DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Geopolitics
*****************************************************
#Post#: 1229--------------------------------------------------
Thomas Paine DID NOT agree with Benjamin Franklin on Liberty!
By: AGelbert Date: May 26, 2014, 5:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[move][font=courier]“Where liberty is, there is my country,”
Benjamin Franklin once said to Paine. “Where liberty is not,
there is my country,”
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/47b20s0.gif<br
/>Paine replied.[/font] [/move]
Paine asked the American revolutionaries “with what consistency,
or decency” they “could complain so loudly of attempts to
enslave them, while they hold so many hundred thousand in
slavery.”
His unrelenting commitment to truth and justice, along with his
eternal rebelliousness, saw him later vilified by the leaders of
the new American republic [img width=80
height=045]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg[/img],<br
/>who had no interest in the egalitarian society championed by
Paine.
Thomas Paine, Our Contemporary
Posted on May 25, 2014 By Chris Hedges
[quote] “When it shall be said in any country in the world ‘My
poor are happy; neither ignorance nor distress is to be found
among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of
beggars; the aged are not in want, the taxes are not oppressive;
the rational world is my friend, because I am a friend of
happiness’: when these things can be said,” Paine wrote, “then
may that country boast of its constitution and its government.”
[/quote]
[quote]Paine, partly because he did not come to America from
England until he was 37, understood that the British crown had
no interest in accommodation; today, the corporate state
similarly has no interest in granting any concessions.
HTML http://www.websmileys.com/sm/violent/sterb050.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-devil12.gif
[/quote]
HTML http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/thomas_paine_our_contemporary_20140525
#Post#: 1280--------------------------------------------------
War Makes Us Poorer
By: AGelbert Date: June 4, 2014, 8:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
War Makes Us Poorer
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-misc-021.gif
by Paul K. Chappell
Paul K. ChappellWhen I began my senior year at West Point in
August 2001, I took a class on national security that greatly
influenced me. It was the first time I had seriously questioned
the size of the U.S. military budget. My professor was a West
Point graduate, Rhodes scholar, and major in the army. One day
he walked in the classroom and wrote the names of eighteen
countries on the board. He then looked at us and said, “The
United States spends more on its military than the next eighteen
countries in the world combined. Why do we need that much
military spending? Isn’t that insane?”
My professor then explained that immense war spending
impoverishes the American people. None of the students in the
class said anything. I was shocked by what he told us and did
not know how to respond. Disturbed by our silence, he said, “I’m
surprised you all aren’t more outraged by this. Why do we need
that much military spending?”
This week, I read an article written by Stanford professor Ian
Morris, which was featured on the Washington Post website. The
article was titled, “In the long run, wars make us safer and
richer.” His article suggests that war is good for humanity
because it makes us richer (I will also address his argument
that war makes us safer later in this piece). Is this true? Was
my professor incorrect? Studying the reality of military
history—in addition to my experiences as an active duty
soldier—has given me abundant evidence that war makes most
people poorer, not richer.
Over two thousand years ago, Sun Tzu recognized that war
impoverishes most people in a society. In The Art of War, he
said, “When a country is impoverished by military operations, it
is because of transporting supplies to a distant place.
Transport supplies to a distant place, and the populace will be
impoverished. Those who are near the army sell at high prices.
Because of high prices, the wealth of the common people is
exhausted. When resources are exhausted, then levies are made
under pressure. When power and resources are exhausted, then the
homeland is drained. The common people are deprived of seventy
percent of their budget, while the government’s expenses for
equipment amount to sixty percent of its budget.” (1)
Over two thousand years after Sun Tzu lived, the nature of war
has not changed. War still impoverishes most people today.
Writing in the twentieth century, war veteran George Orwell
said, “The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily
of human lives, but of the products of human labor. War is a way
of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or
sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might
otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence,
in the long run, too intelligent.” (2)
Also realizing that war harms humanity in many ways, General
Dwight Eisenhower compared war spending to crucifixion
[font=times new roman]: “Every gun that is made, every warship
launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a
theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold
and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money
alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of
its scientists, the hopes of its children . . . Under the cloud
of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of
iron.” [/font](3)
Gandhi said people can have a piece of the truth, and Professor
Morris certainly has a piece of the truth. He is partially
correct, because war does make some people richer. Major General
Smedley Butler, one of the most decorated Marines in U.S.
history, witnessed the harmful aspects of war that are hidden
from the public. He said, “War is a racket . . . A racket is
best described, I believe, as something that is not what it
seems to the majority of people. Only a small ‘inside’ group
knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the
very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few
people make huge fortunes.” (4)
If we want evidence to support General Butler’s claim that war
“is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of
the very many,” we can look at all of military history.
