Mick, this would seem to be a breach between church and state . . . what semi-religious organization gets this freedom . . . can the Mormon, Catholic, Baptist Churches, etc. place a plaque on the cornerstone of a public building . . . ??
I wouldn't be surprised - we have "In God We Trust" splattered everywhere, and most politicians are highly religious. But the Freemasons are not technically a religion. They do not ascribe to an particular supreme being or religious dogma, which is what the separation of church and state is about.
I'm not sure, but haven't the freemasons been similar to the Rotary Club, basically a group of self-styled community leaders (like a local business group) trying to do good deeds? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_International
But they just have a bit of mystical ceremony stuff added in.
Things like that used to be in fashion.
It was entertaining and they didn't have a lot of television or computer games, and group bonding is an ancient drive.
I'm not sure, but haven't the freemasons been similar to the Rotary Club, basically a group of self-styled community leaders (like a local business group) trying to do good deeds? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_International
But they just have a bit of mystical ceremony stuff added in.
Things like that used to be in fashion.
It was entertaining and they didn't have a lot of television or computer games, and group bonding is an ancient drive.
Calling the notion that the 21st century is the American century a “shared delusion,” Brzezinski stated that American domination was no longer possible because of an accelerating social change driven by “instant mass communications such as radio, television and the Internet,” which have been cumulatively stimulating “a universal awakening of mass political consciousness.”
The former US National Security Advisor added that this “rise in worldwide populist activism is proving inimical to external domination of the kind that prevailed in the age of colonialism and imperialism.”
Brzezinski concluded that “persistent and highly motivated populist resistance of politically awakened and historically resentful peoples to external control has proven to be increasingly difficult to suppress.”
Calling the notion that the 21st century is the American century a “shared delusion,” Brzezinski stated that American domination was no longer possible because of an accelerating social change driven by “instant mass communications such as radio, television and the Internet,” which have been cumulatively stimulating “a universal awakening of mass political consciousness.”
The former US National Security Advisor added that this “rise in worldwide populist activism is proving inimical to external domination of the kind that prevailed in the age of colonialism and imperialism.”
Brzezinski concluded that “persistent and highly motivated populist resistance of politically awakened and historically resentful peoples to external control has proven to be increasingly difficult to suppress.”
Well, except that's NOT what he concluded. The full passage continues:
... instant mass communications such as radio, television and the Internet cumulatively have been stimulating a universal awakening of mass political consciousness. The resulting rise in worldwide populist activism is proving inimical to external domination of the kind that prevailed in the age of colonialism and imperialism. Persistent and highly motivated populist resistance of politically awakened and historically resentful peoples to external control has proven to be increasingly difficult to suppress, as protacted guerrilla warfares in Vietnam, Algeria, or Afganistan, have amply demonstrated. And as the rising tumoil in both the Middle East, and South West Asia are foreshadowing."
He then goes on to describe how nuclear weapons have created world peace between superpowers, and how the rise of China and Asia has changed the distribution of global power. Then he talks about the position of America in the world in fairly vague terms, but with America still being a major power.
So he's not really talking about American political consciousness. He's not talking about you. He's talking about the rest of the world, and its resistance to American "benevolent hegemony".
Well, except that's NOT what he concluded. The full passage continues:
... instant mass communications such as radio, television and the Internet cumulatively have been stimulating a universal awakening of mass political consciousness. The resulting rise in worldwide populist activism is proving inimical to external domination of the kind that prevailed in the age of colonialism and imperialism. Persistent and highly motivated populist resistance of politically awakened and historically resentful peoples to external control has proven to be increasingly difficult to suppress, as protacted guerrilla warfares in Vietnam, Algeria, or Afganistan, have amply demonstrated. And as the rising tumoil in both the Middle East, and South West Asia are foreshadowing."
He then goes on to describe how nuclear weapons have created world peace between superpowers, and how the rise of China and Asia has changed the distribution of global power. Then he talks about the position of America in the world in fairly vague terms, but with America still being a major power.
