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?