell's 1984 makes me think there may be a sub-category, though: "People who feel it's pointless to fight back, so they deny out of a sense of futility." But no, that's not really denial. It's even a kind of admission that things are as bad as I've indicated. So I would have to categorize Foolstroupe as a possible 2 or 3, if he or she is actually in denial. I suspect there's no denial there, however, but just a frustration about how to deal with it. And Grab doesn't seem to be in denial, just angry. That's good. Get angry at the messenger if necessary, as long as you get angry.

And I'm still waiting for more "Rockefeller / Masonic / Tin Foil" comments after posting David Rockefeller's feelings about you insects. His feelings IN HIS OWN WORDS. Tell me I imagined him saying those things. Got more if you want them. David R. is a talkative guy. He wants the historical CREDIT for killing you and subjecting your children to abject slavery.

Tweaking the wording of the Categories I've come up with so far...You deny and/or debunk the obvious truth about the world because:
1) You're truly ignorant, or
2) You're terrified of the changing world and you think that if you parrot the govt's lies you'll be able to extend your existence, or
3) You're protecting your investment in the system (a pension, a job, some imagined "standing" in the community, etc.), or
4) You work for the govt as an active employee, or you serve as a passive employee doing some kind of community service assigned to you by the court system.

Those four seem pretty all-encompassing, but I'm still working on it. Maybe I could develop this into a paper to send to the next Bilderberg meeting (if they exist).

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: MMario
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 11:25 AM

You are saying that no one ever over-reacts to threats?

That paranoia doesn't exist?

that everyone who doesn;'t believe as you do is wrong? Always?

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 01:00 PM

"You're terrified of the changing world and you think that if you parrot the govt's lies you'll be able to extend your existence." How does "Ebbie Hystericus" sound for that category?"

Wow. I have an entire category to myself. In Latin, no less. I'm thrilled and flattered and I accept it most humbly. You know me so well.

Hmmmmm. I may not be able to accept it after all. "Hystericus" fits Guest(DG?) MUCH better than it does me.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: jeffp
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 01:28 PM

Aren't you the same guest that was predicting the mass poisoning at the Mardi Gras a few years ago?

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 01:52 PM

Still waiting for some response to the David Rockefeller thing. He was lumped in with tin foil hats and black helicopters, I posted some of his more sinister quotes, and now people are having trouble focusing. This is an interesting type of denial device (the term 'avoidance' comes to mind) but I'm afraid I have to insist we stay on topic here. I sense a breakthrough. Tell me:
1) did I imagine David Rockefeller said those things? And,
2) if he said them, are they threatening statements?

We really can't proceed with your treatment until these hurdles are cleared.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: bobad
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 01:59 PM

"What's the wavelength, Kenneth?"

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: MMario
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 02:02 PM

1) You may have - oor someone may have. I don't *know* that he did or didn't. I suspect he may have. whoopee. People claim to have invented the internet who didn't.

2) not particularly.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 02:24 PM

Have you latched on to David Rockefeller because he is the last remaining Rockefeller brother? Whether or not you are aware of it, the Rockefellers have been vilified in this country for generations.

Why are you not able to accept that there are people and groups of people out there who, far from being treasonous and satanic, genuinely are concerned with the stability and wellbeing and the future prosperity (in all senses) of the world? Surely you accept that not all people go from day to day seeing only what is happening TODAY? Surely, if people did look forward and foresee the world's current course culminating in a place that is not be sustainable or at all what we need and want, you would consider them/us remiss? Do you understand that sentence at all?

Ebbie Hystericus, Madame

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 04:27 PM

You've proven the hysterical part, Ebbie, hence the naming of one of the categories of denial after you. As I recall, you and I last interacted when I mentioned Jeb Bush put Florida under martial law (for no reason and for the first time in its history) just days before 9-11, 2001. So, on 9-11, GWBush was in a safe state on maximum alert, while another of his other brothers, Marvin, was running security at the World Trade Centers. For some reason you questioned the veracity of the martial law statement, I directed you to the order itself, posted on the internet, and you exited the discussion. Hysterical deniability. Sad, but maybe the most excusable form of deniability out there. Just a glandular thing, perhaps. Something physical. But I'm not sure of causes on the deniability, I'm just trying to identify the different types. As far as your defense of a man who praises mass-murderer Mao Tse Tung, that gets into the realm of brainwashing. Whole different ballgame.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 04:46 PM

Sorry, GUEST, no cigar.

I have notice how quickly you changed the subject when your tirade about the RIAA was shot down. Since the RIAA is not a government agency, they don't have the power to shut the internet down. After all, the internet is a world-wide phenomenon. The genie is out of the bottle, and it's really questionable if even governments could stuff it back in. When that straw-man collapsed, you turned your guns on the Council on Foreign Relations, a think-tank (also not a government agency) that's existed since the 1920s.

As to your breakdown of the categories of people who disagree with you, you're guilty of a couple of fallacies right out of the box. First of all, "begging the question:"   begging the question (contrary to popular belief) is not asking that a question be asked, it consists of assuming that your conclusion is correct before you even examine the evidence. I leave it to you as an exercise to look up "begging the question" in a good logic textbook or web site and read up on it in detail. Second, your whole category argument consists of "argumenum ad hominem:"   that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong because they are ignorant, afraid, have a vested interest, and/or are one of the "enemy." Actually your third and fourth categories are essentially the same. Redundant.

I can't answer for everyone else, but I can certainly set you straight as far as I am concerned. Let's take your accusations point by point.

1) You're truly ignorant.

Definitely not ignorant in the way you mean it. College-educated, majored in English literature and music, with courses in philosophy, psychology, political science, the liberal arts in general, with a couple of courses in astronomy and cosmology. I also spent two years at a music conservatory. I am well read: some fiction, but mostly nonfiction. I am very knowledgeable in history, and I keep up on current events. Books read recently include Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, by Michelle Goldberg (I also read her columns on Salon.com), and I am currently reading Imperial America: Reflections on the United States of Amnesia, by Gore Vidal. One of my favorite books within recent years was the March of Folly, by Barbara Tuchman. Written a few decades ago, it is still very current and relevant. I do watch the evening news, but I also watch programs such as the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Washington Week in Review, Now with David Brancaccio, Frontline, and P.O.V. And having cable, I often watched The National on CBC. In addition, I often watch C-SPAN and C-SPAN 2. I get a lot of my news from overseas through the internet, such as the Guardian and several other European newspapers, and in my e-mail I receive such things as the MoveOn, DefCon (Defend the Constitution), and Backbone Campaign newsletters, and AlterNet Headlines several times a week.

On the other hand, everyone is ignorant of some things. I'm fairly good with math and algebra, but I've never studied calculus. And I am a very poor cook. Nor do I know if there are earthlike planets in the Alpha Centauri system (nearest stars to our solar system), but it would be nice to think there are.

2) You're terrified of the changing world and you think that if you parrot the govt's lies you'll be able to extend your existence.

Terrified of the changing world? That verges on the downright silly. I am an old fart. I was born fairly early during the Great Depression, and you probably haven't a clue as to the number of radical changes I've seen take place over the past seven decades. When I was born, Hoover was president. I lived through four terms of FDR, and of course, World War II. I leave it to you as an exercise to look up the number of presidents I have lived through since then, and the number of regime changes that have taken place during that time. While you're at it, you can look up the number of wars this country has been involved in over that time. Communism was on the rise when I was born, I've seen it grow into a major world power, and I saw it collapse. I've seen the development of nuclear weapons and the threat of the nuclear war. At the age of six I became fascinated with the Buck Rogers comic strip in the Sunday "funnies." I was told at the time, "That's just fantasy. Space travel is impossible." In 1969, I watched on television (which didn't exist when I was a kid; I grew up with radio), as Neil Armstrong stepped off the ladder onto the surface of the Moon. Since then we've landed several exploratory probes on Mars and sent spacecraft out beyond the Outer Planets. I also seen the descendents of former slaves began to take their rightful place in society, and I have seen women move out of the kitchen and into a position where we may very well have a woman president after the present regime is retired from office in 2008. Or we may very well have an African-American president. Neither of these things was even conceivable a few decades back.

You must be very young. Me, terrified of the changing world? Don't be an idiot!

3) You're protecting your investment in the system (a pension, a job, some imagined "standing" in the community, etc.),

I have long since established my "standing in the community" and it is not "imagined." I have no worries about that. I am retired, so that takes care of the "job" part of it. Part of my income is derived from my monthly Social Security check, which even Bush can't take away without starting what you seem to want—bloody revolution. I don't have a pension (never worked at any one place long enough to qualify), but I invested in some IRAS and I have income from a few other investments (carefully selected mutual funds) made some time back. Nothing big, but nothing that the government can touch. I'm not wealthy by any means, but I'm comfortable and secure.

4) You work for the govt as an active employee, or you serve as a passive employee doing some kind of community service assigned to you by the court system.

As I said, I'm retired. Through most of my life, I was a professional musician, doing concerts, television, club dates, and coffeehouses. I also taught classic and folk guitar, and I had a full schedule of students. I have also worked for the Boeing Airplane Company as a technical illustrator (commercial airplane devision—non-government). I spent eight years as a radio announcer and newscaster. I have also worked at the telephone company as an operator. And the nearest thing to a government job that I've ever had was working as a technical writer under contract to the Bonneville Power Administration. The BPA was regulated by the Department of Energy, but it was local agency rather than Federal. I support community service through a local church—although I am not particularly religious. The church is very liberal and socially oriented (it sponsors free meal programs and finds housing for homeless and low income folks, among other services to the community), and I see it as a way of maximizing my own efforts.

So much for that.

