 sj |
||
|
||
RIAA wants the Internet shut down
|
|
|
Subject: RE: RIAA wants the Internet shut down From: Paul from Hull Date: 07 Dec 06 - 08:07 AM *G* |
|
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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 03:18 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 GOVERNMENTSorry, 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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. |
| Share Thread: |
