Illuminati

[Cupid stunt]

real or fake?

[kuranes]

It sounds plausible to me.

[nobarcode]

historically or currently?

[kuranes]

No question about the historical part. I think he was referring to current conspiracies.

[nobarcode]

I think the consciousness and politics of the historical Illuminati has invaded modern day consciousness and politics to the extent that, yes, they are real; you and I. In other words; It worked. I'm more interested in how long it will work.

[Shai Gar]

who cares as long as we can use the ideas to our benefit

[Cupid stunt]

How?

Yeah, I mean currently, like apparently the EU is one big Illuminati playground but surely we would have ended this by now?

[Spartan26]

To some extent. I think with a certain amount of money anyone can become a de facto member or high standing in a infrastucture industry (telecom, oil, computers, pharmaceuticals, etc) Like Oprah certainly has the money and power and influence but would she be asked to join? If she were to do a venture with Rupert Murdoch, whatever they decide are the qualifying criteria for acceptance would automatically result in a conspiracy against whatever is excluded.

[nobarcode]

Given the current knowledge, the EU is actually but a fraction. Far removed, but within the playground...a rung on the ladder.

How?
Well that depends on your knowledge of the history and your willingness/ability.
May I ask, is this a new topic for you -DMS?

["InsertNameHere"]

Who says Oprah isn't already part of the system... a tool in infiltrating and then brainwashing the masses through the media

:ph34r:

[nobarcode]

Oprah is a tool of tools.

[Shai Gar]

see, me, i always thought of the illuminate as a secret society dedicated to learning and thought, secret because the prevalant ideas would have them burned for hereasy

[nobarcode]

Well, ..yes. That does seems to be the case, historically. Though, anyone can do that. ie: Edison, Einstien, Reich..........etc. What happened to them? Their in a different catagory, but to what end would a "secret" society's intention be, if they must remain secret?

All others stood the test of critique, well..sort of.

[Shai Gar]

reichs study SHOULD have been kept secret.

all his lifes works were burned, his oragano machine destroyed, his consoles decimated and he was given, basically a death sentence.. by the US Government.

he was booted from the international pyschoanalysts convention and exiled from his home.

a secret society WOULD have benefited him, as it benefited those in the illuminati, temporarily at least.

this is why i constantly propose setting up a secret society, because todays governments are reactionary bastards who will do anything for the current systems as long as they get paid or kept in power

[Shai Gar]

though einstein was elevated to a position of honour, and edison was one of americas greatest men.

reich, tesla, davinci... these are the brilliant men

[Cupid stunt]

May I ask, is this a new topic for you -DMS?

Sort of, I read a little about it and then downloaded someones tapes talking about them but thats about it.

[MacGuffin]

There is no Illuminati. This discussion is over.

[coffeezombie]

This illuminati-type plotting is mostly done through phone calls and formal parties. Why waste one's time creating an actual group and having formal meetings when controlling the world is so much work and takes up so much time?

["InsertNameHere"]

this is why i constantly propose setting up a secret society, because todays governments are reactionary bastards who will do anything for the current systems as long as they get paid or kept in power

Silly rabbit, the hole is deeper than you think! Don't you know that the "gov't" is part of the illuminati. The most powerful rulers of the world were not elected but selected. It's all in the master plan...

[Shai Gar]

most of americas leaders probably, but in australia this funny thing called democracy actually works, ANYONE can be prime minister if they are an australian citizen and over the age of 18 with the majority vote

["InsertNameHere"]

The USA is among Australia’s most important economic partners, and its closest security ally. Of course you have heard about Pine Gap, right? wow, you have John Howard. You are sooooo democratic, huh? well, he is Bush's lacky

[Shai Gar]

and democratically elected by the australian people, i never said the australian people were not idiots

["InsertNameHere"]

the parties and the players are select. we just so happen to vote for either the douche bag or the turd sandwich. Tricked into thinking that our votes really matter. Don't get me wrong i still vote, but my vote doesn't make a difference...





the avatar has taken over my brain! ahhhhh

[Shai Gar]

so vote for the libertarians untill they have enough power in order to have a three party nation so MAYBE change can be instigated

[Robespierre]

Don't get me wrong i still vote, but my vote doesn't make a difference...

Why do you still vote?

[Shai Gar]

people who vote get the right to complain about their democracy and bush

[Robespierre]

so vote for the libertarians untill they have enough power in order to have a three party nation so MAYBE change can be instigated

Democracy itself is the flaw. No amount of voting can fix it. The people who are elected anew will simply become the tyrants of old. Americans may recall the republican party billed itself as the part of small government during the 90's. Well can see where all that got us. No one can be trusted with the power granted by centralized imperial governments, not even the Libertarian Party.

[Robespierre]

people who vote get the right to complain about their democracy and bush

That's funny, I was just about to say the exact opposite.