I became aware of the penchant that some people have for conspiracy theories, early on. My father was a health professional, and like many such, he wound up on a lot of mailing lists. One of the "newsletters" he used to receive regularly was from some paranoiac who was convinced that the drug companies were taking over the world. There were no such things as germs. This was a fiction promulgated by the drug companies to sell you expensive and ineffective drugs. Who was behind this plot? The Rockefellers! All of these drugs, the writer said, were made from petroleum products which are supplied by Standard Oil, which, of course, was owned by the Rockefellers.

There were other newsletters. One proclaimed that the Jews are taking over the world. It contained many quotes from a thing called "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." This kind of nonsense fell into disrepute, toward the end of World War II and the discovery of the death camps. People began to realize just how evil a thing anti-Semitism and other forms of religious and/or racial prejudice can be. Although, of course, it still goes on.

Then we were warned about the Masons. And we were warned about the Illuminati. Then suddenly "flying saucers" began making headlines, and we were warned of imminent alien invasions. And then we were warned about government agencies denying the existence of "unidentified flying objects" because either the government was in on the plot, or it was afraid that the populace might panic if they knew how grave the danger of invasion was. And then, when it was discovered that people who drink water with naturally occurring fluoride in it had fewer cavities, and there was a move to add fluoride to the drinking water of communities which were not so naturally endowed, we were warned that this was a government plot to turn our brains to mush and make us all malleable and obedient slaves. And then there were men in black suits. And chemtrails. And plots to control the weather. And the mysterious black helicopters.

I have heard it all!

Now this is not to say that there are not real conspiracies going on. After Goldwater's abysmal loss in his bid for the presidency, conservative Republicans put together a quite efficient plan. They got all of the factions of the Republican Party together, and talked them into putting aside their miscellaneous minor differences, and working together under "the big tent." Their first major success was the election of Ronald Reagan. A bit of a setback when Clinton was elected. But the more conservative factions within the Republican Party conspired to find anything they could, true or otherwise, with which to discredit the Clintons. The next major success was the election of the organ grinder (Cheney) and his monkey (Bush). Karl Rove's lifetime career is conspiracy.

The Democrats are conspiring to take back the government. The Green Party is conspiring. The Libertarian Party is conspiring. The Constitution Party is conspiring. The Socialist workers Party is conspiring. Various independents are conspiring. The Project for the New American Century has been conspiring for some time to take over the world. Right now, they're keeping a low profile, because their last attempt, through the Bush administration, turned out to be such a pig's breakfast that they'd rather not call attention to themselves.

There are liberals and progressives who are conspiring to take over the country. I know, because I'm one of them.

Muslim fundamentalists are conspiring to take over the world. Christian fundamentalists are conspiring first to take over the nation, and then to take over the world.

The Council on Foreign Relations is undoubtedly conspiring to take over the world. But they're just like everybody else who's trying to cram their way through the revolving door.

Stay alert. Be watchful. Be politically active. But don't be so naïve as to focus on only one thing. And for Chrissake, DON'T PANIC!!

Don Firth

P. S. Just as a point of interest, writing this didn't take any where near as long as one might assume from its length. I just sat here, drinking my morning coffee, and dictating it into the computer with Dragon NaturallySpeaking, a voice recognition program. I'm saving my fingers for practicing on the guitar this afternoon.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST, Ebbie
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 05:13 PM

Don Firth, I'm proud to meet you.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 05:48 PM

Yes, Don Firth is a Category 3. The thought of losing a pension inspires visions of bloody revolution. Seems I've become pretty adept at nailing the types over the years. About time I got down to serious classification.

As far as the internet being immortal, it's not. The internet is already dying under the weight of its own traffic. No real upgrade of existing servers is happening. What IS happening is the development of Internet 2. Maybe the confusion here is due to a misunderstanding of terms. Don't you folks know about Internet 2? It's a whole different internet system. It's been set up with all kinds of lock-outs and taxation methods in mind. It is controlled by the U.N. And as the traditional internet breaks down, new companies and old companies wanting to survive will be forced over to Internet 2. Look at some of the URLs you use. www2. It's already here, but you don't know about it? The internet you've come to love is dead, folks. Two years from now, this mudcat forum will have to either toe the line politically, and delete anti-govt posts, or it'll be history. So the RIAA action is quite relevant. One more body blow against our beloved old internet. And obstinate denial won't change the situation.

Regarding thread drift, I became more interested a few posts back about the lengths to which people will go to deny the obvious, so I started the drift. The categorization stuff. Then Firth went off about the Rockefellers and tin foil or whatever, and that seemed a good time to offer an example of the undeniable, as an experiment...David Rockefeller's crowing about his megalomania, in his own words. Pretty in your face, but still people rationalized and denied it. The experiment produced helpful results.

I apologize for treating you folks like guinea pigs, but SOMEONE has to get to the root cause of this insane drive to deny the police state growing up all around us. All I'm trying to do is approach the problem methodically. Your continued input is appreciated.

Let's see...I need another undeniable story or statement. I'll search for something that has immediacy and get back to you. Meanwhile, do some research on Internet 2. It's an eye-opener.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 07:10 PM

The interesting thing is, when I was a young idealist I believed passionately in the desirability of developing a "One-World" united society on this planet, and getting past the era of competitive nationalism that has spawned so many terrible wars. I envisioned a World Bill of Rights, a World Minimum Wage, a World Justice System, a World Parliament, and so on...

BUT....what I was envisioning was a good world government which would give everyone freedom and equal rights and equal economic and educational opportunities!

That's not what's in the works. What is in the works is a form of business-driven, money-driven globalization which elevates a tiny financial elite into a position of unparalleled power and turns the rest of humanity into worker-bees, slave labour, criminals and unwitting dupes of the $ySStem.

It's natural that human beings should work toward larger cooperative associations. It's been happening all through history...although there is sometimes a backlash against the large centralized organizations, and a breaking up into smaller units. "Balkanization", in other words. So it swings back and forth at times like a pendulum.

The main problem right now is that it is very unscrupulous people who are in charge of globalization, and they are doing it for their own benefit, not for the benefit of the general public.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 07:19 PM

Yes, Little Hawk, exactly. I need to work up a thing on the Real I.D. Act tonight and thought I'd check in here first, and I'm glad I did. Your overview is right on target. I wish it weren't, but it is.

I wanted the Utopian future too, but the gangsters running the world are shoving a Dystopian system down our throats. Rather than positive reinforcement, they're using negative. And their threats aren't idle. We will be expected to go along with their system 100%, or we'll be eliminated through death or imprisonment.

It seems WAY too many people want to deny this, so I truly have developed an interest in this deniability. If you have a flat on your car you fix it, you don't keep driving. And we have a flat, folks. We need to stop and fix it.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST, Ebbie
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 07:26 PM

"I need another undeniable story or statement." Guest

Here's one: You are a silly man.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 07:32 PM

It's not a bit surprising they would want to deny it. ;-)

My grandfather was living in Czechoslovakia in the late 30's, with Germany making stronger and stronger noises about coming in and takin over.

"That will never happen," he said. His wife disagreed, and sent my father and his brother to school in England (they were teenagers at the time).

After Munich the Germans came into the Sudetenland. And they didn't stop there, as they had promised, they quickly took over the whole country.

"We have to leave now!" said my grandmother. "No," said my grandfather, "nothing is going to change here. I have my business here, and we must stay put. It's the only safe thing to do."

A day after the Germans arrived in Prague, the Gestapo came to interview my grandfather at his office...he had a large business selling foreign luxury autos. They informed him in no certain terms that he had 2 choices:

1. Become a Nazi, and a part of the New Order, and do what he was told, and all would be well.
2. Refuse and lose everything (including, by implication, his life).

He was terrified, and promised to cooperate. They shook his hand, congratulated him on making the right choice, and departed.

That evening he and his wife flew from Prague airport to England, carrying nothing but some clothing and her personal jewelry. They were very lucky to get out. The Germans had not yet completed all travel security arrangements in the country, and they appeared rich and respectable and had the necessary travel documents, so no one stopped them.

Now, what do you do when there is no "England" anywhere left to fly to?

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 07:33 PM

GUEST, trying to put me in you're category three is desperately grasping for straws, in addition to being inaccurate. Do you have a reading disability? One can quibble as to whether a monthly Social Security check is a "pension" or not, but the only kind of income I have that the government has any control over is the Social Security check. And if I were to lose mine, millions of other Americans would be losing theirs at the same time. Do you seriously think the government would dare do anything like that? And even if they would, first, it would leave things a bit tighter for me, but I would not be without income; and second, it would cause one hell of an uproar in the population in general, and much can be done, far short of the bloody revolution you so earnestly desire, to restore the monthly Social Security check.

By the way, GUEST, there is that reading disability again. Internet 2, currently in the process of being developed, will be a fiber-optic inter-university network geared primarily for university research departments and is made up of a consortium of 208 universities. It is not intended to be a replacement for the current Internet system (which, admittedly, is cobbled together with duct tape and baling wire, but it nevertheless works quite well), it is in addition to the current network.

When Internet 2 is eventually up and running, some university students may have access to it. RIAA's primary bitch is with Internet 2. Being fiber optics, the system will be so fast that the RIAA folks have horrible visions of college students downloading whole CDs and full-length DVD movies at flash speeds. They are unhappy with the standard Internet, but they are especially horrified at this prospect. So it would appear that two of the bogeymen who haunt the scary world of your imagination are going to be duking it out in the courts. It won't have much effect on us normal folks.

It would be really nice if we all had a system this fast, but it is in the works sometime in the not too far distant future, as local telephone companies (DSL) and cable systems gradually switch over to fiber-optics. It'll be just like what we have right now, only faster. Some European countries have fiber-optic systems already.