So he's not really talking about American political consciousness. He's not talking about you. He's talking about the rest of the world, and its resistance to American "benevolent hegemony".
He's also talking about "Algerian War") was a revolution against France by the Algerian independence movements from 1954 to 1962, which led to Algeria gaining its independence from France
and
Afghanistan... presumably Iraq as well
and
The Arab Spring uprisings etc
and
How America is failing to enforce it's new world order on those countries and bring them into an American Empire, similar to the old British Empire?
I think it does. He is plainly talking about U.S hegemony in terms of 'benevolent globalism' but many people worldwide do not see it that way and also many Americans and Europeans do not see it that way either.
I think Nixon said said something along the lines of 'the anti war protests are the reason America will not win the Vietnam war'. I think it also had something to do with the VC et al as well
"Calling the notion that the 21st century is the American century a “shared delusion,” Brzezinski stated that American domination was no longer possible because of an accelerating social change driven by “instant mass communications such as radio, television and the Internet,” which have been cumulatively stimulating “a universal awakening of mass political consciousness.”
It is strange he should start by referring to the notion that the 21st century is the American century, and then cite 20th century wars.
Yes there has been radio and tv for years but he seems really to be referring to the internet.
He is talking about future plans, not about the past.
Many in the West are concerned, as am I, when he, (and others elite globalists), espouse the idea of a so called utopia where “The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities,” wrote Brzezinski.
"Calling the notion that the 21st century is the American century a “shared delusion,” Brzezinski stated that American domination was no longer possible because of an accelerating social change driven by “instant mass communications such as radio, television and the Internet,” which have been cumulatively stimulating “a universal awakening of mass political consciousness.”
"Not surprisingly the one-sided, but peaceful, victory of America over Soviet Russia, gave birth to the brief, but widely shared, illusion that the 21st century would hence be the American century. With the United States acting as the worlds benevolent hedgemon. Twenty years later a truly comprehensive American global domination is no longer possible. That is so for several reasons. In recent decades, world-wide social change has experience unprecedented historical acceleration, particularly because instant mass communications such as radio, television and the Internet cumulatively have been stimulating a universal awakening of mass political consciousness. The resulting rise in worldwide populist activism is proving inimical to external domination of the kind that prevailed in the age of colonialism and imperialism. Persistent and highly motivated populist resistance of politically awakened and historically resentful peoples to external control has proven to be increasingly difficult to suppress, as protacted guerrilla warfares in Vietnam, Algeria, or Afganistan, have amply demonstrated. And as the rising tumoil in both the Middle East, and South West Asia are foreshadowing."
Why does infowars selectively quote (and misquote) him, when it would take less space to actually just show the transcript?
How does this brief illusion (not delusion) that arose from the cold war victory fit into the NWO plan?
And he's talking about "in recent decades", which would probably be around 30-40 year of the past. Not the future.
I think it does. He is plainly talking about U.S hegemony in terms of 'benevolent globalism' but many people worldwide do not see it that way and also many Americans and Europeans do not see it that way either.
Yes. Misquoting was also discussed in that thrived debunked article that I linked earlier. But since -he is talking about NWO again, here,s another article :
"Not surprisingly the one-sided, but peaceful, victory of America over Soviet Russia, gave birth to the brief, but widely shared, illusion that the 21st century would hence be the American century. With the United States acting as the worlds benevolent hedgemon. Twenty years later a truly comprehensive American global domination is no longer possible. That is so for several reasons. In recent decades, world-wide social change has experience unprecedented historical acceleration, particularly because instant mass communications such as radio, television and the Internet cumulatively have been stimulating a universal awakening of mass political consciousness. The resulting rise in worldwide populist activism is proving inimical to external domination of the kind that prevailed in the age of colonialism and imperialism. Persistent and highly motivated populist resistance of politically awakened and historically resentful peoples to external control has proven to be increasingly difficult to suppress, as protacted guerrilla warfares in Vietnam, Algeria, or Afganistan, have amply demonstrated. And as the rising tumoil in both the Middle East, and South West Asia are foreshadowing."
