:cool:
Printable View
:cool:
Would you put a sign up in front of your house that said "Gun Free Home"??
It's funny because while (Pro-firearm) Canadians are celebrating the abolishion of the Long Gun Registry in Canada, they think things are loosening up.
The reality is that the United Nations are working towards disarming all citizens in every Country, and only allowing the Military and Police to be armed.
Our band wrote a song about this stuff. The lyrics are on this version of the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uZG2OTTCkw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uZG2OTTCkw
the NWO is really being sponsored and controlled by a bad group of aliens. just dig a little deeper and look past the illuminati. population control ect, are all directives being handed down to the secret societies from there alien leaders. sounds crazy i know, but just look up Phil Shcnider, a governemnt geologist that helped build underground bases and one with a exact replica of the UN meeting room, where they wheeled in an alien in a bubble to avoid his germs and he sat as one of the delegates. Phil Shcnider went public in 1996 and there were 3 attempts on his life in 1 year and he was dead by jan of 1997 of apparent suicide.
he also told the story of digging a hole and himself and a squad of green barrets got into a fire fight with grey aliens undergound and three of his fingers were melted off with a particle beam and the radiation also gave him cancer. this became the legend of the alien human fire fight at dolce new mexico in the archuletta mesa
I think it's tiresome when people mix legitimate grievances with (at best) pseudoscientific conspiracy theories.
We all know that:
1. The working class in China is living a not so pleasant life, compared to working class in the west, with horrible working conditions and low wages.
- We have seen the same in all countries when they start to industrialize. It's a basic tenant of capitalism.
- The private companies profits from it, since it enables them to lower production costs.
- The solution for this is for workers to unite, organize and demand higher pay and better working conditions.
2. The drone attacks kills civilians.
3. Some people believe that the american gun culture is unsafe and a problem. Some people disagree and says the threat is exagerated and that guns actually keeps people safe.
So far, so good.
The rest? Give me a break.
You can look at each and every one of these claims and smash them into dust.
You live in a capitalist system. That means there will be recurring crises. You happen to live in a very big one. That doesn't mean it was all a big NWO-conspiracy to weaken the people and prepare for UN-troops to come in and...eeh...enslave the people? Or whatever it is you think they're up to. Or is it the US-troops themselves that are going to enslave their own people?
This is so lacking logic it makes me dizzy.
What would all you NWO-folks have said if you lived during the great depression? And were able to rile each other up over the internet.
"Soon they'll come for our guns!"
"Soon the League of Nations will come and enslave us!"
"This is a government run action to weaken the american population, take our guns and enslave us."
"The prohibition is a state run conspiracy to controll people, since from the early days everyone knows that In vino veritas, in the wine is the truth, so now they don't want people to drink so they won't speak the truth!"
And your solution?
Pretty much nothing but "don't touch my guns!"
And meanwhile, the economic system that lead to the economic crash would continue to roll... The political parties that allowed it will continue to do so. And in time there will be economic growth, and economic failure. Capitalism sorta has those kinda cycles.
This is so depressing.
There is plenty of things that are wrong in the world, especially in the economic and political compartments.
But you are busy chasing unicorns.
Phil Schneider is obviously so important to keep quiet that the illuminati-aliens let people post videoclips of him on youtube.
Just like they let Alex Jones scream his lungs out.
Your post is total bullshit. Every depression, recession and boom can be traced back to the private banking industry throughout all of history. It is all very well documented. Anyone who wants to know about how private banks use the boom/bust cycle as a tool to transfer land and assets OUT OF your hands and INTO their hands can simply read "The Creature from Jekyll Island".
Regarding the UN-NWO jackboot global police force, all of this is well documented as well, and all you have to do is surf some Pro-2A sites to find the moves that the UN is making behind the scenes to abolish the 2A completely.
The SPP process and the NORAD agreements take Canada and the USA's so called "sovereignity" and completely demolish it at the simple whim of Obama, a man, I might add, that is constitutionally ineligable to hold seat of POTUS because he was not born on American soil.