["InsertNameHere"]

because there isn't anything else to do on nov 11th and i'm a hopeless dreamer. And so i can say as a comeback, "Well....Atleast i didn't vote for Bush!!"





:o wow...I was going to say that! someone gets it

[Shai Gar]

so you propose an armed revolution? i am up for that

[Robespierre]

so you propose an armed revolution? i am up for that

No, I do not suggest armed action. I never have and I never will. Fighting is what got us into this to begin with.

[Shai Gar]

only fighting will change this, the government in power will not willingly relinquish power.

i suppose the old addage put up or shut up isnt really appropriate, but you are bitching an awful lot without proposing a solution, any kind of solution really

["InsertNameHere"]

I practicularly like waiting, preferably in a underground bomb shelter. Ask me for a solution after 7 years, then i'll have an answer.

[Shai Gar]

how about giving us a solution now, we dont have to do it, but as something to think about it might be nice, round em all up and shoot them i say

["InsertNameHere"]

how about giving us a solution now, we dont have to do it, but as something to think about it might be nice, round em all up and shoot them i say
but dead bodies are icky!

[sbw]

so vote for the libertarians untill they have enough power in order to have a three party nation so MAYBE change can be instigated

I'm a libertarian, and I have a few like-minded friends...but it's a VERY slow process under the best of conditions, I would think, and the right simply has too much money. perhaps more importantly, a growing percentage of americans seem willing to simply vote for their church. especially in the south.

Scott

[Shai Gar]

a new solution, nuke the south

[sbw]

people who vote get the right to complain about their democracy and bush

I've never agreed with this notion, though I've heard it many times. george carlin had a great take on this: "If you vote, you have no right to complain," he says. "I know people like to twist that around and say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain.' But, if you elect incompetent politicians and they screw things up, then you're responsible for what they've done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote -- who did not even leave the house on Election Day -- am in no way responsible for what these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess you created."

Scott

[sbw]

a new solution, nuke the south

fuck that, it'd KILL my real-estate investments.

Scott

[sbw]

No, I do not suggest armed action. I never have and I never will. Fighting is what got us into this to begin with.

then we cool. but shai asked earlier, and I wonder: if democracy doesn't work (and I agree that it doesn't), and armed action is a bad idea (and it is), than have you any plausible scenarios? every society that I am familiar with has a "centralized government" as one of it's central tenets. If that very idea sucks ass (and the evidence leads me to agree with you that it does), now what?

Scott

[Robespierre]

i suppose the old addage put up or shut up isnt really appropriate

You're absolutely right, it's totally inappropriate.

The entire base of my philosophy is non-aggression, illuminated by property rights. On top of this, I value human life, and wish to minimize the taking of it. If a solution to the violence of government involves violence, it is no solution.

As far as real solutions, I suggest developing space-flight and leaving. The moon, orbit, mars, etc. Obviously that's a long ways off, but it may be the only way to seriously improve the condition of mankind.

Barring space-flight, the prostects look a lot less rosey. If enough people could be convinced of the truth of the libertarian point of view, they could simply begin ignoring the system as it is. The state fundamentally rests upon the consent of the governed, and not just in a philisophical way. If people don't accept their government, it has no power.

I just want to be absolutely clear about this: I do not support violence to further my opinions. Persuasion is the only viable solution.

["InsertNameHere"]

I've never agreed with this notion, though I've heard it many times. george carlin had a great take on this: "If you vote, you have no right to complain," he says. "I know people like to twist that around and say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain.' But, if you elect incompetent politicians and they screw things up, then you're responsible for what they've done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote -- who did not even leave the house on Election Day -- am in no way responsible for what these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess you created."

Scott
I don't agree with that opinion at all. If you sit back at life and never make the initiative to make a change, then what right do you have to complain? You have never done anything and you chose to do nothing. So nothing is what you get and deserve...

[sbw]

I just want to be absolutely clear about this: I do not support violence to further my opinions. Persuasion is the only viable solution.

this has been obvious from the first (at least to me).

I regard it as completely impossible that a sufficient portion of the population could EVER embrace libertarianism, simply because they can't understand it. the following exchange explains my view of most other peoples' (types'?) brains:

me: you can't prove that god exists.
my sister : yes you can--it's right there in genesis! (with no trace of irony, because she doesn't know what that is)

that's how bad most people are--how can we create a society based upon the sovereignty of the individual, if the vast majority of the citizens in the most prosperous society in human history don't know the fucking definition of the word sovereignty?

an example of this, and the way it manifests itself in governance, is the minimum-wage law that was recently passed here in florida. and specifically, it's marketing.