Professor Morris is correct that humanity has made progress, but
he mistakenly attributes this progress exclusively to war. He
says, “By many estimates, 10 to 20 percent of all Stone Age
humans died at the hands of other people . . . Over the [20th]
century . . . just 1 to 2 percent of the world’s population died
violently. Those lucky enough to be born in the 20th century
were on average 10 times less likely to come to a grisly end
than those born in the Stone Age. And since 2000, the United
Nations tells us, the risk of violent death has fallen even
further, to 0.7 percent . . . Ten thousand years ago, when the
planet’s population was 6 million or so, people lived about 30
years on average . . . Now, more than 7 billion people are on
Earth, living more than twice as long (an average of 67 years) .
. . This happened because about 10,000 years ago, the winners of
wars began incorporating the losers into larger societies.” (5)
HTML http://www.smileyvault.com/albums/userpics/12962/noway.gif
Even if we believe the assumption that “10 to 20 percent of all
Stone Age humans died at the hands of other people” (this
assumption is based on speculation because people back then did
not keep records of homicide rates and there are not enough
skeletal remains to make such a judgment), there are many
reasons why violent deaths have decreased, which Professor
Morris does not mention in his article. A major reason why fewer
people today die from violence is because medical technology has
improved significantly.
Professor Morris’s argument is suspect
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif,
because
he makes the mistake of using murder rates to claim that
violence is decreasing. Because medical technology has improved
so dramatically, however, we must instead look at aggravated
assault rates. In his DVD The Bulletproof Mind, Lieutenant
Colonel Dave Grossman explains:
From this point on, anytime anybody talks to you about violent
crime in terms of the murder rate, completely ignore the data.
The murder rate completely misrepresents the problem across any
period of time. Why? Because medical technology is saving ever
more lives every year . . . If we had 1930s level technology in
America today, the murder rate would easily be ten times what it
is. 1930s level evacuation technology, no ambulance services, no
cars for most people. 1930s notification technology, no 911
systems, no phones for most people. 1930s level medical
technology, no penicillin [penicillin was first discovered in
1928 but was not used widely until the late 1930s and early
1940s], no antibiotics . . . What if every gunshot wound, every
knife wound, every trauma wound, there were no phones, there
were no cars, and when you finally got the guy to the hospital,
there were no antibiotics or penicillin? How many more would
die? Easily ten times as many.
Read the rest of this truth filled and myth busting article
here:
HTML http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/geopolitics/power-structures-in-human-society-pros-and-cons-part-1/msg1281/#msg1281
#Post#: 1281--------------------------------------------------
WAR Makes Us Poorer - CONTINUED
By: AGelbert Date: June 4, 2014, 9:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
WAR Makes Us Poorer (CONTINUED FROM ABOVE)
We believe that another figure that carefully parallels and
tracks to give us an indicator of what it might be like is the
child mortality rate. And the child mortality rate in the year
1900 was 30 times what it is today . . . So what you’ve got to
look at is not the murder rate, but you’ve got to look at the
rate at which people are trying to kill one another off. And
that is best represented by the aggravated assault rate. And
aggravated assault in 1957 was 65 per 100,000. By the early
1990s, it has gone up to almost 450 per 100,000, a seven-fold
increase. Seven times more likely to be a victim of violent
crime than we were in the 1950s. Now, it went down a little bit
throughout the 1990s . . . but even with that little downtown in
the 1990s, we’re still five times greater than we were in the
1950s.(6)
Professor Morris also suggests that war has created societies
with a higher standard of living that are more peaceful,
organized, and inclusive, but again he mistakenly attributes
this progress to war. Did war accomplish all of this progress,
or did nonviolent struggle play a crucial role? For example,
America’s Founding Fathers rebelled against the British Empire
because they felt unfairly treated. They believed it was unjust
to be controlled or taxed without the opportunity to participate
in the political process. They also believed that those who
govern must gain the consent of the governed. The motto “No
taxation without representation” echoed their grievances and
became a call to arms, leading to the American Revolution.