Do youself a favor and search out how many executive orders he has passed since falsely taking over as "President".
You didn't take any claims and smash them into dust. All you did was post a bunch of sarcastic shit.
Regarding any Alien theories: I don't waste my time researching that until there is one standing in front of me. The rest of the conspiracy can be proven and shown. There is a lot of disinfo out there with the intention of discrediting researchers/authors, and the alien thing IMO is just a distraction.
Thank you Derrirck for sharing this video.
Your ignorance is staggering.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloadae
Capitalism is the seperation of economy from state. True laissez-faire free enterprise is the only path to freedom.
What we are now living under is Corporatism, or more accurately, a system of Corporate Nationalism evolving into Neo-feudalism. Our economy is highly regulated and controlled by the government which is in turn regulated and controlled by special interests (bankers).
Please leave your Marxian rhetoric at the door.
1. Rely upon the ignorance of the masses.
One of the most common critiques I hear about conspiracy theories is that the government would have to be masterminds to pull them off, and we can clearly see that they're a pack of fools. Well, that's misleading. Most cospiracies are done POORLY. They make numerous mistakes and obvious oversights. The official story is always full of holes and almost zero investigation takes place. The truth is there for anyone who cares to see it. -- Yes. They are a pack of fools. But they rely on us being an even larger pack of fools, and by and large, we are.
2. Control the media.
Check. -- If an "authority" figure tells someone what to believe or do, most people will comply. See the Milgram experiment.
3. Attach a stigma to contrary thought.
When it comes to the multitude of conspiracies that have existed, there are tons of whistleblowers and truthtellers. They are simply and automatically labelled as "crazy" or "conspiracy theorists". And on the other hand, people who might be inclined to come forward with information are discouraged by the fact that they will be placed into those social categories.
4. Compartmentalize.
Each person involved with the execution of a conspiracy only has a small part of the puzzle. They follow simple orders without being given enough information to make connections.
5. Control the top.
The groups of men who orchestrate a conspiracy and know most of the details are highly unlikely to come forward. The outcome of the conspiracy usually benefits them financially, and admitting your place within a cabal is social suicide. Also, this upper eschelon of controllers have policies of Mutually Assured Defamation, or consentual blackmail. It usually involves child sex trafficking. Watch "A Conspiracy of Silence".
6. Destroy liabilities.
Any low-level player in a conspiracy who poses a potential threat is terminated. The government mostly uses soldiers for crucial tasks. They are conscripted into "Top Secret" programs. Once the job is done, to prevent the soldiers from making connections and possibly coming forward, they are killed. To their family and the world they are considered KIA in whatever random war is being waged at the time. It is a simple process.
"Sheeple" <3 When you hear that word you know you're in for a ride.
I didn't claim I smashed anything into dust. I just said it's easily done. As long as you take your time.
Did you even read your own posts? One of the strange thing about conspiracy-rhetorics is that there's always an amazing mix of statements. Look at the first page of this post - there's the mass-shootings as a means to control people, the mass-shooting with a hidden warning/message in a Batman movie, drones, chinese slave labour, secret agreements ("look at some websites"), the UN being run by China, China ordering the US to take it's peoples guns, China being the main conspirator of buying up the american debt...and the list goes on.
You can look at each of these factors and take it apart.
For example, the debt to the Chinese.
For China to have such extreme control over the UN and the US, you would assume they own pretty much all of the US national debt.
But, they don't.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...w-big-who-owns
Look at the numbers. Most of the US debt is domestic. It's owned by the US itself.
Out of 16 trillion, only 5,4 trillion is foreign debt.
Out of the 5,4 trillion foreign debt only 1,15 trillion is owned by China.
That is a lot, sure.
But Japan owns 1,12 trillion of the US debt so they're not far behind.
So...if China owns less than 10% of US debt. How can they have such absolute control of the UN/US, just on behalf of that debt?