SIDE RANT(in case anyone is wondering, minimum-wage legislation of any kind should not exist, because they violate the worker's right to decide his own worth. at least a few unemployed people throughout this great nation would be happy to mop the floor at mcdonalds for 3 dollars per hour, but ted kennedy and his fellow democrats have stolen that opportunity from them. and before you say that the individual worker has no power against the evil, gigantic corporation that people who make those sorts of arguments don't even attempt to define--that's why labor unions formed.)END RANT

anyway, there were commercials on TV imploring people which way to vote on the proposed minimum wage hike. (from 5.15 to 6.15; yes, it passed, and yes, we are fuckin' retards here in the great state of florida) one of my friends and I were discussing that the "against" ads were HORRIBLE, and later I talked to my boss about it, and his view was that it's completely impossible to make a good, convincing, 30-second argument against a minimum wage increase, because the vast majority of the populace does not have the framework of basic economic knowledge to understand the argument...because the argument is not so simple as "poor people making more money is...(scratches head)...a good thing, right?" it's easy to sell that point to stupid people who cannot graps the ramifications of such a decision. ever.

thank you for your reply robespierre, I guess I simply agree with you that it's all fucked. at the risk of sounding like a tool of the system, I'm trying to make as much money as I can so that I can retire early and have fun doing nothing thereafter...if I have no choice but to be a tool of the man, I'm at least going to sleep in.

Scott

["InsertNameHere"]

then we cool. but shai asked earlier, and I wonder: if democracy doesn't work (and I agree that it doesn't), and armed action is a bad idea (and it is), than have you any plausible scenarios? every society that I am familiar with has a "centralized government" as one of it's central tenets. If that very idea sucks ass (and the evidence leads me to agree with you that it does), now what?

Scott
I wasn't exactly talking about democracy. The idea of democracy is excellent, i agree with it whole-heartedly. What i was talking about was corruption in the world...dealing with the iluminati. People are the ones that are currupted not the system. how can you change people? You can't, so you wait...

[sbw]

I don't agree with that opinion at all. If you sit back at life and never make the initiative to make a change, then what right do you have to complain? You have never done anything and you chose to do nothing. So nothing is what you get and deserve...

no, you're wrong as specifically pertains to voting, and here's why.

I live in florida, and I enjoy smoking cigarettes. a few years ago, there was an amendment which we here in florida voted on as to prohibiting smoking in restaurants and bars-that-serve-food. knowing in advance that the demographics of florida--i.e., old people, many of who have already quit smoking, and also many of whom wish to avoid smoke due to various old-person infirmities, and rich people, a smaller percentage of whom smoke than do their poorer counterparts--meant that the ban was definitely going to pass, so I didn't bother going to the polls. did my assumption turn out to be correct? and how. in a state of roughly 8 million, the ban passed 71%-29%. subtracting out 20% of the population for underage or incarcerated, that means the real number of votes cast was something in the range of 4.5 million to 1.9 million. what good would my vote have done?

Scott

[sbw]

I wasn't exactly talking about democracy. The idea of democracy is excellent, i agree with it whole-heartedly. What i was talking about was corruption in the world...dealing with the iluminati. People are the ones that are currupted not the system. how can you change people? You can't, so you wait...

no, the idea of democracy sucks, and I condemn it whole-heartedly.

Scott

disclosure/apology: I've never heard the word "illuminati" before today. I have no idea how this happened.

["InsertNameHere"]

lol ok then, i understand. I like the ideals of democracy, matter fact, I did a final paper on it (sort of dealing with it) today for my philosophy of law class.
Is there one system (that is already established) you dislike the least, that you would rather have over democracy?

[sbw]

wow, you didn't ask why I think it sucks--good job.

A constitutional republic (y'know, like this country might be if our elected officials observed the constitution, which they don't--just goes to show you that robespierre is right) is better than a "pure" democracy, but even it has its flaws. I would not be opposed to there being like a "voters' license", i.e. one is required to possess a certain degree of knowledge so as to be allowed to register to vote. but then the people in power at the time when such a system were implemented would probably seek to regulate the new system in a way that bars some qualified voters so as to advance their own aims. oh, and only like 5 percent of americans would be allowed to vote under such a system, too.

in short, nawww, the world is just screwed. no biggie. I'm sitting in my comfortable air-conditioned home right now. "could be worse, could be raining"

Scott

["InsertNameHere"]

no, you're wrong as specifically pertains to voting, and here's why.