You'd better stop wasting your time trying to scare us poor ignorant sheep and get busy digging your bomb shelter.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 08:14 PM

GUEST is definitely not playing with a full deck - there are quite a few of the 'Reason' & 'Logic' suits missing.

I am not in denial over Orwell's 1984 - neither am I doing nothing about it. If I told you GUEST, what I am doing, then I'd have to kill you, my mission is so secret!

Don, pleased to meet you - a slightly older similarly self educated person to myself.

The only real difference, is that while certain 'conspirators' among the bunch of drunks and psychotics at my workplace were working at getting me sacked, or retired 'for insanity', they made the mistake of referring me to expensive professionals who replied that
1, I was not insane,
2, my IQ put me in the top 1000 people in the population of Australia, and that because of my special skills and slight physical disabilities, I was wasted as a low level grunt worker, and should immediately be promoted to high management level.

GUEST, I KNOW conspiracies of the stupid, by the stupid, for the stupid exist, because I was thereafter made redundant.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 08:41 PM

Only on the blahg sites. Nothing seems to be on reputable news outlets.
One would have to see the trial transcript, and then throw out the little legal feints and threats (popcorn) the lawyers use to try and mislead a jury.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 08:47 PM

Glad your having fun with your flatulence recognition system, Firth. Glad you're one of Australia's brainiacs, Foolstroup. And did you ever look up the martial law directive, Ebbie?

And there's nowhere to go, Little Hawk. You and I know that. And on January 14 the U.S. begins the old Soviet practice of selectively denying exit from the country:

"The Department of Homeland Security proposed new rules back in July that would fundamentally undermine the right of American citizens to travel abroad. Public carriers--airlines, cruise lines, even fishing boats--will be required to submit the names of all passengers to Homeland Security prior to departure and to obtain permission from Homeland Security to board those passengers. These new rules will take effect January 14, 2007...."

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_ezekiel_061104_homeland_security_ti.htm

All Americans will be on the "no-fly list."

Hey, that's a good one. Do you folks believe this rule is going into effect in January, or do you deny it? And if you admit it's going into effect, do you think it's a GOOD thing or a BAD thing? I'm truly interested in hearing what answer the TV has told you to regurgitate.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 09:07 PM

And 'tis a pleasure to meet you, too, Ebbie. And you also, Foolestroupe.

And by the way, Robin, I love that shot of you and the l'il curtain climber in the "Member Photos and Info" section. What a little charmer in she is!

Yes, I, too, read Orwell's 1984 early on (I wonder if GUEST has?). And back in the late 60s, I read a slim volume entitled Report from Iron Mountain (no author indicated on either the spine or the title page) along with a whole lot of other people. It caused quite a furor. In fact, it was quite a wake-up call! It didn't really matter that the "Report" turned out to be a hoax. The alarm it sounded was loud and clear, and hoax or not, it opened the eyes of a lot of people to the nature and purpose of a lot of governmental shenanigans. I doubt that GUEST has even heard of it.

It's obvious that GUEST does not read very thoroughly. He/she obviously missed (or simply ignored), where I say in my long post above, "Stay alert. Be watchful. Be politically active."

Just because I don't squawk a lot and run around like a headless chicken doesn't mean that I am politically naïve or unaware.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 09:18 PM

Incidentally, that quote about Homeland Security's travel restrictions comes from a blog, wound up being cut-and-pasted on several other blogs, and was originally written by someone who calls himself "Ezekiel."

In the interest of full disclosure.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 09:22 PM

The point I'm making here, GUEST, is that I would like to see a more authoritative source than a blog.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 09:34 PM

Incidentally, Guest, yes, I did find and read that 'military directive' that Jeb Bush allegedly put out. It never was enacted. Did you know that?

The reason I didn't come back to discuss it is that I discerned that you #1, would not read what I said; #2, if you did, you would not be able to grasp it; #3, you would abandon the subject and go on to another wild 'un.

I decided that it just wasn't worth the effort.

You seem not to have internalized the first step in reasoning: Anyone - anyone can say anything.

The second step in wisdom: Saying something does not make it true.

When I call you 'silly', I really mean 'foolish'. Pick your battles, man.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 10:42 PM

GUEST seems to hear jackboots marching down the street at this very moment. Despite the fact that I have asked him/her several times, I still haven't seen an answer.

GUEST, what do you suggest we do?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 12:31 AM

GUEST - One thing I'm curious about...you have mentioned at one time or another that the people steering the New World Order are "communists". You have characterized them as "Trotskyite communists" and suggest that they are planning a war against Russia...Russia being presently run by "Leninists" such as Putin.

Well, I'm genuinely curious what you mean exactly when you use the term "communist" to identify these people? I don't ask that in order to ridicule it, I'm genuinely curious about your definition of "communist" in that context.

I think that an eventual war against Russia might be part of the overall plan of the PNAC, but I'm not sure about it one way or another at this point. Certainly there has been a concerted effort by the West to mortally damage Russia ever since the 80's, beginning by funding the Afghan resistance to the Russian occupation...which helped lead (indirectly) to the downfall of the entire Soviet system in '89...then gutting Russia socially and financially with the help of that dipsomaniac Yeltsin and the Russian Mafia...and using Muslim fundamentalism to help cause the breakup of the southern Soviet regions so that all the "Stans" would become independent entities and the western oil companies could move in and exploit the oil in the Black Sea area.

All those have been arrows aimed at the heart of Russia, and the Russians have a lot to be angry about right now.

But your characterization of the forces behind it as "communist" puzzles me. I would call them "coporatist" forces. They don't represent the Communist Party or the theories it was founded on. They represent a consortium of international banks and huge multinational corporations (particularly I should think the oil industry, the arms industry, the medical industries, the scientific industries, and the large media outlets). Those organizations are in business to make money, not to push the Communist Manifesto...so why do you say they are "communist"?

One thing they do have in common with communists, though: They want to secure massive, centralized power in the hands of a small elite. They want all of the power, not just some of it. They want a de facto monopoly on political power, the broadcasting media, and the international marketing systems.

And that, of course, can be done if one controls most of the money and most of the military firepower. And it is being done, step by step. Pre-emptive war is part of the package...the part that is used on anyone who will not unconditionally surrender and cooperate 100% with the $ySStem.

That's the same approach the Nazis used on Czechoslovakia, Poland, and their other targets of choice...and on my grandfather when they sent their Gestapo hatchetmen to talk to him.

Anyway, please explain to me your use of the word "communist" in regards to the New World Order, the PNAC, etc...

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 12:47 AM

Work's done.

Let's see. More denial from Ebbie. More denial from Don. Both of you are pretending you never heard of search engines. That's a pretty unimaginative way to deny things.

Okay, for the Florida martial law situation, you can go here, Ebbie:

http://www.rense.com/general14/jebdeclared.htm

Florida went under martial law when Jeb Bush declared a "state of emergency." But it sounded better on the news to report a "state of emergency," so that's what the controlled media fed you. Read the article and you'll understand the sleight-of-hand semantics involved. Then you can revert to your hysterical deniability.

And Firth...what do we have here? Oh...the sources don't check out. Again, pretended ignorance of search engines. But you don't even need to do much on this one. The article says, "This list will be checked against a Homeland Security list of citizens approved for international travel, and the carrier will be ordered not to board those who are not approved." The article also has a link to the new rules where the list is described...the boarding manifest:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=40035&dbname=2006_register

So, now your name is going to be run through Homeland Security's database, before the plane leaves the ground, and if you're not a "trusted traveler," you'll be yanked off the plane. Just like in the Soviet Union. That starts January 14 in the U.S.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 12:58 AM

Guest obviously thinks that he will not be a "trusted traveler." Good! I would hate to have him in the next seat.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 01:29 AM

Will do, Little Hawk. Saw your posting after I entered the above. A bit tired now, but yeah, this really is fascinating stuff.

Basically though I think "communism" is a misnomer. A misdirective term. We're inundated with terms that change their meanings or mean the opposite of what they claim, and communism has a screwy history. You would think it's meant to mean collectivism, and I guess it does to a lot of people, but by communism I mean totalitarianism. Which both Lenin and Trotsky subscribed to. They just bickered about who should be in charge. Lenin won in the short term, but Trotskyism is insidious, like rising damp, and it has the brighter future of the two because the Bush neo-cons are practicing Trotskyites. Bush's neo-con advisors studied under America's leading Trotskyite professor and then set out to take over one of America's leading political parties. They now control the Republican White House.

Hold on...tired...let me look back. Yes, America backed the anti-Russians in Afghanistan to damage Russia... man I'm tired. Going to miss something, but yes, America has been and will ALWAYS be at war with Russia, until one or the other triumphs.

But the communism thing...the Bush neo-cons are supporters of Israel. Zionists. And some people call Trotskyites "Jewish communists." They were badly treated in Leninist Russia, so now it's time for payback. Use Bush and the American military to thump Russia. That's the simplest view. Occam's Razor.

But nothing's that simple. Neither country would survive the clash, so who wins ultimately? Who would benefit from the clash of the U.S. and Russia? Brings me back to David Rockefeller beginning the transfer of American wealth to China in 1973. Today America has been stripped of it's industrial production and is cleared to be used as a battlefield. All valuable industry has been moved overseas, mostly to China, thanks to Rockefeller and his friends.