Shouldn't the domestict debt-owners have something to say? :) Or Japan?
Nooo...nooo...it's just China, for some reason, giving orders.
But, do you know what's great about the whole conspiracy theory-narrative. Now you can just forget about this whole China-debt-thing. Pretend like it was never a big deal, and then just say that it's the "NWO" or something, that can never be neither verified och falsified, since the NWO is such a vague concept that you can manage to fit in pretty much anything you want and don't sympathize with.
We can take every one of these points. Break them down, and see that in reality - the situation is much more complex.
But. It won't matter. Because conspiracy theorist are just like religious people...they're not a big friend of the whole idea of "trying to falsify your own theories"-thing. It's like an adapted "God of the gaps"-argument. Conspiracy theorists jumping from one thing to another that they find fishy, and use it as a proof of the NWO-wrongdoing. And since they are no longer sheeple, and have bought into the NWO-narrative...they will naturally see fishy things all over the place. + there's a bonus with not having to believe most of the things that contradict your view, since that information (in such a case) is being controlled by the NWO/Illuminati.
Conspiracy theorists holds the world record in two things:
1. Sheepishly believing pretty much anything that is said or written, if it coincides with the NWO/illuminati-narrative.
2. Being extremely critical, and refusing to accept information that comes from an "official" source...i.e. anything from a professional/ clinical/university study... (since they are part of the system)
3. ...unless that study happens to show something that fits with the NWO/illuminati-narrative, then that study is ok.
4. Unless the academic community finds that the forementioned study was scientifically lacking, in that case it's the NWO trying to shut people up.
This literally blows my mind every time. It's a very sheepish way to streamline information, if you ask me.
_________________________
And when it comes to the definition of "capitalism."
I would define capitalism as a society which economic system is founded on private ownership.
For me, that is fundamental in what constitutes capitalism.
The amount of regulation may differ. Some may want it strenghten, and some might want it loosened.
Some might even want it loosened to such an extent as to create a laissez-faire, neo-liberal, night-watchman state.
Indeed, you may.
But, less regulation, or more regulation - it is still capitalism, since it is based on private ownership.
Perhaps you do not agree with this definition, and consider capitalism as only existing in a truly laissez-faire society. Sure. I wouldn't agree with that, but sure. However, I wouldn't call your ignorance "staggering". I would only see it as a different perspective.
It's obvious you are not here because you love Jiu Jitsu.
I don't know who's payroll you're on but I have decimated many government shills in my day on other forums.
That's the funny thing about truth: It always comes out in the end. You sling around the word "conspiracy" with the intention of programming an underlying association to Paraniod-delusion, but the fact is there is a global conspiracy that is not only well documented, but also not even denied by key players. (Rackefellers/Rothchilds and the like)
I never came here to get into discussions about the global conspiracy, but it is in my blood, and I'm already on their fucking watch lists, so whatever. I will battle you. No problem.
I don't really care about conspiracy theories on that level.
Just as I don't think the government, Obama, or anyone with any real power - is in any way worried about NWO-theories or what Alex Jones is saying.
It just frustrates me, on the same level as other types of pseudoscience.
And...
"It's obvious you are not here because you love Jiu Jitsu.
I don't know who's payroll you're on but I have decimated many government shills in my day on other forums."
Swing by 10th Planet Stockholm and I'll introduce myself. We're a happy group of guys :)
Phil started talking publicy in 1996 and was dead from " suicide " in jan 1997 after 3 attempts on his life. he was ahead of his time because not many people were aware of this shit in the 90's & unfortunately the few lectures he did is all that you can find on him no books or anything they killed him pretty quick. and just watching him talk i can tell he was a strong minded dude and would not have killed himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew T
There are no alien controllers.
Let's just look at the science. The nearest solar system to ours is 4.3 light years away. That's about 25 trillion miles of empty interstellar space with nothing but dead, wandering exoplanets in between. Keep in mind, that's just the NEAREST star sytem, and there are no signs that it contains biological life.