Why does infowars selectively quote (and misquote) him, when it would take less space to actually just show the transcript?
How does this brief illusion (not delusion) that arose from the cold war victory fit into the NWO plan?
And he's talking about "in recent decades", which would probably be around 30-40 year of the past. Not the future.
"leadership", "rule") is an indirect form of government of imperialdominance in which the hegemon (leader state) rules geopolitically sub-ordinate states by the implied means of power, the threat of the threat, rather than by direct military force
Well according to that we are using the wrong terminology anyway, as the U.S. is trying to rule by direct force, i.e. war, which is why they are running themselves into financial ruin maintaining a military expenditure surpassing the rest of the world combined.
It appears to many, they are either imposing regime change to install governments sympathetic to them or to underpin governments sympathetic to them. Where morality and pragmatism collide, pragmatism wins hands down. This has not endeared the U.S. to downtrodden peoples of the bloody regimes which the U.S. has supported and even now supports.
"Not surprisingly the one-sided, but peaceful, victory of America over Soviet Russia, gave birth to the brief, but widely shared, illusion that the 21st century would hence be the American century. With the United States acting as the worlds benevolent hedgemon.
Here he is clearly saying that from the 'fall of Russia', 1989, an illusion that the 21st century would be America's to rule by hegemony. Which America has clearly tried to do. A conspiracy if you will albeit a conspiracy that many other powers would also like to promote global domination with.
America has failed and continues to fail because people, including many peoples of the West, see what is coming and want no part of it.
i.e. “The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities,” wrote Brzezinski.
'We' DO NOT WANT IT! WE DO NOT WANT TO BE CONTROLLED MONITORED TAGGED SURVEILED AND TREATED LIKE LIVESTOCK.
No apology for the shouting... we really do not want it.
The British have it already. On top of the other "stuff", it's no big deal. The same will apply to the rest of the world. Nobody wants to be dominated, so nobody will dominate them. The benefits that come with it are to good to resist. It's not "Americanization". It's just technological progress. Progress that's about to supersede RFID, for instance, but will still mean that no individual is anonymous.
The British have it already. On top of the other "stuff", it's no big deal. The same will apply to the rest of the world. Nobody wants to be dominated, so nobody will dominate them. The benefits that come with it are to good to resist. It's not "Americanization". It's just technological progress. Progress that's about to supersede RFID, for instance, but will still mean that no individual is anonymous.
It is an issue to a lot of people and they are quite rightly protesting about it. It amounts to a NWO, which authorities deny and denounce as a Conspiracy Theory of nutters but as anyone can see, who is awake, whether they are in denial or not and if they ore only denying it in order to promulgate and bring it to fruition.... it is THE PLAN.
Fortunately, the same technology which makes it feasible, enables people to fight against it. And we appear to be winning the info war at least.
It sounds great, a 'benevolent world government' where there are no wars and man can become as gods free from religion, but who is it for ask yourself that. You may have a part in the security or enforcement process which gives you and your family a good living and power but you are still well down in the pecking order and any slight disobedience can demote you to the riff raff class.
Is that really the sort of world you want. Like a real life 'Hunger Games'.
The other thing people, especially Christians, fear is mass compulsion using force and internment. It has happened in the past and it is not a pretty sight. You are looking at BILLIONS being killed to bring this about.
After it is done, no doubt it will be 'widely regretted' as collateral damage. And, 'all we can do is move on and make the best of it', 'we have a chance for a new beginning' etc etc
It is an issue to a lot of people and they are quite rightly protesting about it. It amounts to a NWO, which authorities deny and denounce as a Conspiracy Theory of nutters but as anyone can see, who is awake, whether they are in denial or not and if they ore only denying it in order to promulgate and bring it to fruition.... it is THE PLAN.
Fortunately, the same technology which makes it feasible, enables people to fight against it. And we appear to be winning the info war at least.
It sounds great, a 'benevolent world government' where there are no wars and man can become as gods free from religion, but who is it for ask yourself that. You may have a part in the security or enforcement process which gives you and your family a good living and power but you are still well down in the pecking order and any slight disobedience can demote you to the riff raff class.