This isn't addressing any of your questions. I'll have another go tomorrow. I guess you've heard though that communism was the creation of the monarchies. When the rising middle class began to expand, the royalty got worried that the power of money would threaten their positions. So they looked around for a financial steam valve and hit on Karl Marx' writings. They saw communism as the perfect "foe" of capitalism/mercantilism and initiated a period of "anarchy" and "communist agitation" to capture headlines and draw people to the communist cause. Then when the Czar of Russia wouldn't do business with the powerful banking families of Europe (his own COUSINS fer chrissake), they killed him and installed Lenin as the leading proponent of Marxism. And the deal clencher was the "gold train" that took the Czar's palace guard an estimated 100 million dollars in gold, as a bribe. Carried to Moscow on a Red Cross train. The Red Cross was a new "charitable" organization formed by the Rockefellers, and one of their first official acts was to act as a money conduit during a revolution. That's a whole other interesting history...the Red Cross with their predilection for blood. Vampire symbolism, bloody crosses...creepy. Not at all what they seem to be.

Anyway, let me know if I came anywhere near answering a question. Doubt if I did. Be glad to try again.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 01:53 AM

You're desperation is showing, GUEST. Ignorance of search engines? That's a pretty lame thing for you to say. It's my use of search engines that have helped me expose the spuriousness of your sources.

In the light of the stipulations of the Patriot Act, I don't see that clearing the passenger manifest adds much to what's already on the books. And believe me, if I want to get out of the country, approved or not, I can get out.

"He panics at mosquitoes while tigers roam free!"
                                           —old jungle saying

Don Firth

P. S. By the way, you still haven't said what you think everyone should do.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST,Voice of Sanity
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 02:10 AM

When challenged on one fantasy, he switches to another. And his fantasies get more and more elaborate with each switch. This last is a reworking, with some geographic changes, of the Illuminati myth.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 07:21 AM

Hey! I object to GUEST being called a fool - it could give me a bad name....



What's the one advantge of being an ICE addict?


Only TWO SLEEPS till CHRISTMAS!

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 08:00 AM

It's never worth debating a Ghost.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 09:42 AM

Let's see...name-calling, self-proclaimed victories. Signs of denial again.

I'll look back later, Little Hawk, at your question. When I have more time. I know I didn't answer it...got sidetracked on Ebbie's revered Rockefeller clan.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: jeffp
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 12:44 PM

Do you think we could get this guy to play dueling paranoia with Shambles? Could be quite entertaining.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 12:53 PM

You are so full of it. Goodbye

The History of the Red Cross
(Also Visit Our National Online Museum Here!)

In 1862 Henri Dunant, a young Swiss businessman, wrote "A Memory of Solferino" in which he described the horrible carnage he had witnessed on a battlefield in Italy in 1859. Dunant proposed a neutral organization devoted to the care of the sick and wounded of armies at war.

In 1863, Dunant's efforts let to the formation of the International Committee of the Red Cross and the convening of an international conference in Geneva, Switzerland. The symbol of the Red Cross on a white background (the reverse of the Swiss flag) was chosen to represent the organization. From this conference evolved the Red Cross Convention of 1864.

During this period the United States was being ravaged by Civil War. Clara Barton, a schoolteacher, was one of many individuals who volunteered to help care for the wounded of both sides through an organization called the United States Sanitary Commission. She went to Europe after the war where she learned of the Red Cross Movement and participated in relief efforts for both soldiers and civilians during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71.

Upon returning home, Clara worked to form a Red Cross Society in the United States. In 1881, with the help of friends, she founded the American Association of the Red Cross. The following year, the United States ratified the Geneva Convention, giving the Red Cross official sanction.

The American National Red Cross was chartered by the Congress of the United States to:

1.   Assist the government in fulfilling obligations undertaken in signing the Geneva Conventions,

2.   Serve as a link between members of our armed forces and their families, and

3.   Provide relief for victims of disaster in this country and abroad and to prepare for disasters.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 02:06 PM

Guest - Yes, I think I see what you mean. If you mean "totalitarianism"...for sure. That is what is in the works. Large scale world totalitarianism, done through the power of money and controlling the means of production. I wouldn't call it communism exactly, but I would call it totalitarianism. I don't necessarily equate the two. I think there are a number of varieties of communism, and they would not all necessarily be totalitarian. Talk about it some more when you've had some rest.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 04:00 PM

Ever since John D. Rockefeller discovered that the black goo bubbling up and ruining his potato patch was actually good for something, started Standard Oil, and proceeded to make a huge fortune, the Rockefeller family has been the target for every freak-o conspiracy theory that paranoids and other people who had nothing better to do could hatch up. The Rockefellers have been blamed for everything from the 1918 flu epidemic to the assassination of John F. Kennedy and beyond. And now we have David Rockefeller, moving all the wealth and industry of the United States to China to clear the North American continent to be used as a battlefield in some massive future war with Russia. Well now. . . .   I find that bloody fascinating!

That's one hell of a scenario for a science-fiction novel! Very promising. Future Earth type stuff. Good for a least a trilogy, quite possibly a whole series of novels. And think of the movie possibilities! Like the "Mad Max" movies, only on a much more sweeping scale. Maybe you could even get Mel Gibson to star. As whom? David Rockefeller? Probably not. David Rockefeller is 90 years old. That would be really casting against type. I know! He could play GUEST, trying heroically to warn the heedless and sheeplike public of the impending Apocalypse. And then there is the war itself. Spectacular, mind-boggling computer-generated special effects! The blockbuster to overshadow all blockbusters! In comparison, it would make the whole Star Wars series look like a Porky Pig cartoon!

Robert Heinlein and L. Ron Hubbard must be pea.-green with envy as they spin in their graves!

Mind boggling! You've really got something there GUEST! I am truly impressed!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 04:13 PM

Yeah, it would make a dandy Mel Gibson movie vehicle...no doubt about it. ;-)

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 08:21 PM

To repeat:

"Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure---one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
--David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405

"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promise of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The super-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
---David Rockefeller, at a 1991 Bilderberger meeting

"Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history."
---David Rockefeller, statement about Mao Tse-tung in The New York Times, August 10, 1973

In the first statement above, Rockefeller admits to being part of a secret cabal, and a traitor to the U.S. In the second statement he thanks mainstream media for helping to keep the cabal secret. In the third statement he praises the mass-murderer of 50 million people. Rockefeller is the controlling presence in U.S. society, and his stated goal is to "model" the U.S. after communist China.

As for the Red Cross, it is a decent do-good organization on the surface (like the Masons), but the people in control have a hidden agenda. They should be outlawed.

http://www.tetrahedron.org/articles/apocalypse/red_double_cross.html

"My name is Dr. Leonard Horowitz. What I am about to share with you is deeply disturbing, yet potentially life-saving. The American Red Cross is not what it appears to be. . . . And I urge you to continue reading so that you learn what the ARC really represents....

Founded in 1881 by American humanitarian Clara Barton, the American Red Cross (officially named The American National Red Cross) was first chartered by the U.S. Congress in 1900. A second charter, still in force, was granted in 1905. Not long after, however, John D. Rockefeller pirated the entire blood banking industry, along with the administrative leadership of the ARC. As you will soon learn, this quintessential coup de tats represented more than a glorious economic opportunity. The takeover of the ARC, and the entire blood industry, was apparently required to fulfill a far more sinister, even occult-linked, political objective-eugenics management for a racially purified planet...."

This guy has the credentials and this is one of the most hair-curling things you'll ever read. No wonder Ebbie Hystericus is in such denial. She's working for vampires.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 11:38 AM

"In the first statement above, Rockefeller admits to being part of a secret cabal, and a traitor to the U.S. In the second statement he thanks mainstream media for helping to keep the cabal secret. In the third statement he praises the mass-murderer of 50 million people. Rockefeller is the controlling presence in U.S. society, and his stated goal is to "model" the U.S. after communist China."

no, that is NOT what he is doing and/or saying. Crap, Guest...you need a job as a spin-doctor for Republican politicians. It takes a lot of chutzpah to re-interpret someone's quotes that way! People like you constantly use that technique of taking the most extreme possible interpretation possible of a comment and assuring the world that the author meant it the way YOU'D like to believe. Gotta have a hobby, I suppose.

"The truth is out there; the lies are in your head."

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 01:36 PM

But the second statement supports the first. In the first he admits that what has been said about him is true, then in the second he thanks the people who protected the secrecy. He's part of a secret cabal with internationalist aims. He admits it. He's even proud of it. He's chortling. He's tickled that he's getting away with it.

And then there's that blood stuff. Lord, how sick is that? And Winthrop Rockefeller was Governor of Arkansas, by the way, where Bill Clinton later sold HIV tainted blood to Canada.

HAMILTON (CP) - Tens of thousands of Canadians infected with AIDS or hepatitis C got an apology from the Canadian Red Cross on Monday after the charity pleaded guilty to distributing tainted blood in exchange for dropped criminal charges....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1413439/posts

For more on how Bill Clinton infected tens or hundreds of thousands with AIDS, just search for Clinton Blood Scandal...something like that. The Clintons and Rockefellers using blood as a weapon. Sick, sick people. And now Morticia Clinton is being hailed as the future of the Democratic party. Man o man.

The Red Cross is the opposite of what it claims to be. The Rockefellers are mass murderers. Not spin. Fact.

I'll work on that communism thing later, Little Hawk. Gotta deal with these no-brainers as they come up.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 01:42 PM

Fortunately, they are only a small percentage of the population, but I've lived long enough to have met a number of loonies like GUEST. There's no helping them. They invariably think that if you don't agree with them, you're either too stupid to go on living or that you are part of the conspiracy yourself.

GUEST has displayed these characteristics all through this thread. Typical.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 02:39 PM

I find that most people are neither all right nor all wrong in what they believe. Therefore I continue to observe, learn what I can, and keep my mind open to the possibilities. There's a lot of strange stuff going on out there, and anyone would be foolish to think they knew it all.