Earth is anomalous in nature, a jewel within a chaotic and destructive Universe. It is a product of numerous coincidences.
It is the perfect distance from its star, not too hot, not too cold. That star happens to be rather beneign compared to the explosive radiation of others. The Earth settled into a stable orbit. It formed an energetic iron core which created a magnetic field to protect the planet from solar and cosmic radiation and which also helped to form an atmosphere conducive to life. That atmosphere became susceptible to electric currents which caused reactions between oxygen and nitrogen to create the nitrates that plants use as nutrients. Water was delivered through bombardments of icy asteroids and comets. An early collison tilted the Earth's poles 23.5 degrees off the celestial equator in regards to Sun which created the seasons. The Moon, formed by expelled schrapnel from an early collision caused the Earth's rotation to slow down due to the tidal friction of gravity, giving us 24 hour days and longer sustained sunlight for vegetative growth. The Moon's gravity stabilized the Earth's rotation, preventing highly destructive weather patterns. It also doubled our ocean tides, the churning motion of water perfect for creating life. On top of all this, the Earth has managed to avoid inevitible cosmic destruction - in the form of comet and asteroid impacts, nearby supernovae, gamma ray bursts, free-roaming stars, rogue black holes, solar mass ejections, galactic collision, etc. - for just long enough to not only spawn biological life, but intelligent life.
I'm not saying that intelligent life doesn't exist off Earth. Biological life, rare as it is, must statistically exist elsewhere when you consider the immeasurable vastness of our Universe. But have any "aliens" made it this far? I highly doubt it. What would be the point?
Imagine the unfathomable technology that would have to exist to make inter-galactic, even interstellar travel not only possible, but worthwhile. If you were that advanced, you would most definitely have crossed the threshold of what some might call a technological singularity. To such a culture, almost anything could be possible.
If they wanted to control us, they could most likely press a button and turn us all into obedient slaves. So, why the fuck do you think that highly advanced super-beings would rub elbows with the sniveling wastes of life we call "leaders" to play retarded mind games with us? Why do you think they would consider us even remotely important? It's ludicrous. If anything, they might study us only as a simple science experiment even though its highly unlikely given the immense resources such an experiment would waste without any real payoff. -- Control us, though? Take over? C'mon! We would be no more than ants to them.
No.
Aliens... UFOs... They are a fabricated screen developed by our true controllers, who are mere humans. Those crazy lights you see are just a UFO, citizen! What incredible mysteries there are!
It is a diversion to distract us from the truth. The government is using our money to create highly advanced aircraft, the abilities of which we can only begin to imagine. The "wars" they fight abroad are a farce, a distraction. The true scope of what they are capable, of the technology they are developing, is frightening. You think the atomic bomb is scary? It's nothing. It's old, outdated tech.
You have been warned.
So I guess the federal reserve is a grand example of capitalism as it is privately owned?? Get a life Aloadae, and why don't you use your real name as Eddie has asked people to do when signing up to the site. From your profile I can see that you have posted a staggering 5 posts and 4 of them are on this thread. Smell a bit like a troll to me.
Dwight
1. It depends. Without being an expert on american financial politics (since I'm not american), I would say that the federal reserve has the purpose of stabilizing the economic structure in a capitalistic system, on behalf of the state. You could argue that is does not actually serve this purpose, but it's still its purpose.
I would guess that there are several publicly owned enterprises in the US, aswell as several aspects of the society which is not entirely laissez faire, but has more of a keynsian/social-liberal purpose. And of course, a neoliberal would not support these functions, end not consider the society a truly liberal one.
But I would still argue that the american economic system is fundamentally capitalistic.
2. I've only logged in here a couple of times, can't remember seeing the "real name"-clause, but I probably just missed it. I'm not a big fan, however, of using my real name on message boards and forums.