Is that really the sort of world you want. Like a real life 'Hunger Games'.
Just butting into this, but a world without wars is stupid. War is profitable, creates jobs and makes the economy better. It is a common known fact that when World War II ended, we were out of the Great Depression.
I asked for the courtesy of allowing me to present an argument. It is a very intricate and largely hidden subject.
I am trying to make said argument in as concise and cogent manner as possible. With the best will in the world, I cannot write a few lines and hey presto 'prove' a theory. My time constraints will mean that I can only present it piecemeal.
I thought we were all discussing this as mature adults who share an interest, albeit from different perspectives, in conspiracy theories.
If you have a genuine interest, and I have no reason to suppose to the contrary, then please extend to me the requested courtesy. As I have stated before, there is no compulsion for anyone to read what I say, let alone give it any weight. We are all volunteers here.
There's people that find phalluses in disney cartoons and think that proves a deliberate subliminal satanic agenda.
Penis! So what? It's just a relic of a puritan cultural hangup. You have to have a repressive christian interpretation of sex for a phallus to represent anything sinister.
People have been fascinated with genitals for as long as we've had them. And we do tend to visually turn things into them very easily.
I just watched Alex Jones: Dark Secrets of Bohemian Grove. It's a huge case of "those people who see X everywhere". He goes in convinced he's going to witness satanic rituals and human sacrifice, so that's what he sees.
There's nothing there. It's just a bunch of guys in a rather silly private club, performing rather silly plays that the audience seems to be half embarresed to be watching, and containing nothing more that juvenile allegorical prose.
Hail, Bohemians. With the ripple of waters, the song of birds, such music as inspires the stinking soul, do we invite you into Midsummer's joy. The sky above is blue and sewn with stars. The forest floor is heaped with fragrant grit. The evening's cool kiss is yours. The campfires glow. The birth of rosy-fingered dawn. Shake off your sorrows with the city's dust and cast to the winds the cares of life. But memory bring back the well-loved names of gallant friends who knew and loved this grove, dear boon companions of the long ago.
Aye, let them join us in this ritual, not a place be empty in our midst. All these battles to hold in this gray autumn of the world or in springtime in your heart, attend our tale. Gather ye, forest folk, and cast your spell over these mortals. Touch their world blind eyes with carrion.
Open their eyes to fancy. Follow the memories of yesterday and seal the gates of sorrow. It is a dream and yet, not all a dream. Dull Care in all of his works harbored it. As vanished Babylon and goodly Tyre, so shall they also vanish. But the wilding rose blows on the broken battlements of Tyre. And moss rends the stones of Babylon.
For beauty is eternal, and we bow to beauty everlasting. For lasting happiness, we turn to one alone, and she surrounds you know. Great nature, refuge of the weary heart. And only found her breasts that had been bruised. She has cool hands for every fevered brow and dreadless silence for the troubled soul. Her councils are most wise, she healeth well, having such ministries as calm and sleep. She is ever faithful. Other friends may fail, but seek ye her in any quiet place, smiling, she will rise and give to you her kiss. So ye must come as children, little children that believe don't ever doubt her beauty or her faith nor deem her tenderness can change or die.
The other thing people, especially Christians, fear is mass compulsion using force and internment. It has happened in the past and it is not a pretty sight. You are looking at BILLIONS being killed to bring this about.
After it is done, no doubt it will be 'widely regretted' as collateral damage. And, 'all we can do is move on and make the best of it', 'we have a chance for a new beginning' etc etc
The other thing people, especially Christians, fear is mass compulsion using force and internment. It has happened in the past and it is not a pretty sight. You are looking at BILLIONS being killed to bring this about.
After it is done, no doubt it will be 'widely regretted' as collateral damage. And, 'all we can do is move on and make the best of it', 'we have a chance for a new beginning' etc etc
With that big Denver Airpot theory, where they will ship all of us into the airport, transport us underground (which has never been seen, but there is proof it exists regardless) , and kill us like they did in concentration camps in World War II. In other words- Toxic gasses. But that was debunked here:
Just butting into this, but a world without wars is stupid. War is profitable, creates jobs and makes the economy better. It is a common known fact that when World War II ended, we were out of the Great Depression.