The thing about the HIV tainted blood sales to Canada is true...according to material I have read. I doubt that people in the USA are much aware of it. Certainly most ordinary people in Canada are not...these days. It could have been a VERY big story, but our media gave it only a moderate amount of attention, and it has mostly been forgotten since then. Except by the people who got infected, of course.

One of the things I do in life is avoid getting things like vaccinations, drugs, blood, etc...from the professional medical community, unless I absolutely have to. I have good reasons for dong so, and it certainly seems to be working well so far in terms of keeping me in excellent health.

I have never had a flu shot, for example. I note that this practice has not made me vulnerable to the flu. Interesting.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 04:01 PM

"One of the things I do in life is avoid getting things like vaccinations, drugs, blood, etc...from the professional medical community, unless I absolutely have to. I have good reasons for dong so, and it certainly seems to be working well so far in terms of keeping me in excellent health.

"I have never had a flu shot, for example. I note that this practice has not made me vulnerable to the flu. Interesting. " Little Hawk

So, Little Hawk, you think the rest of us get vaccinations, drugs and blood when we don't "absolutely have to"?   In what way does that make you unique? Weird opinion you have there, m'friend.

(This subject reminds me of a few years ago when I had a hernia repaired. Post surgery it became clear that I reacted negatively to just about every pain killer, i.e., morphine made me vomit; another drug whose name I forget made me dizzy; vicodin sent me into an absolute tailspin- scared my nurse who said urgently, Lie down, go to sleep. It will make you sleep. Lie down. And I did, and that's the last I remember for three hours when a friend rapped on the door. Later my surgeon came in. She said, dismissively, Obviously you're not used to narcotics. And I thought: If I WERE used to narcotics, I'd have a different problem on my hands.)

I have not ever gotten a flu shot either- nor have I gotten the flu. In the last 10 years I've gotten perhaps three colds- none at all in the last 5 years.

My theory:
1) People who have withdrawn somewhat from life and other people don't get as physically close to conditions where the viruses and bacteria circulate, cutting down the likelihood of infection.
2) When the day comes that I get the flu or a cold, I'll know where and when I got it.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: jeffp
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 04:22 PM

I have never had a flu shot, for example. I note that this practice has not made me vulnerable to the flu. Interesting.

No, meaningless. Even during the great Spanish Flu pandemic (when there was no such thing as flu vaccine), most people weren't infected. In fact, during the many years before flu vaccine was invented, most people didn't get the flu. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean you aren't vulnerable. It just means you didn't get it.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 06:14 PM

Nobody "absolutely has to" get a flu shot or any other kind of medically supplied immunization. I, also, have never had a flu shot. Many a flu season has gone by and I haven't caught it. As a matter of fact, the only thing I've ever had a shot for was hepatitis B when I found out that I'd been exposed to it. I've had my share of various kinds of crud, but in general, I'm very healthy.

This does not mean that I am immune to the flu or a whole bunch of other diseases. When I was two years old, I did get nailed by the polio virus, but they didn't have a vaccine for it back then. Believe me, I would never advise anyone not to get immunized.

I know perfectly well that I'm playing the percentages. If I ever do come down with a bad case of the flu, or some other disease for which medical immunization is available, I will undoubtedly wish that I had got the necessary shots.

Whatever you do, you don't want to kid yourself.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 07:08 PM

Yes, Ebbie, I think that a great, great many people take drugs they don't need to take and get shots they don't need to get. It's easier than eating properly, drinking enough water, and getting enough fresh air and exercise, right? ;-) It's easier than giving up your daily dose of caffiene, nicotine, and junk food, right?
In this sociey popping pills has become the lazy man's solution to his inability to take responsibility for his own health.

I know numerous people like that. I know people who take 10 or 20 pills every day (all of which are expensive and have troublesome side effects), and they do it mainly for psychological reasons. And without exception, they are not very well. I believe a contributing factor to them not being very well is that they are poisoning and overloading their body with a daily cocktail of drugs.

Modern medicine, instead of teaching people how to be healthy, has taught them how to be helpless drug addicts. And that's all to the benefit of the drug industry which is the biggest funder OF modern medicine. It's a vicious circle, and you will find a big dollar sign at the center of it.

I also know people whose health was permanently and severely damaged by taking ordinary vaccinations.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: jeffp
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 07:11 PM

Glad to see you don't indulge in sweeping generalizations.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: bobad
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 07:16 PM

This thread should be made a permathread as a repository for crackpot theories and paranoid conspiracy delusions.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 07:22 PM

Agreed, bobdad. It makes an interesting psychological study.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 07:39 PM

Let's see...evidence presented that John D. Rockefeller cornered the blood market for nefarious purposes, evidence presented that Clinton knowingly sold AIDS-tainted blood taken from the prisoners of Arkansas when he was Governor, evidence presented that David Rockefeller is part of a cabal intent on world government...and the best the deniers can do is cry "crackpot" and "conspiracy theorists." Man, you folks live in a vacuum.

And if I may offer the opinion, Firth's vacuum is the most hermetically sealed. Mention that the U.S. is going to go to the old Soviet system of not allowing people out of the country, and his response is that HE can get out of the country when he wants to. Mention sweeping, worldwide changes to the internet, and they won't affect HIM. I mean, that MAY be a sub-category of the 4 denial groups I've identified.

I've noticed a lot of the "Greatest Generation" have this intense focus on self. They've been told by television for decades now, while the republic crumbles around them, that they're the greatest. They beat Hitler, lived through a depression, so they're the "greatest." As if the Washington-Jefferson generation consisted of bums. And these coots today have come to BELIEVE they're the greatest generations to ever live. Isn't that incredible? A maniac administration threatening nuclear holocaust at the drop of a hat, and these American geezers are sitting back thinking their feces is aromatic. Amazing. The Rockefellers of the future will laugh at "the Greatest Generation," bought off with faint praise and pensions, made to sit back and deny there's a problem while they were their easy chairs were placed on the express tracks.

I have a couple of hours, Little Hawk...I'll work up something to clarify the communism statement. Should have done it long ago anyway.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 07:57 PM

"John D. Rockefeller cornered the blood market for nefarious purposes"

In the USA - blood is a 'for sale product' - in Australia, it is given as a 'donation' and you are not charged for using it - it is all done by the International Red Cross Blood Bank for free to the users. Don't want to make wild generalisations about the rest of the world without knowing 'the facts'.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 09:43 PM

LITTLE HAWK -- (The crux of your question) One thing I'm curious about...you have mentioned at one time or another that the people steering the New World Order are "communists". You have characterized them as "Trotskyite communists" and suggest that they are planning a war against Russia...Russia being presently run by "Leninists" such as Putin....

But your characterization of the forces behind it as "communist" puzzles me. I would call them "coporatist" forces. They don't represent the Communist Party or the theories it was founded on. They represent a consortium of international banks and huge multinational corporations (particularly I should think the oil industry, the arms industry, the medical industries, the scientific industries, and the large media outlets). Those organizations are in business to make money, not to push the Communist Manifesto...so why do you say they are "communist"?

ME -- Let's see. Primarily, I call them communist because it's a term most people can identify with. There has ALWAYS been a communist threat to the U.S., and the "wall coming down" didn't end the threat. Also, if you look at the Communist Manifesto's 10 Planks, you can see that all them have been either fully or partially implemented in America:

http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html

So, for convenience sake, I call the people who've done the job of destroying the American Republic "communists." They've laid down half of Marx's planks and the other half are being put into place. So why not give credit where credit is due? The communists are destroying America.

As far as labeling the Bush junta "communist," they are, technically. The people running the White House are Trotskyites. Technically communists.   The Marxist Leninists took control of Russia (with the help of the Rockefellers), and the Trotskyites were forced to flee Russia. They found refuge primarily in Mexico and the U.S. (Mexico is run by the same neocons you see in the White House today).

Trotskyites espouse a lot of the communist belief system, but then they believe in Friedrich Nietzsche's Uber-man, Superman stuff. One of the things I find most fascinating about the Bush junta is how its members believe it is their RIGHT to rule us. They think they are superior to the normal run of humanity, and they even believe it is their duty to cleanse the species of themselves and those they govern if they fail to subjugate the masses (hence the threat of total pre-emptive apocalyptic nuclear war). Truly, they believe in the Uber-man, and if they can't "perfect" the species, then they must destroy it. Friedrich Nietzsche's point of view. These are the supermen and they will either perfect us or destroy us. I can't imagine where such arrogance came from, unless it's cultic. It's not normal, sane thinking, and it's not UNGUIDED thinking, as the Bush-controlled press keeps telling us. This war of terror against Americans is leading only one place, and we all know it...to the destruction of America. That's the plum, as Marx and Lenin used to say, and the fall of America won't be by accident, it'll be by design.

For more on Bush's people being Trotskyites, go to congressman Ron Paul's speech, "Neo-conned." He tried to enter it into the congressional record, and his own Republican Party wouldn't record it as part of the written record, so he read the whole thing on the floor of the House of Representatives, in front of cameras, after which it HAD to be recorded. The speech accurately describes Bush's people as being followers of America's leading Trotskyite professor, Leo Strauss. He explains how Trotskyite communists hijacked the conservative party.:

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm

So that's why I call them communists, even though they're an amalgam of corporatist/fascist/Nazi/socialist/communist. They're Trotskyite communists. End of explanation.

As a footnote, let me add that the communist witch hunts in the U.S. were VERY on-target. And Joe McCarthy was largely supported by the media, while he was going after Leninists. But then he started turning up Trotskyites in his investigations, and the media began to demonize him. Some people claim that's because so many Trotskyites have Jewish names (the Jewish-controlled media brought him down, etc.), but that's BS. He was brought down because he was right. There WERE lots of communists in key positions in the U.S. govt., only, they weren't working for the USSR. They were working for the new state of Israel. So McCarthy went from hero to zero.