3. I have an interest in politics, and consider myself a skeptic + I live in Sweden. So, naturally a thread on conspiracies will get my attention more than "10th PLANET SEMINAR in BUFFALO!" will. But, depending on what definition of troll you use, I'm sure you could fit me in. It's ok with me.
I signed up a while ago because I thought it would give me access to MTS-episodes (before I realized it required a pro-membership). And then I keept it. And sometimes I come by :)
The "alex jones gun debate"-thread also caught my attention. Mostly because I'd seen it referenced before on facebook, and was curious what you americans thought about it. I would say our perspective differs alot, since I'm from a country with much more restrictive gun laws, and fewer gun owners. You would probably call me brainwashed by the NWO.
We're still waiting on the NWO-invasion, however.
You should reevaluate your terms. Do you mean to say that even though a society is "founded" with a particular economic system in mind, it can still be categorized as such if said system is demolished and replaced by a different one? Or do you mean to say that the U.S. actually has an economic system rooted in private ownership?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloadae
I will assume the latter. And in that case, you've defeated your own argument.
1. Taxes.
As Americans, we pay property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, estate taxes, the list goes on and on.
What this means is that there is no private ownership, not even over our own bodies. Everything we own, including ourselves, we rent from the government. If we refuse to pay the rent, we are thrown in cages. Through eminent domain and other swindles, anything we "own" can be randomly stripped from us without cause.
2. The monetary system is nationalized - Federal Reserve
3. The healthcare system is nationalized - American Medical Association
4. The agricultural system is nationalized - FDA, Monsanto, Dept. of Ag
5. The education system is nationalized - Department of Education
6. The postal system is nationalized - USPS
7. The energy system is nationalized - Department of Energy
8. The environment and everything in it is nationalized - EPA
9. The passenger train system is nationalized - Amtrak
-- This is only a sampling. If you'd like to see more, here is an incomplete list of the national agencies controlling every aspect of our lives: http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/D.shtml
As you see, the U.S. government controls and regulates EVERYTHING. In situations where it does not regulate an industry directly, it uses so-called "private" corporations to usurp its own laws by regulating that these corporations and organizations have sole authority over the industry!
It is Corporatism. It is Fascism. It is Slavery.
Capitalism? Hahaha
The NWO isn't a vague concept. It's been verified countless times by those who serve it in explicit detail. Those who ignore it are tools.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloadae
From the horse's mouth:
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ptcp07v_w-w
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8uzxEHFDkw
Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksy2yrUNd9Q
So...Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloadae
Capitalism is a system of private ownership... And to preserve this system of private ownership, we must use a system of government ownership?
Keep going. This keeps getting better.
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power (of money) should be taken away from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs." — Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President.
"Controls and regulations" is a restriction of the free market, yes.
But is there no private ownership in the fields you mention?
Is there no private hospitals? No private HMOs? No private insurance companies? No private schools? No private banks? No private industrial corporations? No private manufacturers?
When I look at america - I see plenty of private ownership. And not just of shoes and guns, but of the means of production.
That there is government oversight does not make that ownership null and void.
It certainly makes the market less free, in a liberal sense, but there is still a market. There is still private ownership and private companies competing on a market for profit.
It seems your definition of private property is so strict, that the mere taxation of it - is such a powerful violation that it fully negates the ownership. It is, however, not a view which is wholly accepted.
2.
Random quotes without context and proper sources is not a verification of anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan Kelso
Yep, a lot of people would say so. It's not uncommon at all.
Some believe that there is weakness in a fully private market economy, which needs to be checked.
You are free to disagree, as any neoliberal would do. But to act like this perspective, in some way, is totally moronic...would be strange, since there are plenty of people during the last 200 years of national economic studies endorsing it. In different ways, for sure, but still...the concept of using government ownership/oversight to complement the market forces, is not an absurd notion.
No. There is no private ownership. Let's dissect the term.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloadae
Private: belonging to some particular person
Ownership: legal right of possession
So, considering these definitions, private ownership is a legal right of possession which belongs to a particular person.