Decades after the war ended, however, less than 10 percent of
Americans could vote in national elections. Women could not vote
(or own property or graduate from college). African Americans
could not vote. And most white people could not vote unless they
owned land. During the early nineteenth century “No taxation
without representation” only seemed to apply to a minority of
rich landowners. ;) >:(
How did so many Americans increase their liberties during the
past two hundred years? Did non-landowners fight a war to
achieve the right to vote? Did women fight a war to get the
right to vote? Did African Americans fight a war to attain their
civil rights? Did American workers fight a war to gain their
rights? Was a war fought for child labor laws? These victories
for liberty and justice were achieved because people waged
peace, but most of us are not taught this important part of our
history.
Although the American Civil War kept our country together, it
took a peaceful movement—the civil rights movement—before
African Americans truly got their human rights. And how many
European countries fought a civil war to end slavery? Zero.
A person can make an informed argument that war was needed to
stop Hitler in the 1940s or end American slavery in the
nineteenth century, but that is not Professor Morris’s point. He
claims that war makes humanity richer
HTML http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TzWpwHzCvCI/T_sBEnhCCpI/AAAAAAAAME8/IsLpuU8HYxc/s1600/nooo-way-smiley.gif,<br
/>even though military history contains countless examples of
conquerors turning conquered peoples into slaves or second-class
citizens, exploiting the resources of conquered nations, and
neglecting the basic needs of their own people in order to fund
a rapidly growing war machine.
It is difficult to debunk all the myths in Professor Morris’s
article in this short piece, because these myths were not
created by him, but are deeply entrenched in societies around
the world. Recent research shows that another commonly believed
myth in our society is also harming us. Professor Morris echoes
this myth by saying, “People almost never give up their
freedoms—including, at times, the right to kill and impoverish
one another—unless forced to do so; and virtually the only force
strong enough to bring this about has been defeat in war or fear
that such a defeat is imminent.” (7)
The groundbreaking research of Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan
debunks the myth that war is the only way to overcome oppression
by showing that nonviolence has become more effective than
violence at combating injustice. Erica Chenoweth explains, “From
1900 to 2006, nonviolent campaigns worldwide were twice as
likely to succeed outright as violent insurgencies. And there’s
more. This trend has been increasing over time, so that in the
last fifty years, nonviolent campaigns are becoming increasingly
successful and common, whereas violent insurgencies are becoming
increasingly rare and unsuccessful. This is true even in those
extremely brutal authoritarian conditions where I expected
nonviolent resistance to fail.” (8)
Before learning from my West Point professor in 2001, I would
have agreed with Professor Morris’s arguments, but then I
learned about the deeper reality of war, and studied how
nonviolence has become more effective than war as a way of
solving our problems in the twenty-first century.
What are some of the problems we must solve today? The 2009 U.S.
Army Sustainability Report lists several threats to national
security, which include severe income disparity, poverty, and
climate change. The report tells us: “The Army is facing several
global challenges to sustainability that create a volatile
security environment with an increased potential for conflict .
. . Globalization’s increased interdependence and connectivity
has led to greater disparities in wealth, which foster
conditions that can lead to conflict . . . Population growth and
poverty; the poor in fast-growing urban areas are especially
vulnerable to antigovernment and radical ideologies . . .
Climate change and natural disasters strain already limited
resources, increasing the potential for humanitarian crises and
population migrations.” (9)
When the U.S. Army states that “greater disparities in wealth .