Jump to now, half a century later, and we have Bush surrounded by advisors with names like Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Edwart Luttwak, Henry Kissinger, Dov Zakheim, Kenneth Adelman, Robert Satloff, Elliot Abrams, Marc Grossman, Richard Haass, Robert Zoellick, James Schlesinger, Mel Sembler, Michael Chertoff, Joshua Bolten, Steve Goldsmith, Adam Goldman, Joseph Gildenhorn, Christopher Gersten, etc., etc. Most if not all of these guys are affiliated with extremist zionist groups (support a strong Israel). Many people argue that Israel has taken over the American government. It's hard to refute this argument. Half of Clinton's advisors were zionists, even more of GWBush's. The head of Homeland Security has dual American-Israeli citizenship.

I only bring this up because it would provide the simplest explanation for an American war against Russia. The Bush advisors are Trotskyites, and Trotsky was the child of a Jewish farmer. So, some people have come to call Trotskyism the "Jewish communism." If it's as simple as that, then the Jewish advisors who now run the White House would want to destroy Russia for what the Leninists did to the Jews (pogroms and purges). But it's not that simple, and it leads back in to Rockefeller's selling out America, and that's a whole other topic. War between Russia and the U.S. is a coming attraction, though.

I don't know, Little Hawk...the "communist" system IS about to defeat the "capitalist" system. America's been socialized beyond recovery. Small business start up is a thing of the past, big business will become government. It's over, unless we rid ourselves of the ticks that have latched on to us. Which seems unlikely, with so many people in denial about the state of the union. So the social engineers have probably won. The people I think of as communists. And they're working for an expanding fascistic state, so what do you call a mess like that? I call it communism. And communism WAS first elevated and made fashionable by the monarchies, the same monarchies that are about to start carving up North America as booty. King Juan Carlos has put in his order for 8,000 miles of toll roads in my home state. If he gets his way, I'll become his serf. So the communist/capitalist distraction served its purpose and brought us full circle back to feudalism. So sad.

Now I don't know if I should re-hash the history of blood for the knuckleheads around here or work on the history of television mesmerism. That's what I should do, I suppose, since this denial thing is becoming so pernicious. You knuckleheads support the murdering Red Cross if you want, but your kids may get AIDS as a result. It's a shame your kids won't grow up just because you never did.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 09:55 PM

First of all, GUEST, you question Little Hawk about why he uses the term "communist" in reference to the helmsmen of the "New World Order" express puzzlement at his use of the word. Yet, it was you who have been using the word in that context, and it was Little Hawk who first questioned your use of the word.

But no matter. I've grown used to your eel-like slipperiness..

I have been thinking long and hard about this, examining my own beliefs, and I have come to the following conclusion:    as far as GUEST is concerned, I am definitely part of the problem. I favor a world government.

I recall following the radio coverage (this was before television) of the formation of the United Nations in San Francisco, beginning in late April of 1945 as World War II was coming to a conclusion, then the actual inception of the United Nations in October of that year. That was a very hopeful and optimistic time.

But from the outset, the United Nations had a couple of fatal flaws. First, several powerful nations such as the United States and the Soviet Union insisted on having absolute veto power. If they disagreed with any UN decision, they could terminate it right there. The result was that much that could and should have been done for the benefit of the population of the entire planet was aborted because it was not necessarily in the selfish interest of the governments of one or more of those countries (even if it was to the benefit of the population of those countries). Second, the United Nations had no way of enforcing its decisions (militarily, if necessary), except with the cooperation of the very same nations that often constituted the problem being addressed.

If the United Nations is seen as ineffective, then those are the reasons.

How do most Americans really feel about the United Nations? Read THIS. And note the links to further articles in the right column.

The kind of controls that have proven essential in local and national spheres to maintain peace and order must be extended to the global sphere if such things as war and genocidal atrocities are to be eliminated, and if we are to ever have a chance of addressing the widespread hunger, poverty, and disease that affects so much of the world's population.

Barring a miraculous change in the character and ethical sense of humankind (don't hold your breath!), a world government based on law and backed by force is the only solution to the present world anarchy, just as a national government, based on law and backed by force, was the only solution to national anarchy.

The development of weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, potentially capable of obliteration millions, if not, possibly billions—or ALL—of the world's population, make it essential that the rule of law on the world level is not just an ultimate goal, but an immediate necessity. In addition, the continued fouling of our own nest must be addressed by all nations, including those most responsible for that fouling.

Be it by divine providence or random happenstance, we find ourselves on a planet that can provide for everyone if we have the intelligence to govern ourselves and use that planet—and each other—with a measure of regard and respect

Gleaned for several web-sites:

ESSENTIALS OF A WORLD GOVERNMENT

1. A Constitution and a Bill of Rights.
2. An elected legislature to enact laws.
3. A world court to interpret these laws, with compulsory jurisdiction over world disputes.
4. A civilian executive branch with the power to enforce world laws upon both nations and individuals.
5. A foolproof system of checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power by any branch of the world government.
6. Control of all weapons of mass destruction by the world government, with the disarmament of all nations, under careful inspection, down to the level required for internal policing.
7. Carefully defined and limited power of taxation to support the functions necessary to preserving and maintaining world peace, and providing solutions to problems affecting the welfare of all humankind.
8. Reasonable provision for amendments to the constitution.
9. Participation in the world federal government to be open at all times to all nations without right of secession.
10. All power not expressly delegated to the world government to be reserved to the nations and their people.

Sorry, GUEST. I don't buy David Rockefeller's mode of world government, at least as interpreted by you, but I definite favor world government. At the rate we're going, the human species won't survive much longer without it.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 11:03 PM

I've always favoured the idea of world government...as long as it was a government with genuinely democratic and egalitarian purposes. I fear that the globalist forces are anything but democratic and egalitarian in their intentions.

I believe Guest said that he also would favour a world government if it were one that gave people freedom and equality.

So it isn't merely a question as to whether or not one wants a world government...it's a question about the nature of that world government and how it would function.

GUEST - Okay, I understand how you are using the word "communist". It's not the word I would use, but I get what you mean. I'd call it "fascist" or "totalitarian". Whatever word one uses, it still comes out as a government that centralizes all authority and ends people's freedom.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Dec 06 - 11:25 PM

Yeah but fascism is just a step towards communism, historically. That's what I mean, this is a whole new mish-mash of political idologies. But it boils down to totalitarianism. Which Firth seems to be comfortable with. I'm not. World govt would be fine if it were benign and dedicated to the development of the individual, but we all know that's never going to happen now. Not with the current group running things. We already have a financial world govt and they're using terror, torture and oppression against us. So the days of la-dee-dah optimism are over. It's either get rid of the globalist forces and return to nationalism, or line up for the guillotines.

Tavistock Institute...been reading about that. Interesting stuff. Brainwashing. Good short article below:

Tavistock's Language Project: The Origins of "Newspeak"

http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/newspeak.htm

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 12:01 AM

What gives your the idea that I'd be comfortable with totalitarism, GUEST? Just the opposite.

You make a helluva lot of assumptions about other people and what they believe. Or is it that you are trying to falsify what they plainly believe in order to try to demonize them if they don't swallow your whole conspiracy claptrap?

I've been under the impression that the reason you don't seem to grasp what other people say is that you either don't read what they've written very carefully or you have some sort of reading disability. But more and more I'm coming to the conclusion that you understand perfectly well, but you are trying to misrepresent what they have written for exactly the reason I've indicated. You most certainly have with me.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 05:59 AM

"Yeah but fascism is just a step towards communism, historically."

They're coming to take me away, haha! hoho! hehe!
To where communinsts and fascists are all the same...

In spite of the documented past world history of their antagonism... even to the point of all out war...

wibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibble

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 07:38 AM

Well, it depends what you mean by the word "Communism", doesn't it? GUEST appears to mean "totalitarianism" when he says "communism". To put it another way, he appears to equate a dictatorship run by a consortium of international banks and giant corporations with communism.

That's up to him. I think he's writing primarily for an American audience, and an American audience can best understand a threat if the word "communism" is used to describe it. (they have a long history of that)

If you were trying to upset a Russian audience, you might better use the word "fascism" to frighten them (given their historical experience with the Nazi invasion).

The main point is, he thinks that globalization involves setting up a totalitarian system run by a rich elite. So do I. I wouldn't call it "communism", I'd call it "corporatism" (because it involves aggressive mass marketing of corporate-made consumer products), but what difference does it make what you call it? One form of totalitarianism ends up pretty much like another after awhile. You have a privileged, centralized elite in control who are above the law. Their objectives are not merely national, but global. They own and control the media. They own and control the armed forces. They ensure that military production remains a priority, and they arrange for limited wars in various places to justify that military production. They own and control all the important political parties (or the one political party, in some historical cases). They make the laws, and the laws become increasinly restrictive and oppressive. They employ the services of numerous secret police to enforce those laws. They imprison people without trial and use torture. They spy on their own public to root out nonconformists and potential rebels. They restrict travel and free speech. They suspend people's enshrined civil rights in order to provide what they call "security".

A great deal of this is happening already, but it changes a little bit at a time so people won't necessarily notice it as much as they might. When a major change is required, a traumatic event is somehow enabled, engineered, provided, or in some cases just faked in order to make the public swallow the pill. Some probable examples: the sinking of the Maine - 1898 ... the Reichstag fire ... Pearl Harbour ...   "Tonkin Gulf Incident" ... 911) Of those examples, one was a complete fake. That was the so-called "Tonkin Gulf Incident". It enabled Johnson to expand the war in Vietnam, and it never really even happened. The others really happened, but there's a lot more to them than necessarily meets the eye. They were far too fortuitous for the men who wanted to launch wars for material gain.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 02:39 PM

In a very general way, I don't really think that GUEST and I are so far apart after all. It's obvious to anyone capable of reading anything besides paperback novels and who pays attention to what's going on in the world that the world operates pretty much as Little Hawk describes it just above. The Golden Rule:   He who has the gold makes the rules. 'Twas ever thus.