How exactly does one have ownership over something if an entirely different entity from himself has sole control over how that thing is created, used, and distributed? That if you fail to abide by these rules on how you should manage "your" property, you will face fines if you cooperate and physical detention and death if you continue to use "your" property as you see fit.
This statement fails because you do not to consider the greatest of productive means: the right to produce.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloadae
The government assumes the authority to decide who can and cannot engage in production and the means in which they are allowed to produce. This leads to artificial monopolies. The rich are able to afford the extravagant expenses necessary to comply with government's taxes and regulations. Your average fellow hoping to start a small business is SOL. You will also find that the top "private" companies in each service they deem crucial to the infrastructure are funded through subsidies and controlled by the government.
It does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloadae
It doesn't just make the market less free, it truly destroys it. When the government tries its hand at offering a service, it does so without any oversight. It does not operate with a profit motive, so it doesn't try to improve itself. It runs off of the money it has robbed from the people, so it cannot go bankrupt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloadae
It destroys the market by offering free or cheaper alternatives to the products and services of businesses in the private sector. This means that many businesses will be destroyed, and potential competitors will never arise. Sure, in some industries private businesses will still compete (when actually allowed by law), but this will benefit only those who can afford the luxury prices. The poor must use the stagnant, poorly run government substitute because it pushes out lower-priced competitors. You can't compete with "free".
Look at the industries that they DON'T control because they CAN'T. Technology... The Internet... They are moving at light speed and dominating the economic landscape. That is what a free market can do. Compare them to markets that are tightly controlled.
And look at how perfectly the world is running.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloadae
Plenty of people during the last 200 years of notional economic studies are morons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloadae
Appeal to authority much?
Not only is it absurd, it has been proven to be a disaster for all of humanity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloadae
Excuse me, I missed this part...
Nice little deflection there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloadae
The quotes in those videos aren't difficult to understand.
Here's my favorite:
"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we 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
Oh? You want sources? How about this:
http://www.amazon.com/Memoirs-David-...id+rockefeller
That's Rockefeller's autobiography titled "Memoirs". You'll find that quote on page 405.
Happy reading.
Read "Proofs of a Conspiracy" by John Robison, published in 1798.
www.omnicbc.com carries it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Weishaupt, circa 1770
Well, it seems we have different view on how oversight influences ownership.
I find your description of "destroying the market", aswell as "a disaster for all of humanity" a huge over-simplification. Even from a neo-liberal perspective.
Ooh...I didn't really appeal to authority, I was simply saying that people can disagree with eachother on economic issues without being "morrons". If one claims that the followers of a widely popular economic theory, in both academic and political circles, are all lacking intellect...I would consider that another huge over-simplification.
Concerning the quotes.
"Deflection"? If you show me a youtube-clip with a shitload of quotes, each quote without further comment, source or its original context - of course that clip will be of very limited value from a scientific standpoint.
Your favorite quote is a good example of a quote taken out of one context and put into another. I couldn't find a version of the book online, so I wasn't able to read the chapter or the context in which appear - so, the "happy reading" was quite short.
Naturally, for a believer in the NWO/Illuminati, they will see this as shocking admission.
To me, the quote says the following:
- "Political extremists", which Rockefeller obviously disagrees with, since this is a negative label, are attacking the Rockefeller-family for their influence in American politic/economics
- Some people claim he is part of a "cabal" working against the US
- Rockefeller proudly admits that he is working for a more "integrated global political and economic" community. And that he is working with other people to achieve that.
This is not a proof that there is a NWO.
This is not some startling revelation.
Rockefeller is a capitalist who makes a lot of profit from abroad. It's quite natural that he will have an international perspective on economy and making money. And in a political climate which allows him to do so. With as little taxation as possible, just like you prefer.
It is of course possible to intepret it as "I stand guilty [of being a part of] a secret cabal." Especially if you're looking for that connection.