. . poverty . . . and climate change” are dangerous, these are
some of the same concerns expressed by the Occupy movement. War
cannot protect us from any of these dangers, and if we keep
believing the myth that war is the only way, we will not be able
to solve the problems that threaten human survival in the
twenty-first century. Because we have the ability to destroy
ourselves with nuclear weapons, if we keep believing the myth
that war is the only way, we will keep pursuing war despite the
clear evidence that it threatens human survival. If we keep
believing the myth that war is the only way, we will continue to
create conditions that make us less safe.[/size]
What could humanity achieve if we end war? According to a study
conducted by Robert Pollin and Heidi Garrett-Peltier at the
University of Massachusetts, Amherst, an economy focused on
peaceful priorities would employ many more Americans than an
economy that wages war. In their study they said: “This study
focuses on the employment effects of military spending versus
alternative domestic spending priorities, in particular
investments in clean energy, health care and education . . . We
show that investments in clean energy, health care and education
create a much larger number of jobs across all pay ranges,
including mid-range jobs and high-paying jobs. Channeling funds
into clean energy, health care and education in an effective way
will therefore create significantly greater opportunities for
decent employment throughout the U.S. economy than spending the
same amount of funds with the military.” (10)
What else could humanity achieve if we end war? General Douglas
MacArthur, who had a deep understanding of war that we can all
learn from, said, “The great question is: Can global war now be
outlawed from the world? If so, it would mark the greatest
advance in civilization since the Sermon on the Mount. It would
lift at one stroke the darkest shadow which has engulfed mankind
from the beginning. It would not only remove fear and bring
security—it would not only create new moral and spiritual
values—it would produce an economic wave of prosperity that
would raise the world’s standard of living beyond anything ever
dreamed of by man. The hundreds of billions of dollars now spent
in mutual preparedness [for war] could conceivably abolish
poverty from the face of the earth.” (11)
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/earthhug.gif
Endnotes
1. Sun Tzu, The Art of War, trans. Thomas Cleary (Boston:
Shambhala, 1988), 25-27.
2. George Orwell, 1984, (New York: Signet Classics, 1977), 157.
3. Dwight D. Eisenhower, “The Chance for Peace,” speech
delivered before the American Society of Newspaper Editors,
1953.
4. Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler, War Is a Racket: The
Antiwar Classic by America’s Most Decorated Soldier (Los
Angeles: Feral House, 2003), 23.
5. Ian Morris, “In the long run, wars make us safer and richer,”
HTML http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-the-long-run-wars-make…icher/2014/04/25/a4207660-c965-11e3-a75e-463587891b57_story.html.
6. The Bulletproof Mind, DVD, 2008, Dave Grossman and Gavin de
Becker.
7. Ian Morris, “In the long run, wars make us safer and
richer,”
HTML http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-the-long-run-wars-make…icher/2014/04/25/a4207660-c965-11e3-a75e-463587891b57_story.html.
8. “The Success of Nonviolent Civil Resistance: Erica Chenoweth
at TEDxBoulder,”
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJSehRlU34w.
9. U.S. Army Sustainability Report 2009,
HTML http://www.aepi.army.mil/docs/whatsnew/<br
/>FinALArmySustainabilityreport2010.pdf.
10. The U.S. Employment Effects of Military and Domestic
Spending Priorities: An Updated Analysis by Robert Pollin and
Heidi Garrett-Peltier,
HTML http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/published_study/spending_priorities_Peri.pdf.
11. General MacArthur: Speeches and Reports: 1908-1964, Edward
T. Imparato, ed. (Paducah, KY: Turner Publishing, 2000), 237.
This entry was posted in Peace and tagged military-industrial
complex, Paul K. Chappell on May 1, 2014 by Paul K. Chappell.
HTML http://www.wagingpeace.org/war-makes-us-poorer/
#Post#: 1370--------------------------------------------------
End Coporate Rule! Legitimize Democracy!
By: AGelbert Date: June 14, 2014, 3:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Jesse Dellinger, PA
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-077.gif<br
/>wants to end corporate rule in the USA.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_0293.gif
Me too!
Pass the word to sign this petition!
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-028.gifEnd<br
/>Corporate Rule!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/acigar.gifhttp://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__burp.gif[font=times<br
/>new roman]Legitimize Democracy!
[/font]
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
HTML https://movetoamend.org/
HTML http://freespeechforpeople.org/node/527<br
/>
HTML http://termlimits.org/
#Post#: 1474--------------------------------------------------
Re: Power Structures in Human Society: Pros and Cons Part 1
By: AGelbert Date: June 30, 2014, 5:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-106.gif
[move][font=courier]In Landmark Ruling, Canada's Supreme Court
Deeds Land to Aboriginal Tribe for the First Time! ;D
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/47b20s0.gif<br
/>
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/za4.gif[/font][/move]
06/27/2014 04:03 PM
SustainableBusiness.com News
Great news today as Canada's Supreme Court gave First Nations
more than they dared hope for.