I live in florida, and I enjoy smoking cigarettes. a few years ago, there was an amendment which we here in florida voted on as to prohibiting smoking in restaurants and bars-that-serve-food. knowing in advance that the demographics of florida--i.e., old people, many of who have already quit smoking, and also many of whom wish to avoid smoke due to various old-person infirmities, and rich people, a smaller percentage of whom smoke than do their poorer counterparts--meant that the ban was definitely going to pass, so I didn't bother going to the polls. did my assumption turn out to be correct? and how. in a state of roughly 8 million, the ban passed 71%-29%. subtracting out 20% of the population for underage or incarcerated, that means the real number of votes cast was something in the range of 4.5 million to 1.9 million. what good would my vote have done?



hey...i voted and lost! I kinda knew that i was going to lose. Kerry was not a strong democratic candidate but i still voted. It's the fact that i did something not whether my vote mattered or not. hmm... i'm not sure if i am explaining this right - i take the view that it's all about my actions (that's my main concern) not about the results. The results are bad no matter what...




lol, i need a break. I am in no position to think much. My brain is exhausted by my finals

[sbw]

It's the fact that i did something not whether my vote mattered or not.

I'm too pragmatic for that. good luck with your finals, though...

Scott

["InsertNameHere"]

I'm too pragmatic for that. good luck with your finals, though...

Scott
thanx! but they are done already. now i am just facing the results of overload

[Robespierre]

I don't agree with that opinion at all. If you sit back at life and never make the initiative to make a change, then what right do you have to complain? You have never done anything and you chose to do nothing. So nothing is what you get and deserve...

Do something, anything? Is that it? Even if you consider the process itself to be wrong?

[Robespierre]

I wasn't exactly talking about democracy. The idea of democracy is excellent, i agree with it whole-heartedly. What i was talking about was corruption in the world...dealing with the iluminati. People are the ones that are currupted not the system. how can you change people? You can't, so you wait...

If the idea doesn't work in the "real world", what on earth about it can be excellent?

["InsertNameHere"]

Originally Posted by InsertNameHere
I don't agree with that opinion at all. If you sit back at life and never make the initiative to make a change, then what right do you have to complain? You have never done anything and you chose to do nothing. So nothing is what you get and deserve...

Do something, anything? Is that it? Even if you consider the process itself to be wrong?"
The process of voting is not wrong. To me "choice" itself is an intrinsic value, if i can get options i will choose, because i can. The choice of people we have are wrong to begin with. So i do what i can only do. At that point i can't change the people, so the only thing i can is choose which one of the assholes will cause the least amount of damage...

["InsertNameHere"]

If the idea doesn't work in the "real world", what on earth about it can be excellent?
i did said the "idea" of it. :smooch: Never mentioned it worked in the real world. Like i said, people are the ones that fuck it up. I'm open for other suggestions of a theory that works in the real world but that is another thread...

[Robespierre]

The process of voting is not wrong. To me "choice" itself is an intrinsic value, if i can get options i will choose, because i can.

Even at the expense of imposing your "choice" upon other people? Asume for a moment that your individual vote made a difference in how the government is run, why should you have this power over overs? Why not let each individual decide on how to run his own affairs? Why this excersize with ballots and the like, if choice is what you really want, why not maximize it?


The choice of people we have are wrong to begin with. So i do what i can only do. At that point i can't change the people, so the only thing i can is choose which one of the assholes will cause the least amount of damage...

Why give your approval to someone who will do damage? What purpose does this serve? If someone were to sneak into your home, and give you a choice of stealing one cherished item or another, would you feel obliged to choose? Or proud of your choice? Would you hold it against someone for not choosing?

I understand why people think as they do about democracy, as the going groupthink on voting is that it allows each individual to choose. I just hope that we can uncover the fallacy of this thinking... why not really allow each individual to choose? Why artificially bind his choice with that of 100 million others?

[Robespierre]

i did said the "idea" of it. :smooch: Never mentioned it worked in the real world.

I know what you said. I asked what there is to like about an idea that can't work in the real world?


Like i said, people are the ones that fuck it up. I'm open for other suggestions of a theory that works in the real world but that is another thread...

So people exist in the real world, and the idea of democracy is messed up by people... what good is it? Why vote?

["InsertNameHere"]

Even at the expense of imposing your "choice" upon other people? Asume for a moment that your individual vote made a difference in how the government is run, why should you have this power over overs? Why not let each individual decide on how to run his own affairs? Why this excersize with ballots and the like, if choice is what you really want, why not maximize it?
I'm not imposing my choice on any one. I am not forcing. i am only stating it. how am i forcing you by choosing want i want, when you decide not to choose anything? What power do i alone have? aren't other people voting for their choice? i'm not the only INTP voter, am I? I don't exactly understand that last question, so i wont anwser til you clearify


Why give your approval to someone who will do damage? What purpose does this serve? If someone were to sneak into your home, and give you a choice of stealing one cherished item or another, would you feel obliged to choose? Or proud of your choice? Would you hold it against someone for not choosing?
HAHA...that is not a choice that i would make because it is not the only option in the situation. If some fool sneaks into my house, i have the choice of killing them to protect my safety. I would be proud of that. Who would be fool enough to tell a theif, "only take the china dishes, not my jewelry?" thats just stupid. This is not a good example at all but i can kinda see where you are going with this.