However, when choosing between to alternatives, I prefer the one which is the most likely.
So, what are the alternative interpretations of what Rockefeller says:
1. He admits to being part of a secret cabal, with the meaning of a small, hidden, secret, clearly defined organization, with mystical/satanic/kabbalistic ideas, which holds close to absolute power over the world, but conspires to bring it together under an obvious political and military dictatorship.
2. He admits to being part of a movement of globalists who wants to open up the world markets to his financial interests.
I would consider the two alternatives. And realize two things:
- "2." is more likely
- "1." has several very strong assertions, with farreaching implications on the understanding on how the political, economic and intellectual world functions. The wider the claim, the stronger is the need for evidence.
That evidence is not to be found. Ergo = 2
But - let's say it is "1".
If you can take one qoute from his memoirs, that seems to suggest something to you. Would you be able to dispute all the other quotes one can make, that does not suggest that he goes to secret kabbal-meetings every other weekend?
Concerning Weishaupt, Robison and the bavarian illuminati.
The fact that there was a secret society, with a certain name, a couple of hundred years ago - who tried to influence society, does not mean that they know control the world.
I would also have a hard time convincing myself that Robison, with his limited sources at the time, could be considered a relevant historian with todays standards.
Most historians today would realize how careful you have to be when assessing books that are several hundred years old, and tries to give an account of an historical event...with very limited source material.
And in being careful of putting to much value into them, also be a bit careful of drawing farreaching political conclusions from them. That would be my advice.
Is this thread a troll?
Back to the topic, there is nothing wrong with a ban on military style assault rifles, in my opion. You don't need them for self defense or for hunting.
The new world order is the old world order. The conspiracy is thousands of years old. You're not fooling anyone with you r long winded posts. Simply google search "NWO quotes" to find a multitude of elite cabal members explicitly stating that there is a new order.
Research Monarch Programming
Research the Franklin cover-up
Research the Tavistock institute of human relations
Research the Fabian Society
Do some fucking research.
If we don't need them, cops and army don't need them either. The 2nd amendment was brought in because of tyrannical government. It is the ONLY thing stopping the NWO from unveiling it's ugly face from behind the shadows.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Hester
That's why there is a campaign against private firearm ownership.
And quit slinging the CNN-programming term "Conspiracy theorist" around. It's not a fucking theory.
Trying to discredit my quotes from Weishaupt is a lame attempt as well. It is well known that he was not only the founder of the illuminati, but also the head behind the infiltration of the masons, morphing them from an "architectural apprenticeship organization" into what is now known as the "Free" masons, which is now a vehicle for the global dissemination of revolutionary anarchistic ideology.Quote:
Originally Posted by David Rockefeller
obama sure wouldn't!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Eddie Bravo
My prediction- four years from now Obama will "be forced" to use executive order to cancel the next presidential elections to remain in power for some reason or another. He will need us unarmed by then in order to control the revolt. This is what other dictators that take over countries do, cancel or control "elections" to stay in power. Rule the country for a long time until the US/UN helps rebels remove him from power. Who is going to help us? The US citizens being armed was viewed as pretty important to our founding fathers. To prevent this very thing from happening again. Control by an unfair tyranical government/dictator. It amazes me how many jumped on the Myan's end of the would band wagon, but don't give the slightest credit to biblical prophesy. It predicted Isreal becoming a country again, and predicts other major things will happen during the generation the sees Isreal become a country again. That means the generation around in 1948 is getting pretty old!! Crap is getting deep, so much BJJ to master so little time!!
Your correct, you don't need them to protect against robbers and thiefs or for hunting. You need them to Fight 1 million Chinese on our soil or to overthrow a tyranical US government. You want to fight with muskets against machine guns? or at least have high capacity semi autos against machine guns. I'll opt for semi autos, still out gunned but if there are enough we will have a chance. That is the sole reason our founding fathers of this country felt such a strong desire to include that in our constitution!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Hester
These are the current police:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_HyyDHyAwI6...t+cops+rnc.jpg
They certainly aren't dressed to serve and protect YOU or ME.