For the first time! the court granted aboriginal people title to
their land. The unanimous 8-0 vote deeds them over 675 square
miles in central British Columbia. [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.clker.com/cliparts/c/8/f/8/11949865511933397169thumbs_up_nathan_eady_01.svg.hi.png[/img]<br
/>
About 3000 people are part of Tsilhqot'in - a collection of six
aboriginal bands. The court ruled because the tribe wasn't
consulted when commercial logging was approved. They have been
trying stop clear-cut logging for decades.
The ruling, of course, will make it that much harder for the
Northern Gateway tar sands pipeline. ;D Approved last week, it
would pass right through Tsilhqot'in territory, and the 132
First Nations are united in fighting it.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-210614221847.gif
When tribal leaders heard the news the mood was "absolutely
electrifying." "It only took 150 years, but we look forward to a
much brighter future.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/emoticon-object-062.gif
This, without question, will establish a solid platform for
genuine reconciliation to take place in British Columbia," says
Stewart Phillip, Grand Chief and president of the Union of
British Columbia Indian Chiefs, told CBC News. "I didn't think
it would be so definitive. I was actually prepared for something
much less. It's not very often that I'm without words, and I'm
quite overwhelmed at the moment."
"We are in an entirely different ballgame," he told The Star.
"We're moving away from the world of mere consultation into a
world of consent. And that is absolutely enormous when one
considers Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline proposal, the
Kinder-Morgan proposal, and a whole multitude of major resource
projects."
The decision over-rules a 2012 BC Court of Appeals decision that
gave the tribe sweeping rights to hunt and trade on their
traditional land, but to gain title they would have to identify
specific sites where they lived over the centuries, rather than
claim the entire area. Because they are semi-nomadic, the
Supreme Court ruled they need only show that they have inhabited
the land, exclusively and continuously.
But there's a catch. Provincial and federal governments can
carry out economic activity on their land if the tribe consents
or failing that, if government can make the case that
development is "pressing and has a substantial public purpose"
and meets its fiduciary duty to the aboriginal group.
"We support Indigenous peoples' right to free, prior and
informed consent," says Maude Barlow, National Chairperson of
the Council of Canadians, which intervened in the case. "They
are the rightful stewards of their lands, and should be the ones
to decide if and how they are developed. At last, this is sign
that there is no blank cheque for the Northern Gateway project."
The British Columbia and federal government are negotiating some
100 land claims across the country.
HTML http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/25800
#Post#: 1858--------------------------------------------------
American Legalized Genocide based on the "Empty Land"
LIE!
By: AGelbert Date: September 10, 2014, 7:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[img width=700
height=440]
HTML http://www.warpaths2peacepipes.com/images/tribe-location-map-1.jpg[/img]
Thomas Jefferson [img width=160
height=095]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-241013183046.jpeg[/img]<br
/>and Indian removal
Thomas Jefferson was the first U.S. President to propose the
idea of a formal Indian Removal plan.[1][2] Andrew Jackson is
often erroneously credited with initiating Indian Removal,
because Congress passed the Indian Removal Act in 1830, during
his presidency, and also because of his personal involvement in
the forceful extermination and removal of many Eastern tribes.
But Jackson was merely legalizing
HTML http://www.websmileys.com/sm/aliens/hae51.gif
and implementing
[img width=50
height=50]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-070814193155.png[/img]<br
/>a plan laid out by Jefferson in a series of private letters th
at
began in 1803, although Jefferson did not implement the plan
during his own presidency.[1]
HTML http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_Indian_removal
[img width=700
height=200]
HTML http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/68/5a/e2/685ae2baf8140efaf894402cdc375d82.jpg[/img]
USA! USA! USA! INTEGRITY, HONESTY, DUTY, HONOR, COUNTRY, etc.
[img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img]<br
/>
#Post#: 1864--------------------------------------------------
Actus reus 9/11 Facina -oris
By: AGelbert Date: September 13, 2014, 3:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Golden Oxen link=topic=3376.msg56387#msg56387
date=1410635717]
[quote]Change is change but in my comment I make it very clear
change resulting from 9-11 was bad. I say ugly and dark. You
must have missed that.
Ugly and dark with self-serving assholes who usurped the tragedy
and took the country in directions which enriched them.
Directions which solidified their control but left America
circling the drain with no future. Intensifying the exact
problem which they would with crocodile tears claim was behind
the tragedy. As much a shock to them as everyone else they can
claim but what to do with the tragedy was already a chapter in
their play-book. [/quote]
Exactly my feelings on the matter. Wish I could have explained
them so precisely. Ugly, Dark, Bad, Solidified their Control,
Self-Serving Ass Holes, Enriching themselves before they split
for Belize and parts unknown. Thanks MKing, You hit that nail
right on it's head. :'( :'( :exp-angry: :exp-angry:
[/quote]
Bull s h i t.