I understand why people think as they do about democracy, as the going groupthink on voting is that it allows each individual to choose. I just hope that we can uncover the fallacy of this thinking... why not really allow each individual to choose? Why artificially bind his choice with that of 100 million others?
Hey, each individual can chose. I have no prob with that. You can choose to not to vote, i have no prob with that. But just don't complain if you don't get what you want because you didn't work for what you wanted. IF everybody agrees not to vote in the next election, maybe the system would be crippled. But they won't, and the ones who vote would have more of a chance to getting what they want.

[philonightmare]

It exists. Muahaha.

I love conspiracy theories, especially this one.

[Shai Gar]

If enough people could be convinced of the truth of the libertarian point of view, they could simply begin ignoring the system as it is. The state fundamentally rests upon the consent of the governed, and not just in a philisophical way. If people don't accept their government, it has no power.

I just want to be absolutely clear about this: I do not support violence to further my opinions. Persuasion is the only viable solution.
i now have a LOT of respect for you, i dont give that out easily.

[sbw]

Hey, each individual can chose. I have no prob with that. You can choose to not to vote, i have no prob with that. But just don't complain if you don't get what you want because you didn't work for what you wanted. IF everybody agrees not to vote in the next election, maybe the system would be crippled. But they won't, and the ones who vote would have more of a chance to getting what they want.

this is fallacy. every word. "don't complain if you don't get what you want because you didn't work for what you wanted?" the first component of that sentence has absolutely nothing to do with the second. If I had voted libertarian in the last presidential election, would I have gotten what I wanted? NO! going to the poll does not guarantee that you will get what you want (and I realize that this is kind of a secondary point, here)...and even if it did, you would be getting what YOU want at the expense of what someone else wants.

from last night, insert, here is the simplest condemnation of democracy that I can come up with: 5 men walk into a room, and the first 4 vote to steal the 5th guy's money. that's democracy.

Scott

[Shai Gar]

true, there should be an anarchy

[sbw]

if there were anarchy, my first move would be to buy a gun. that's why there isn't a good answer to the "if not democracy, what would you suggest?" question...anarchy provides an appealing philosophical framework, but would immediately devolve into random violence. (and if somebody shoots my ass, my liberty has officially been violated.) fuckin' humans.

Scott

[Trolsk]

Anarchy is for suckers.

[sbw]

The entire base of my philosophy is non-aggression, illuminated by property rights. On top of this, I value human life, and wish to minimize the taking of it. If a solution to the violence of government involves violence, it is no solution...

...If enough people could be convinced of the truth of the libertarian point of view, they could simply begin ignoring the system as it is. The state fundamentally rests upon the consent of the governed, and not just in a philisophical way. If people don't accept their government, it has no power.

I just want to be absolutely clear about this: I do not support violence to further my opinions. Persuasion is the only viable solution.

this ^ is indeed good stuff, shai...but we all know that the american state still has guns, and if I don't pay my property taxes, those guns will (literally, not figuratively) be pointed at me. and even if I buy 1 gun for each hand, they will still have more of them.

Scott

[Robespierre]

I'm not imposing my choice on any one. I am not forcing. i am only stating it. how am i forcing you by choosing want i want, when you decide not to choose anything?

When you vote, you endorse the system that uses your vote.


What power do i alone have? aren't other people voting for their choice? i'm not the only INTP voter, am I? I don't exactly understand that last question, so i wont anwser til you clearify

If you want everyone to have the most choice possible, why not let each individual choose?


HAHA...that is not a choice that i would make because it is not the only option in the situation. If some fool sneaks into my house, i have the choice of killing them to protect my safety. I would be proud of that. Who would be fool enough to tell a theif, "only take the china dishes, not my jewelry?" thats just stupid. This is not a good example at all but i can kinda see where you are going with this.

Why is it not a good example? I think it fits very well. Your assumption was that making a choice was noble, and I am trying to show how one might view the situation in a different way.


Hey, each individual can chose. I have no prob with that. You can choose to not to vote, i have no prob with that. But just don't complain if you don't get what you want because you didn't work for what you wanted. IF everybody agrees not to vote in the next election, maybe the system would be crippled. But they won't, and the ones who vote would have more of a chance to getting what they want.

So because other people are voting, everyone should, even though they may view the system is barbaric and corrupt?

[Robespierre]

this ^ is indeed good stuff, shai...but we all know that the american state still has guns, and if I don't pay my property taxes, those guns will (literally, not figuratively) be pointed at me. and even if I buy 1 gun for each hand, they will still have more of them.

Scott

They can't shoot everybody. They can't put everyone in jail. There are far more private citizens than there are government agents.