I'm interested in your take on that Oxy, if Nixon is part of the conspiracy, and the Grove is part of the conspiracy then what is this conversation about:
ALL THE PHILOSOPHER KING'S MEN.(President Richard Nixon, John D. Ehrlichman, and H. R. Haldeman)(Brief Article)Harper's Magazine, Feb, 2000, by James Warren From a May 13, 1971, conversation among President Richard Nixon, John D. Ehrlichman, and H. R. Haldeman. On October 5, 1999, the National Archives made available to the public 445 hours of previously unreleased Oval Office tapes. The following dialogue was transcribed by Chicago Tribune reporter James Warren.
RICHARD NIXON: We're going to [put] more of these little Negro bastards on the welfare rolls at $2,400 a family--let people like Pat Moynihan and [special consultant] Leonard Garment and others believe in all that crap. But I don't believe in it. Work, work--throw 'em off the rolls. That's the key.
JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN: The key is Reagan's neutrality. If Reagan blasts this thing and says it's not strong enough on the work-requirement end, that will be very bad.
NIXON: I have the greatest affection for them [blacks], but I know they're not going to make it for 500 years. They aren't. You know it, too. The Mexicans are a different cup of tea. They have a heritage. At the present time they steal, they're dishonest, but they do have some concept of family life. They don't live like a bunch of dogs, which the Negroes do live like.
EHRLICHMAN: The Mexican American is not as good as the Mexican. You go down to Mexico--they're clean, they're honest, they're moral.
NIXON: Mexico is a much more moral country.
EHRLICHMAN: Monterrey, Cuernavaca. Go into slum areas, and by God they come out with clean shirts on a Sunday morning.
NIXON: The church. You find a helluva lot less marijuana use in Mexico than the United States.
EHRLICHMAN: The unions are actually a stronger force down there than the church.
NIXON: For what?
EHRLICHMAN: For conduct and social policy.
NIXON: ... CBS ... glorifying homosexuality.
EHRLICHMAN: A panel show?
H. R. HALDEMAN: No, it's a regular show. It's on every week. It's usually just done in the guy's home. It's usually just that guy, who's a hard hat.
NIXON: That's right; he's a hard hat.
EHRLICHMAN: He always looks like a slob.
NIXON: Looks like Jackie Gleason.
HALDEMAN: He has this hippie son-in-law, and usually the general trend is to downgrade him and upgrade the son-in-law--make the square hard hat out to be bad. But a few weeks ago, they had one in which the guy, the son-in-law, wrote a letter to you, President Nixon, to raise hell about something. And the guy said, "You will not write that letter from my home!" Then said, "I'm going to write President Nixon," took off all those sloppy clothes, shaved, and went to his desk and got ready to write his letter to President Nixon. And apparently it was a good episode.
EHRLICHMAN: What's it called?
NIXON: "Archie's Guys." Archie is sitting here with his hippie son-in-law, married to the screwball daughter. The son-in-law apparently goes both ways. This guy. He's obviously queer--wears an ascot--but not offensively so. Very clever. Uses nice language. Shows pictures of his parents. And so Arch goes down to the bar. Sees his best friend, who used to play professional football. Virile, strong, this and that. Then the fairy comes into the bar. I don't mind the homosexuality. I understand it. Nevertheless, goddamn, I don't think you glorify it on public television, homosexuality, even more than you glorify whores. We all know we have weaknesses. But, goddammit, what do you think that does to kids? You know what happened to the Greeks! Homosexuality destroyed them. Sure, Aristotle was a homo. We all know that. So was Socrates.
EHRLICHMAN: But he never had the influence television had.