Premeditatio malorum (premeditation of evils) is the mendacious
fig leaf that Rockefeller used to claim he would "turn crisis
into opportunity".
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714191329.bmp
It is an established historical FACT that Rockefeller did
everything in his power through bribery, threats and
skullduggery to CREATE EVERY CRISIS that he subsequently "turned
into an opportunity".
Golden O, YOU and Mking want to play stupid by willfully
refusing to accept that those who bono from 9/11 were the SAME
ONES who, because of Mens Rea, Committed Actus reus 9/11
Facina -oris . I get it. Most of us here understand why. ;D
But since I'm in a good mood today, I gave you S[sup]3[/sup]
fellows a chance to pretend you don't want to bother to look up
"silly" latin legal expressions. [img width=40
height=40]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-051113192052.png[/img]<br
/>
[font=times new roman]Te conozco bacalao aunque vengas disfrazao
(“I can see straight through you and you can’t fool me”)[/font]
NOTE: "S[sup]3[/sup] fellows" is my shorthand for mendacity
addicted fellows who continuously write Self Serving Statements
(S "cubed" ;D) to justify their propaganda and narcissistic
egocentric world view.
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh8nphnBwZ8&feature=player_embedded
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Zbv2SvBEec&feature=player_embedded
#Post#: 1865--------------------------------------------------
Re: Power Structures in Human Society: Pros and Cons Part 1
By: AGelbert Date: September 13, 2014, 3:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Golden Oxen (Libertarian) said, [quote]The Patriot act was the
end of us the way I see it. It's been straight down hill from
there. :'([/quote]
[img width=640
height=380]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-060914180334.png[/img]
[img width=640
height=480]
HTML http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RASgI8UCy0o/UG253WL1bLI/AAAAAAAABV0/sCdXzsDCLdk/s1600/bugs%2Bbunny%2Brides%2Bagain.png[/img]
[move]Hi Amigo, welcome to the club. [/move]
Yep, it sure is painful when all those "good Germans" start
getting the SAME TREATMENT they have dished out for centuries to
the blackies and brownies. But misery so loves company.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-200714183543.bmp
[img width=100
height=100]
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-forum/popcorn.gif[/img]
#Post#: 1866--------------------------------------------------
Re: Power Structures in Human Society: Pros and Cons Part 1
By: AGelbert Date: September 13, 2014, 4:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
K-Dog said,[quote] I say agreement is be more important than how
it happened, but if the truth be dark, let there be
justice.[/quote]
I say that HOW it happened is part of Due Process of Law in
coming to an AGREEMENT on WHO Committed Actus Reus 9/11 . Ya
CAN'T get to agreement (I.E. Judgment followed by Justice in the
form of a Sentence) without the HOW.
As to "justice", how far up the rat line of perpetrators,
planners, executers, cover-up artists after the crime are you
willing to GO to reimburse WE-THE-PEOPLE for the damages in
addition to the prison punishments for the crime? Are you
willing to have the assets stripped of Exxon because THEIR
representatives were present with Cheney in the White House in
the Planning of 9/11?
Are you willing to imprison most of the top brass in the USAF
because they coordinated and surreptitiously funded the wing
structure beefing up and preparation of B767 drone aircraft
that could make banked turns at over 100 knots over (which would
have torn the wings off a normal B767) above design speed before
impacting the WTC towers?
The list goes ON and ON. The FACT that it goes ON and ON was
part and parcel of the planning to get a pack of people to "make
their bones", so to speak, so they would be willing, able and
ready to kill anyone who talked.
Let me make it short and not very sweet for you, K-Dog: If
JUSTICE is be done, our ENTIRE system of fascist fossil fuel
government must be replaced (THAT IS NOT GOING TO BE ALLOWED
WITHOUT A HUGE SPILLING OF BLOOD so FORGET IT!) and billions of
dollars worth of assets among the richest and most influential
Americans must be sold and the money placed DIRECTLY in the
hands of the taxpayers that unwittingly funded this Facina -oris
, the cover up and the trillion dollar Iraqi bloodfest.