[sbw]

goes back to your "if enough people could be convinced of the truth of the libertarian POV" from earlier...I wrote something last night (it must've been earlier in this thread) to the effect that not enough people could EVER be convinced because they're so fuckin' dumb. as such, they won't ever have to shoot everyone, or put everyone in jail; just the few who (a) have money & (b) disagree with the repression of the current system enough to rebel (i.e., refuse to pay their taxes). that should only comprise 10-20% of the population at any given moment. I think "the man" could handle that quantity of shooting or imprisoning, and (on a purely intellectual level) there is no hope for the other 80-90% of the population. makes the man's job a lot easier.

Scott

[Robespierre]

goes back to your "if enough people could be convinced of the truth of the libertarian POV" from earlier...I wrote something last night (it must've been earlier in this thread) to the effect that not enough people could EVER be convinced because they're so fuckin' dumb.

This may end up being true, but I have a feeling that it is not. Obviously it's something we can only speculate about now. I really think that if a viable alternative to nation-states were made visible, perhaps first in a colony, off-world or otherwise, people might desire the same amount of liberty at home.

["InsertNameHere"]

When you vote, you endorse the system that uses your vote.
If you want everyone to have the most choice possible, why not let each individual choose? How is that a system if each individual chooses different things? I don't see how that would work either but it's a good idea. About me endorsing the system that uses my vote, well if it doesn't use my vote it uses everyone elses. so either way i'm fucked.



Why is it not a good example? I think it fits very well. Your assumption was that making a choice was noble, and I am trying to show how one might view the situation in a different way. you mistake the choices givin to me as the one i'd recognize as my own choices. the choice to me is what i am able to do at the time. Which is kicking the mofo's ass...


So because other people are voting, everyone should, even though they may view the system is barbaric and corrupt? i didn't say anybody should do anything but not complain if they didn't get what they want. "I" meaning "me" would vote just because other people will be out there tiping the scales in their favor. I know a lot of people who don't and who do. I was only making a suggestion that I would vote until the system crashes being that no one votes any more. Hell, you can do what ya want and i'll do what i want.

[Robespierre]

How is that a system if each individual chooses different things?

It's a non-coercive system.


I don't see how that would work either but it's a good idea. About me endorsing the system that uses my vote, well if it doesn't use my vote it uses everyone elses. so either way i'm fucked.

Exactly my point. Either you get who you voted for, with no requirement for that person to honor their promises, or you lose.


you mistake the choices givin to me as the one i'd recognize as my own choices. the choice to me is what i am able to do at the time. Which is kicking the mofo's ass...

I made no mistake at all. You've made my point for me. When presented with two equally bad choices, you make your own third option. Suppose this theif had a gun pointed at you now. What would you do? You can't beat him up. Would you happily suggest that he take the silverware, and criticize your neighbor, who he robbed before you, for not making a choice?

[Ascending]

My God, its full of stars.

[sbw]

About me endorsing the system that uses my vote, well if it doesn't use my vote it uses everyone elses. so either way i'm fucked.

Yes, this is absolutely a true statement.

Scott

[sbw]

This may end up being true, but I have a feeling that it is not. Obviously it's something we can only speculate about now. I really think that if a viable alternative to nation-states were made visible, perhaps first in a colony, off-world or otherwise, people might desire the same amount of liberty at home.

we can ONLY SPECULATE that the majority of humans cannot understand fundamental economic principles? the vast majority of people that I interact with--they move this beyond mere speculation via their own actions and ignorance.

Scott

["InsertNameHere"]

this is fallacy. every word. "don't complain if you don't get what you want because you didn't work for what you wanted?" the first component of that sentence has absolutely nothing to do with the second. If I had voted libertarian in the last presidential election, would I have gotten what I wanted? NO! going to the poll does not guarantee that you will get what you want (and I realize that this is kind of a secondary point, here)...and even if it did, you would be getting what YOU want at the expense of what someone else wants.

from last night, insert, here is the simplest condemnation of democracy that I can come up with: 5 men walk into a room, and the first 4 vote to steal the 5th guy's money. that's democracy.

Scott
I didn't say that you would get what you want. I lost the election, Also. Never said it was guarenteed. I like the concept of democracy (thats my thing, no one else has to like it) but it doesn't work, nor would everybody voting for what ever they want work in the real world. Nor am I trying to change the world or whatever, you can do that if ya want since you don't like the system, but i think it will change very soon on it's on. Sorry I have weird views, I guess, don't ask...
My problem is people who complain all the time (wasn't that what we are discussing? who has more right to complain?):
Let me think of an example... ok there was this election at my school, SGA. There was this black boy who wanted to run for president but the board made up excuses of why he could- being that he missed a meeting or two. there was an uproar at the school because SGA was not suppose to restrict any member for running, so there was a "big race" issue. SGA had to let him run, because of the big stink everyone made. Well, there were a lot of people complaining about how that wasn't fair or that he was a good candidate, after he lost the election. but yet when you ask these people if they voted, they said no. i don't think they should squawk and complain as much as they do when they didn't even try to vote. Mind you, i didn't vote because It wasn't important to me but nor did I sit there and complain. If they voted and lost, then i think they would have more rights to complain. Just my views

[sbw]

I don't know what that story was intended to convey, exactly, but you keep coming back to "I like the concept of democracy but it doesn't work" (your exact words here), or words to that effect in other posts. why do keep saying that you like something which doesn't work? if my car were to break down every day, I would NOT like my car. but that's just me.