I mentioned reading Gore Vidal's Imperial America : Reflections on the United States of Amnesia above, and some months back I read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, by John Perkins (after hearing him interviewed on television).

Vidal characterizes the two-party system as the Property Party with two right wings. He also characterizes the Republicans as "the stupider and more doctrinaire" of the two, and although he excoriates the Democrats as well, he does say that, in addition to being "cuter," they are also more willing to make "adjustments" with "the poor, the black, and the anti-imperialists." Knowing the historical inability of third parties to get any traction in American elections, I have to pin my hopes on the Democrats' greater willingness to make these "adjustments." I am not a Democrat—I am not a member of any political party (although I do go to my local Democratic precinct caucuses and sound off)—but I tend to vote almost exclusively for the more progressive Democratic candidates whom I have thoroughly researched. I would prefer to vote for more progressive third party candidates, but I have already explained the futility of this in many other threads (for which GUEST—assuming it's the same GUEST—repeatedly takes me to task without offering me any good, practical reasons to do otherwise). If you can't push the wall over, at least you can chip away at it bit-by-bit.

On several occasions, I have asked GUEST to suggest viable alternatives or to offer a rational plan of action, but so far all the answer I get (in those threads and in this) is that he/she throws an hissy-fit and fires a broadside of personal insults in my direction, then tries to characterize me as either a drooling idiot or in on the conspiracy in his/her next three posts.

Also in other threads I've stated my views on election reform (preferential or instant run-off voting and the absolute necessity of paper-trails to verify any more high-tech systems, along with radical election finance reform, and with several other measures—including considering some of the suggestions that Paul Woodruff makes in his excellent little book, First Democracy : The Challenge of an Ancient Idea.

How GUEST can accuse me of being "comfortable with totalitarianism" is a mystery to me—unless, of course, GUEST doesn't bother to read other people's posts before he/she pops off. That appears very likely.

John Jenkins' book (Hit Man) explains what drives our foreign policy, and has done for at least the past six decades. Well worth reading, if you have a strong stomach.

In this thread, GUEST has bounced from a consortium of unhappy record companies wanting to shut down the internet to restrictions on Americans traveling abroad (proposed as a Homeland Security measure, but as I understand it, not yet passed), through a number of other detours, to characterizing hard-charging capitalists as "communists" (just to get across the point that they're totalitarian in their ambitions and if he/she doesn't call them communists, we might not realize that they are totalitarians despite the fact that they are not communists at all [?!?]), and finally arriving (at least, so far) at David Rockefeller wanting to don a toga and become Emperor of the Planet. The man is 90 years old! How long can he manage to "Emp" the world (from China) before he topples off the twig, pray tell? Or is he lining it up for his descendants? How are the Chinese viewing this?

And suppose the moneyed interests do manage to enslave all of humankind to toil away for a few pennies a day in factories producing goods to sell and further increase the obscene profit margins? What then?

There is the story of how the CEO of a major American automobile company was taking Walter Reuther, head of the United Automobile Workers union, on a tour of one of the plants, showing him the new automation equipment they had installed. They watched while mechanical arms lifted parts into place and fitted them, then other mechanical arms reached out, welding and bolting things into place, as automobile after automobile took shape. On this particular section of the assembly line, with the exception of one man sitting in a booth observing and checking gauges, there were no human beings present.

"Robots," the CEO said with a supercilious smirk. "How are you going to charge them union dues, Mr. Reuther?" Reuther smiled right back and said,

"The same way, sir, that you are going to sell them automobiles."

I would suggest that GUEST spend less time reading blogs and conspiracy-theory websites and swivel his/her eyes over to read a few books such as the ones I've suggested above. When, and/or if, he/she actually does, I have several more to recommend.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 02:55 PM

Good. ;-) We're getting some common ground here. I think that's more useful for a discussion than engaging in mutual insult sessions over the interpretation of this or that buzz-word.

I agree wholeheartedly with Vidal's descriptions of the Democratic and Republican parties, by the way.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 06:44 PM

Hound dog howlin' so forlorn;
Laziest dog that's ever been born!
He's howlin' 'cause he's sittin' on a thorn,
And he's just too tired to move over.

With the world in the quandary that it's in, I'm always eager to hear suggestions as to what we as individuals citizens can do in the effort (that at least some of us are trying to make) to further the slow and laborious march of humankind toward civilization. I hear a lot of howling. It's easy to howl. But it actually takes an accumulation of brain cells to come up with a plan. I have a few possibilities in mind, but I'm always eager to hear others.

Regarding that wall that we progressives are, so far, unsuccessful in being able to push over, but keep trying to chip away at, what I would still like to hear from GUEST, is a practical suggestion on what he/she thinks we should do. Said GUEST hasn't made any suggestions at all so far. But from what has been posted, it would appear that he/she wants us to gather our ordnance together and try to blow up the wall, or that we should all run at it at full speed and butt it with our foreheads.

Considering the military might at the disposal of the moneyed interests, trying to blow up the wall seems like a great way of winding up, as they say, "hoist with our own petard." And the second approach seems like nothing more than a insidious plot to increase the sales of aspirin.

Plan. Let's hear a sensible, workable plan.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 08:17 PM

Plan?!!!! what's that guys?

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 09:57 PM

Well, I don't really hold out much hope. But if GUEST is as acute and brilliant as he/she obviously thinks he/she is, I want to give him/her every opportunity to demonstrate.

I strive to be fair-minded.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Dec 06 - 10:05 PM

Well, Don, I honestly don't know. I like to know what's going on, just cos that's my nature. I like to understand things as best I can and study the ebb and flow of history. I'm a philosopher, so I am fascinated by observing and understanding what people are doing and why. But this thing that's going on in society now is absolutely huge. It's driven by people who work with billions of dollars, not just millions. I can't do anything about them.

I haven't got a clue what to do about it...anymore than one ordinary person in Rome would have had a clue what to do as the Empire rose and fell around him under a succession of emperors and generals.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 03:41 PM

Since GUEST does not deign to respond to my request to come up with a plan, I presume that he/she doesn't have a plan. Or a clue. Since I've been this route before with some of the Sixties revolutionaries, I didn't really expect one. All complaint, no solution. But, of course, the implication of their rants is that we should take arms against a sea of troubles, man the barricades, take up torches and pitchforks and storm the castle! Load up your guns (thank God for the Second Amendment)! Prepare the Molotov cocktails! Start the Revolution! Now!!

Well . . . the chances of that actually happening are about as good as the chances of George W. Bush being inducted into Mensa and awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on the same day.

Unless things get worse in terms of infringement of people's freedoms and civil rights--whole lot worse-- I think the chances of any kind of united action such as a rebellion or even the general strike are pretty damned slim. There are a lot of people who are alert and concerned, to be sure. And who are trying to do something about the state of the nation and the world. But when the main concern of the major bulk of the population consists of being caught up in the latest television "reality show" (failing to realize that Life is the only Reality Show), or the latest vacuosities of Paris Hilton, or trying to decide whose relatives to visit on Christmas, or the perpetual plod of paying off the monthly credit card debt, I don't see any vast social movements about to take place in the near future.

True, on the eve of the Iraq war, there were marches, demonstrations, and vigils all over the world. Some 30,000 people participated in a march and candlelight vigil in Seattle, but that represented less than 6% of the city's population. Even that was hopeful. But as I say above, I think things would have to get a lot worse, and effect, large numbers of people in a very personal way before we'll see anything like an effective nationwide mass movement.

In the meantime. . . .

Like you, Little Hawk, I am a philosopher. I love the study of metaphysics, epistemology, logic, and ethics.   I love history and what it can teach us, and I try to take a longer view of things.

Every empire has a life-cycle. The Roman Empire probably lasted longer than any of those since. Portugal and the Netherlands each ruled the world for a short time in the early days of colonization, to be supplanted by one of the more powerful empires in world history:   Spain. And Spain, in turn, was superseded by the British Empire. Being deposed from that position may be a bit of a wrench for the fat cats and profiteers in a declining empire, but when the United States came along and assumed the position, it allowed Great Britain and the other former European world empires to settle into the beginnings of a mellow maturity. Signs of that maturity are an extreme reluctance to go to war (God knows, they've experienced enough of it!), and a growing interest in the well-being and happiness of their own citizens.

The United States had a pretty good run there for a bit, from the mid to late 19th century and up through the 20th, throwing its weight around and indulging in the usual exploitation of its colonies (in most cases, it's economic colonies, which it's still trying to hold onto). Its main competition during the latter half of the 20th century was, of course, the Soviet Union, which folded its tent and silently snuck away about a decade and a half ago. But in retrospect, it was no contest, really. Now, the United States is King of the Hill. And the various Corporate Emperors, and their political flacks, the neoconservatives and miscellaneous other Republicans (and all too many Democrats) have a steely-eyed, tightlipped determination to maintain that position.

But when one is King of the Hill, there is only one direction, one can go.

Down.

I believe Empire America is teetering on the brink, about to head downhill on the inevitable toboggan ride. I also believe that the Corporate Emperors and their neo-con toadies fully realize this in their shriveled up, raisin-sized hearts, even if in their minds, they refused to entertain the idea. And some of their court jesters (we call them "presidents," "senators," and "congressional representatives") are just plain clueless.