NIXON: You know what happened to the Romans? The last six Roman emperors were fags. Neither in a public way. You know what happened to the popes? They were layin' the nuns; that's been goin' on for years, centuries. But the Catholic Church went to hell three or four centuries ago. It was homosexual, and it had to be cleaned out. That's what's happened to Britain. It happened earlier to France. Let's look at the strong societies. The Russians. Goddamn, they root 'em out. They don't let 'em around at all. I don't know what they do with them. Look at this country. You think the Russians allow dope? Homosexuality, dope, immorality, are the enemies of strong societies. That's why the Communists and left-wingers are clinging to one another. They're trying to destroy us. I know Moynihan will disagree with this, [Attorney General John] Mitchell will, and Garment will. But, goddamn, we have to stand up to this.
EHRLICHMAN: It's fatal liberality.
NIXON: Huh?
EHRLICHMAN: It's fatal liberality. And with its use on television, it has such leverage.
NIXON: You know what's happened [in northern California]?
EHRLICHMAN: San Francisco has just gone clear over.
NIXON: But it's not just the ratty part of town. The upper class in San Francisco is that way. The Bohemian Grove, which I attend from time to time--it is the most faggy goddamned thing you could ever imagine, with that San Francisco crowd. I can't shake hands with anybody from San Francisco. Decorators. They got to do something. But we don't have to glorify it. You know one of the reasons fashions have made women look so terrible is because the goddamned designers hate women. Designers taking it out on the women. Now they're trying to get some more sexy things coming on again.
EHRLICHMAN: Hot pants.
NIXON: Jesus Christ.
Just butting into this, but a world without wars is stupid. War is profitable, creates jobs and makes the economy better. It is a common known fact that when World War II ended, we were out of the Great Depression.
I'm interested in your take on that Oxy, if Nixon is part of the conspiracy, and the Grove is part of the conspiracy then what is this conversation about:
ALL THE PHILOSOPHER KING'S MEN.(President Richard Nixon, John D. Ehrlichman, and H. R. Haldeman)(Brief Article)Harper's Magazine, Feb, 2000, by James Warren From a May 13, 1971, conversation among President Richard Nixon, John D. Ehrlichman, and H. R. Haldeman. On October 5, 1999, the National Archives made available to the public 445 hours of previously unreleased Oval Office tapes. The following dialogue was transcribed by Chicago Tribune reporter James Warren.
RICHARD NIXON: We're going to [put] more of these little Negro bastards on the welfare rolls at $2,400 a family--let people like Pat Moynihan and [special consultant] Leonard Garment and others believe in all that crap. But I don't believe in it. Work, work--throw 'em off the rolls. That's the key.
JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN: The key is Reagan's neutrality. If Reagan blasts this thing and says it's not strong enough on the work-requirement end, that will be very bad.
NIXON: I have the greatest affection for them [blacks], but I know they're not going to make it for 500 years. They aren't. You know it, too. The Mexicans are a different cup of tea. They have a heritage. At the present time they steal, they're dishonest, but they do have some concept of family life. They don't live like a bunch of dogs, which the Negroes do live like.
EHRLICHMAN: The Mexican American is not as good as the Mexican. You go down to Mexico--they're clean, they're honest, they're moral.
NIXON: Mexico is a much more moral country.
EHRLICHMAN: Monterrey, Cuernavaca. Go into slum areas, and by God they come out with clean shirts on a Sunday morning.
NIXON: The church. You find a helluva lot less marijuana use in Mexico than the United States.
EHRLICHMAN: The unions are actually a stronger force down there than the church.
NIXON: For what?
EHRLICHMAN: For conduct and social policy.
NIXON: ... CBS ... glorifying homosexuality.
EHRLICHMAN: A panel show?
H. R. HALDEMAN: No, it's a regular show. It's on every week. It's usually just done in the guy's home. It's usually just that guy, who's a hard hat.
NIXON: That's right; he's a hard hat.
EHRLICHMAN: He always looks like a slob.
NIXON: Looks like Jackie Gleason.