Scott

["InsertNameHere"]

It's a non-coercive system.

Exactly my point. Either you get who you voted for, with no requirement for that person to honor their promises, or you lose.

I made no mistake at all. You've made my point for me. When presented with two equally bad choices, you make your own third option. Suppose this theif had a gun pointed at you now. What would you do? You can't beat him up. Would you happily suggest that he take the silverware, and criticize your neighbor, who he robbed before you, for not making a choice?

I'm not materialistic, so the guy can take whatever he wants, if it's really that important. Coming from where I come from, it's hard to fear guns. We had a robbery once and let's just say, the theif couldn't walk to the police car, afterwards. Why would i criticize my neighbor if they were in a state of fear. That's their prerogative.

[sbw]

insert, I would imagine that you are one of few people on this forum who could make such a statement. (Our house got robbed in detroit (shocker), but we were on vacation at the time--moved out of detroit a year later) You should remember, though, that this COMPLETELY justified act of self-defense of which you speak is ILLEGAL in the city of washington DC (one of our more crime-ridden cities). Another effect of democracy.

how's the bumper sticker go? "dictators prefer an unarmed populace", or something like that.

Scott

["InsertNameHere"]

I don't know what that story was intended to convey, exactly, but you keep coming back to "I like the concept of democracy but it doesn't work" (your exact words here), or words to that effect in other posts. why do keep saying that you like something which doesn't work? if my car were to break down every day, I would NOT like my car. but that's just me.

Scott
I like the concept in a perfect world, it would be great. Just like a lot of other system concepts. People are the ones that fuck it up. You don't seem to understand me. I am not one to change the current system because I believe that I dont have to (based on views dealing with the illuminati and other theories. And how I think the real world really works..) You might want to investigate about the illuminati. There are many concepts of what it actually is...oh yeah,i forgot, i vote because i want to, not because i think everyone shoulds


(if you haven't noticed, studying conspieracy theories is my hobby 8O . HEY, everybody needs one!!! :blush: now back to my packing...)

["InsertNameHere"]

insert, I would imagine that you are one of few people on this forum who could make such a statement. (Our house got robbed in detroit (shocker), but we were on vacation at the time--moved out of detroit a year later) You should remember, though, that this COMPLETELY justified act of self-defense of which you speak is ILLEGAL in the city of washington DC (one of our more crime-ridden cities). Another effect of democracy.

how's the bumper sticker go? "dictators prefer an unarmed populace", or something like that.

Scott
We don't take being robbed very well, sorry. really? I did not know...LOL good thing we lived in MD at the time! :rofl:

[sbw]

yeah, I was saying that you did the exact proper thing, yet that exact proper thing is (absurdly enough) illegal in some parts of this country.

Scott

[Robespierre]

I'm not materialistic, so the guy can take whatever he wants, if it's really that important. Coming from where I come from, it's hard to fear guns. We had a robbery once and let's just say, the theif couldn't walk to the police car, afterwards. Why would i criticize my neighbor if they were in a state of fear. That's their prerogative.

Great. So your political philosophy is "take what you want, just don't hit me?"

["InsertNameHere"]

Great. So your political philosophy is "take what you want, just don't hit me?"

umm it's more like, take what you want but don't point a gun in my face, because I will hurt you-something like that. I like my signature better...

[Robespierre]

umm it's more like, take what you want but don't point a gun in my face, because I will hurt you-something like that. I like my signature better...

This is going too far afield of the point. I was demonstrating that voting is ignoble, and not a prerequisite for complaining about "the system". You disagreed with me. Do you still suggest that those who don't vote have no right to complain?

["InsertNameHere"]

This is going too far afield of the point. I was demonstrating that voting is ignoble, and not a prerequisite for complaining about "the system". You disagreed with me. Do you still suggest that those who don't vote have no right to complain?
They have less right to complain, unless they are doing something to change what they are complaining about. That may be voting or doing something else that is sort of productive. I am not an advocate for voting. I do it but no one else has to.

[Robespierre]

They have less right to complain, unless they are doing something to change what they are complaining about. That may be voting or doing something else that is sort of productive. I am not an advocate for voting. I do it but no one else has to.