Support copblock.org
Support facebook.com/copblock
Support facebook.com/filmingcops
I'm not Anti-Cop. I am Anti NWO-pig though.
No. I know how oversight influences ownership. You don't. It's that simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloadae
It isn't an over-simplification, it is a fact. Opinions do not exist; they are only preferences. It isn't a question over whether you prefer the color blue over red. It is a question of which economic theory is correct, or at the very least, better. There is a definite answer. Whether or not some people prefer Keynesianism over free markets is inconsequential. They are wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloadae
Those quotes are sourced, and the context is self-contained within them. Many of them are actual VIDEO clips. Do they need "sources" as well? An invalid could understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloadae
Either you are a complete idiot, or you are intentionally feigning ignorance, making you a troll.
Let's examine the juicy bit of the quote in detail, shall we? I'll split it into the two sentences which make up the comment:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloadae
Sentence A:
"Some even believe we 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."
Sentence B:
"If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."
Now, let's consider the fact that Sentence B immediately follows Sentence A.
In Sentence B, Rockefeller admits that he is "guilty" of a "charge", and that he is proud of it. Now, the task is deciphering exactly what "charge" he is referencing. It can be inferred that the "charge" is contained within the immediately preceding sentence due to the phrase "If that's..." which begins Sentence B -- "that" being the referenced charge contained in Sentence A.
Now let's take a look at Sentence A.
In Sentence A, we see that Rockefeller lists two things which can be attributed to the "charge", both of which are supported by a modifier to expand the context. We come to this conclusion because he starts the sentence with "Some even believe..." which can be directly linked to "If that's the charge..." in the next sentence. Now, what do "some" believe? Let's take the sentence apart.
Subject 1: "...we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States..."
Modifier 1: "...characterizing my family and me as internationalists..."
Subject 2: "... [we are] conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure..."
Modifier 2: "...one world, if you will."
Okay, now let's put it all together!
Rockefeller, by his own admission and with great pride, is guilty of being part of a secret cabal of internationalists working against the best interests of the United States which conspires to build a one world, globally integrated political and economic structure.
Startling? No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloadae
Proof of a NWO? What is the NWO?
New World Order - n. : The goal of a secret cabal of internationalists working against the best interests of the United States which conspires to build a one world, globally integrated political and economic structure.
You should see a dentist. I don't think that foot can be dislodged without surgery.
The last thing someone like Rockefeller would want is smaller taxes. Where do you think he gets the money to pursue the global agenda? How would he be able to control his less affluent potential competitors?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloadae
Or if you have a brain. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloadae
In Interpretation 2 you conveniently disregard the fact that Rockefeller's statement included the word "political" and instead narrow your focus on the word "economic". Let's see it again:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aloadae
"...more integrated global political and economic structure..."
So, the revised version of Interpretation 2 is thus:
2. He admits to being part of a movement of globalists who wants to open up the world markets to his financial interests and the world governments to his political interests.
In this case, both interpretation 1 and 2 mean the exact same thing. It also means the whole of your argument is emetic refuse.
I would call you a paid shill if I thought you were competent enough to get the job. You've only served to descredit your own "view" and strengthen the topic at hand. So thanks, I guess.
"What is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Hester
- George Mason, father of the Bill of Rights
"The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of the republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, 1833, U.S. Supreme Court Justice
Re-examine your definition of self defense.
He wouldn't need an executive order to cancel elections. He would only need to overturn the Twenty-second Amendment which prohibits presidents from serving more than two terms, and they would flock to vote him in again. FDR actually won four terms of office before the amendment was ratified, but he died before starting his fourth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg W
Tell me about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg W
Obama is not really in charge, his handlers (Bankers) have him in check. So it doesnt really matter if he is in office again or not. The next president be it Republican or democrat will be bought and paid for, and kept in check as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan Kelso