The MONEY HAS NOT "disappeared" like the over 4 trillion Rummy
said was "unaccounted for" the day before 9/11. WE KNOW WHERE IT
IS. It's in property, stocks and precious metals.
Justice is NOT ACCOMPLISHED by simply putting every last one of
the perpetrators in prison WITHOUT reimbursing WE-THE-PEOPLE for
damages. And you can be SURE that over 99% of the perpetrators
will NEVER be brought to justice on planet earth.
What we CAN do is remove all credibility from government
propaganda outlets. If you are not even willing to take the
DEFAULT position that our government is a criminal gang and lies
on a regular basis, then your laudable request for Justice,
regardless of who has Mens Rea, is quixotic, period.
AS long as you DON'T take that default position, things WILL GET
WORSE.
#Post#: 1867--------------------------------------------------
Re: Power Structures in Human Society: Pros and Cons Part 1
By: AGelbert Date: September 13, 2014, 6:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Golden O, I admit you have a tremendous capacity for looking out
for number one. :evil4: And you are proud of it too! :(
Golden O said, [quote]AG, Do you really blame me for trying to
save and invest to acquire money?
You have certainly made it clear what one can expect having the
government, Blankfein and Company, Our loving corporations and
bosses, or heavens forbid Charity from the wealthy look after me
and my family.
Would you really be more fond of me or think me a better person
if I were on Food Stamps and broke waiting for a welfare check?
Why do you dislike people that are in dread fear of being in
that situation, especially in their elderly years?[/quote]
Golden O,
This is not about you. This is about my quick reaction to
ANYBODY that alleges that premeditatio malorum EXPLAINS
everything that went on after 9/11 as simple opportunism by
conscience free assholes who just "turned crises into
opportunity".
That's not just TOTAL BULLSHIT in regard to 9/11, it's
EMBLEMATIC of the blame shifting rhetoric of Wall Street
Greedballs in EVERYTHING THEY DO. Your refusal to connect those
BLATANT DOTS serves as a comfort to people who read and respect
your writing who do not want to question the government 9/11
fairy tale.
How much money you have is not the issue. The issue is that
things will get worse as long as our government has credibility.
For example, if Wall Street lost all credibility, no stocks
could get sold. In fact, a huge bullshit exercise has gone on
since 2008 with funny money because the overwhelming majority of
Americans DO NOT HAVE A NICKEL in stocks because Wall Street has
lost all credibility.
Every second of every day that learned people like you DO NOT
take the default position that the government is a criminal
gang, with 9/11 being just one more notch on their fascist "gun"
butt, ensures that those VERY PEOPLE practicing REAL
premeditatio malorum (who dispassionately took advantage 9/11
by profiting even though they did not participate in the crime -
BUY GOLD -The TRADE OF THE DECADE!) are CONTRIBUTING to
encroaching fascism and loss of freedoms for all.
And what's their (your) excuse? That because humans are selfish,
being selfish is
okay.
HTML http://www.desismileys.com/smileys/desismileys_2932.gif<br
/>Never mind that a little selfishness is like light and dark in
comparison with a LOT of selfishness that leads to empire
expansion, 9/11 murders, wars for profit, oil price shocks and
bank bail outs. :emthdown:
Nobody wants to be poor. That is not a valid reason for AVOIDING
taking the default position that the government is criminal as
well as acting on our responsibility to CONSTANTLY doubt
ANYTHING the gooberment pushes as truth. IOW, looking out for
number one is socially self destructive when taken to "Im just
makin' money for the family" premeditatio malorum .
It's not okay. It's making things worse. Sure, you might make
less money by not going with the predatory capitalist immoral
style opportunistic premeditatio malorum. But it's hyperbole to
worry about going to the poorhouse because you have principles!
[img width=740
height=230]
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-100914200618.png[/img]
The old status quo where a large percentage of the population
could maintain a certain level of privilege while turning a
blind eye to those terrorized or just shafted by the AUTHORITIES
that defended whitey are coming to an end. That process ACTUALLY
has been going on since this country was founded! It just took a
lot longer for it to happen here than it did in Germany. Nine
Eleven was the FINAL PUSH.
It's ALWAYS the fate of "Good Germans" to be suckered by the
most evil among them. Compromising with evil is ALWAYS the start
of a slippery and continuously DOWNHILL slope, period.
*****************************************************
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page