So would you tell me that I have no right to complain because I will not vote? I'm not trying to attack you, just trying to figure out where you're coming from here.

["InsertNameHere"]

So would you tell me that I have no right to complain because I will not vote? I'm not trying to attack you, just trying to figure out where you're coming from here.
They don't have to vote. it's not about voting! If a person has done anything else to better this system that they hate or to construct a better system, then i have no problem with them. If not then yes, they have no right to complain. They should continue sitting on their couch and chill the fuck out.

[relaxo]

I am a member of the illuminati. You may ask me questions if you wish.

[melancholeric]

I am a member of the illuminati. You may ask me questions if you wish.
How can I join?

[relaxo]

How can I join?

It involves the transfer of some money to my account.

[Claverhouse]

[ Always glad to see anyone pointing out the sheer unrighteousness of democracy and the gut-wrenching system of fools voting for other fools... ]

Here's a useful little primer: apparently they aren't the Weishaupt mob, according to this, but those funny little people who wear red strings around their wrists and sell $30 bottles of tap-water to the idiot faithful. Life got in the way of my reading more than a few paragraphs, but the truly dedicated will devour every word.

Illuminati [ C L ] (http://www.samliquidation.com/illuminati.htm)

Have you searched far and wide for the identification of the so-called "Illuminati"? Only to find the knowers cannot identify them but give you details of an invisible unseen, untouchable mystical ghost? Not anymore, not only are they identified, but all proof has been exhibited here, of mankind's enemy, Chabad Lubavitch Illuminated Masters, which give council to All the Kings and the Richmen of the earth.


It was not Weishaupt, House, Herzl, Balfour, Untermeir.....these were justnusefull idiots.


It is not Blair, Bush, Putin, Soros, etc...again these are freemason useful idiots.....


It is the Chassidim "Masters" the rabbi's of Talmud Bavli who are the controllers....


It is these whited Sepulchres full of dead mens bones who are of their father of lies in their synagogue of satan who give council to their own luciferian elect.


The very same that Jesus warned you about.


On the other hand I daresay Lyndon LaRouche, whom some of our more liberal members probably worship as a living god --- considering their posts make as much sense as he --- would have other explanations of the illumined elitists.

It's a pity you see so many warnings and dark tales about these alleged idiots, but never hear that any of those fingered as illuminati have been tracked down and murdered by the vigilant. After all, if you feel that strongly about them, why just talk ? Action not words !.



Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Star Cannon]

Sounds a lot like demons and the forces of the lower 4th dimension controlling puppets in _this_ dimension. Children of the Matrix does a good job in putting 2 and 2 together on this subject...

Based on current events, the extensive reading and research I done on my own, I'd have to say the illuminati is very much real and if we are to stand a single chance against them we must put aside out differences in opinion, race, MB type, and religion, and work to save the world. Otherwise, we all are in for a Totalitarianism on a global scale...

[meshou]

Sounds a lot like demons and the forces of the lower 4th dimension controlling puppets in _this_ dimension. Children of the Matrix does a good job in putting 2 and 2 together on this subject...

Based on current events, the extensive reading and research I done on my own, I'd have to say the illuminati is very much real and if we are to stand a single chance against them we must put aside out differences in opinion, race, MB type, and religion, and work to save the world. Otherwise, we all are in for a Totalitarianism on a global scale...
I don't belive in the illuminati.

I do believe that we're all going to be pretty much ruled by corporations, and Government will one day be a joke.

I'm not so sure why everyone seems to believe this will be worse than Government.

[Star Cannon]

I dunno. Good question, Meshou. Maybe coporation based rule dehumanizes society?

[meshou]

I dunno. Good question, Meshou. Maybe coporation based rule dehumanizes society?I'd argue that Govermnent based rule dehumanizes society as well.

Fuck the MPAA, RIAA, FDA, DHS, EU, and the police. Especially the police.

[jimore]

Do the Illuminati think they exist? Of course. They are a dime a dozen. Perhaps a conspiracy can develop anytime there are more than three people involved in anything. It is the leap from a group trying to control to the world to a group actually being able to control the world that cannot occur. Thinking that a group of people have the power to control the course of humanity is just an extension of the idea "the devil made me do it".

Writing about issues similar to this is the primary thesis of my website. Although it will be months before I get most of my thoughts on webpaper, the bottom line is this. Since there is not, nor could there be, [chaos theory, string theory] a perfect plan that is guaranteed to work, our greatest need is not to tinker with the plan, but to learn to adapt to changing conditions, whether those changes occur as a result of the machinations of some all powerful secret group, god, a the script written by some unknown intergalactic super race, or the simple act of voting/not voting. Think a conspiracy theory, or even the most advanced science at our disposal could have predicted or caused the Indian Ocean Tsunami ?? http://sezme.net