Am I filled with angst over the decline of Empire America? Not at all. I look forward to it. I look forward to the United States settling into that mellow maturity that I spoke of above, with all the potential benefits for its citizens. Let some other country tussle with the sturm und drang of trying to be emperor of the world. Maybe just about every country of any size has to give it a shot at one time or another, go through the cycle, and learned through experience just how stupid the whole thing is, before it can settle in and just be.

This may very well be part of the process of humanity as a species growing through stormy adolescence to eventually reach mature adulthood. That is, of course, if we don't do something incredibly stupid in the meantime. Unfortunately, that's a distinct possibility.

But if we allow ourselves to grow up, this may very well become a mature and mellow planet.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 05:39 PM

Yeah, Don. I figure that China will be the next country to make a grab at the crown. And India will be their great regional rival. They're both on the way up.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 07:49 PM

Yeah, that's the way I figure it, too. Now I just hope we have the brains to just sit back and watch. In the meantime, pulling up our socks and taking care of a few important things here at home that have been neglected far too long.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Dec 06 - 10:00 PM

"Am I filled with angst over the decline of Empire America? Not at all. I look forward to it. I look forward to the United States settling into that mellow maturity that I spoke of above, with all the potential benefits for its citizens."

This is why I don't bother to offer "solutions" to geezers like you. I target the 20-30 year olds. It's their future you're willing to spend to secure your retirement, you freak. And you're about to see your country's "mellow maturity" commence with a crash of the dollar, followed by riots, followed by foreign troops in the streets. You will lose everything you have except some little corner to hide in, and then even that will be taken away from you. Your Category of Denial is the most repulsive of all. The elite feed your sense of security bread crumbs and you would KILL for those crumbs. You DO kill for those crumbs. A million dead in Iraq and torturing to death as our new national policy?...well, that's not right but, did the check come in this week? So utterly unforgivable. Ninth-circle stuff. Here's a solution...save the kids the draft by going over to Iraq and fighting the war yourself.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 12:44 AM

What general age group are you in, GUEST?

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 05:46 AM

"commence with a crash of the dollar,"

Well, that;s inevitable, when you have a massive debt - especially to overseas....

"followed by riots,"

Possible - but USA has had riots before - didn't make much of a dent anywhere compared with all the hysteria that they would...

"followed by foreign troops in the streets"

WHAT BLOODY FOREIGN TROOPS?

wibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibblewibble

(Puts fingers in ears)

La la la, la la la, la la la...

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 11:47 AM

I think we can guess what age group Guest is in, LH

"offer "solutions" to geezers like you..."

Says it all really, doesnt it....

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: jeffp
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 12:22 PM

I would suggest that our guest move out of his/her parent's house while he/she still knows it all. After all, this is the perfect time. No point listening to geezers, is there? I'm not sure why he/she bothers with us at all.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 12:33 PM

I'm about half Firth's age and I heard the same crap about Viet Nam that I'm hearing about Iraq. "Now that we're there we can't leave until they're able to defend themselves." I didn't buy it then, I don't buy it now. The Democrats promised change, now they want to increase troop levels in Iraq. The Democrats are obstructing justice by saying impeachment of Bush is "off the table." Democrats are now going to be given the torture devices, and they will love it. Democrat/Republican tag-team match. Geezers like Firth should have seen what was going on when Roosevelt gave half the world to Stalin at the end of WW2. Sept 11 did it for me. We have one-party rule in America and that party is working to merge us with a totalitarian world government. And it's not a hippy commune of daffodils in your hair and lotsa ganga. It's a locked-down society with death or imprisonment your two options for any "infractions," like speaking your mind. Not for me. Not for my children. I truly hate the people who can analyze the data and choose to passively kill. You gutless freaks. Even my dog has a survival instinct. Where's yours?

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Big Mick
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 12:53 PM

Really? Did you get that killer instinct sucking down drinks in Puerto Vallarta? You are quite the revolutionary. Thank God we have you around to carry the day. I can sleep easy now.

Mick

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 03:18 PM

Completely warped sense of history and barely a clue as to what's really going on in the world. Note the glee with which GUEST anticipates his/her chaotic view of the future.

GUEST has exposed him/herself as the bloodthirsty, frothing-at-the-mouth, Sixties-style revolutionary that he/she really is.

My work here is done.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 03:21 PM

I think that Don, is to attribute to him a sense of purpose & conviction that he actually lacks...

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Don Firth
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 03:44 PM

I think you're right, Paul. He/she probably just sits there at the computer reading conspiracy web-sites and blogs, and even to get the dog to play with him/her, his/her mother has to hang a pork chop around his neck. Bloody waste of time, this character is.

I'm gonna go make some music.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: bobad
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 03:54 PM

Armchair revolutionaries - they're a dime-a-dozen.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 03:54 PM

I think a lot of your stuff is right on the mark, GUEST, you do have one-party rule in America (masquerading as 2 parties), and yes, that's exactly the same BS as it was with Vietnam. Same damn routine all over again. They must think people have no memory at all.

However, your often-repeated prediction of "foreign troops" in the streets of America seems enormously unlikely to me. They will not bring in foreign troops while there are still a great many of their own willing to do the policing, and there are. Did Hitler have to bring in foreign troops? Hell, no. Did Stalin? Nope. The local bully boys are always ready and willing to pack a big gun and serve the high command. Besides, bringing in foreign troops would result in a massively negative reaction on the part of virtually all Americans. Americans think of their country as a fortress and believe they can handle any situation themselves. That argues against any such idea as bringing in foreign troops. What makes you think they would even try to do something that unpopular?

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST,Voice of Sanity
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 05:16 PM

>>This is why I don't bother to offer "solutions" to geezers like you.<<

Don Firth has it right. GUEST doesn't bother to answer the question because he doesn't have an answer. As usual, his only response is to fling insults, like calling Firth "geezer" and "freak." Firth asks a reasonable question and it deserves an answer. But it will never be forthcoming because GUEST wants it all to happen. The general thrust of GUEST's rhetoric is "All of you people who don't agree with what I saying are going to get yours when the totalitarian world government takes over, and I will be glad, glad, glad! When that happens, THEN you'll wish you had listened to me!"

This is not any different the evangelical Christian who looks forward to people going to Hell if they don't believe what he believes. Belief in Hell is a great comfort to people like that.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:08 PM

GUEST pretty obviously must be 'young and immature' - if he/she WAS a 'real world politician', then wouldn't be wasting time mucking around here on Mudcat....

That means a lack of real world experience - while many ideas such as 'US - the one party state' are pretty reasonable conclusions, been around for a long time, and easily picked up 'around' - many of the 'logical extensions' of the 'thinking process' are seriously flawed.

No damn fool US 'politician' (or real world 'manipulator') would EVER consider 'bringing in foreign troops'!!!! Political suicide! - most especially when coupled with a highly popular 'they will pry my gun from my cold dead fingers' mentality...

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 06:24 PM

That's what I think too. It would be political suicide. Why import storm troopers (and provide an obvious "evil foreigner" target) when you can recruit them out of your own populace?

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST,Voice of Sanity
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 07:10 PM

There seems to be some doubt as to the gender of the esteemed GUEST. My opinion, judging from means of expression, is that GUEST is male. He conjures up visions of near future disaster to comfort himself because he feels people have been rude to him or have never given him the attention he thinks he's due and he wants to see them punished for it. The cause of this feeling is usually a sense of personal inadequacy. If female, she's probably as ugly as a mud fence. If male, he probably suffers from TWS (tiny winkie syndrome).

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 07:12 PM

Yeah, but, Little Hawk - this little theory of ours requires 'ethnic segregation' of the Storm troopers appropriate to the 'ethic areas', too ya, know.... ;-P

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 08:44 PM

Didn't Mexican and Dutch troops land at Mobile Alabama after Hurricane Katrina? Foreign troops helped police the Gulf Coast. And there were AP photos of Mexican convoys rolling up IH 35. What do you have to do to be considered "foreign"?

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 09:24 PM

*ROFL*

Which shadowy conspiracy was controlling the actions of 'Katrina' then Guest?

....& whats the matter, run out of paranoid crap to cut & paste, so now you trying to score points on your own home-made scorecard by twisting words & phrases now?

Pitiful.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 10:30 PM

Well, what you have to do in Canada to be considered a foreigner is...walk down the street stark naked and painted blue...or wave an American flag, wear a big stetson, and keep asking, "Where do Ah find them eskimos around heah???"

Other than that, we tend to assume you're just another Canadian, given the multicultural nature of this country. We don't care what lingo you speak or what clothes you wear. ;-) This ain't a melting pot we have here in the Northland, it's a Cajun stew.

So I think Canada is way more vulnerable to the foreign troops slipping in on us unawares than the USA, all things considered. They would just have to be sure not to wear their uniforms, that's all. We're very accomodating here.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST,Voice of Sanity
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 10:36 PM

Hurricane Katrina was all part of the plot. Right now the foreign troops GUEST warns us about are billeted in secret camps all over the country, having been smuggled in while everybody was distracted by the storm. They're just waiting for David Rockefeller to give the word.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: jeffp
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 10:40 PM

By God, VoS, I think you're onto something!

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Dec 06 - 11:38 PM

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/AP_Photo/2005/09/09/1126268775_0150.jpg

Not exactly in secret camps. Maybe you'd have to get HIT by one of those trucks to think they're here.

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: GUEST,Voice of Sanity
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 01:16 AM

A thousand apologies, GUEST! You have just offered incontrovertible proof!

We are DOOMED!!

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 04:47 AM

Doom, Dadoom Doom! DOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!

Well, we been dragnetted now...

Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 07 Dec 06 - 08:07 AM

*G*