HALDEMAN: He has this hippie son-in-law, and usually the general trend is to downgrade him and upgrade the son-in-law--make the square hard hat out to be bad. But a few weeks ago, they had one in which the guy, the son-in-law, wrote a letter to you, President Nixon, to raise hell about something. And the guy said, "You will not write that letter from my home!" Then said, "I'm going to write President Nixon," took off all those sloppy clothes, shaved, and went to his desk and got ready to write his letter to President Nixon. And apparently it was a good episode.
EHRLICHMAN: What's it called?
NIXON: "Archie's Guys." Archie is sitting here with his hippie son-in-law, married to the screwball daughter. The son-in-law apparently goes both ways. This guy. He's obviously queer--wears an ascot--but not offensively so. Very clever. Uses nice language. Shows pictures of his parents. And so Arch goes down to the bar. Sees his best friend, who used to play professional football. Virile, strong, this and that. Then the fairy comes into the bar. I don't mind the homosexuality. I understand it. Nevertheless, goddamn, I don't think you glorify it on public television, homosexuality, even more than you glorify whores. We all know we have weaknesses. But, goddammit, what do you think that does to kids? You know what happened to the Greeks! Homosexuality destroyed them. Sure, Aristotle was a homo. We all know that. So was Socrates.
EHRLICHMAN: But he never had the influence television had.
NIXON: You know what happened to the Romans? The last six Roman emperors were fags. Neither in a public way. You know what happened to the popes? They were layin' the nuns; that's been goin' on for years, centuries. But the Catholic Church went to hell three or four centuries ago. It was homosexual, and it had to be cleaned out. That's what's happened to Britain. It happened earlier to France. Let's look at the strong societies. The Russians. Goddamn, they root 'em out. They don't let 'em around at all. I don't know what they do with them. Look at this country. You think the Russians allow dope? Homosexuality, dope, immorality, are the enemies of strong societies. That's why the Communists and left-wingers are clinging to one another. They're trying to destroy us. I know Moynihan will disagree with this, [Attorney General John] Mitchell will, and Garment will. But, goddamn, we have to stand up to this.
EHRLICHMAN: It's fatal liberality.
NIXON: Huh?
EHRLICHMAN: It's fatal liberality. And with its use on television, it has such leverage.
NIXON: You know what's happened [in northern California]?
EHRLICHMAN: San Francisco has just gone clear over.
NIXON: But it's not just the ratty part of town. The upper class in San Francisco is that way. The Bohemian Grove, which I attend from time to time--it is the most faggy goddamned thing you could ever imagine, with that San Francisco crowd. I can't shake hands with anybody from San Francisco. Decorators. They got to do something. But we don't have to glorify it. You know one of the reasons fashions have made women look so terrible is because the goddamned designers hate women. Designers taking it out on the women. Now they're trying to get some more sexy things coming on again.
EHRLICHMAN: Hot pants.
NIXON: Jesus Christ.
Yeah, the more you get an inside look into the minds and lives of the elite, the more you see they are just regular folk who ended up in position of power through luck and hard work. The Bohemian grove video just shows a bunch of ordinary guys messing around. Nixon is just a bigoted politician, quite an ordinary guy.
It is an issue to a lot of people and they are quite rightly protesting about it. It amounts to a NWO, which authorities deny and denounce as a Conspiracy Theory of nutters but as anyone can see, who is awake, whether they are in denial or not and if they ore only denying it in order to promulgate and bring it to fruition.... it is THE PLAN.
Fortunately, the same technology which makes it feasible, enables people to fight against it. And we appear to be winning the info war at least.
It sounds great, a 'benevolent world government' where there are no wars and man can become as gods free from religion, but who is it for ask yourself that. You may have a part in the security or enforcement process which gives you and your family a good living and power but you are still well down in the pecking order and any slight disobedience can demote you to the riff raff class.
Is that really the sort of world you want. Like a real life 'Hunger Games'.
Your assumption for that appears to be a static population on an infinite planet, and not be what actually confronts us at all.
Our position is that of a small boat (in which we're all in) upstream of the Niagara Falls, where we have to agree on a propulsion machine and steering mechanism before we save ourselves. If we don't, we go over, if we do, we save ourselves. Your vote is, apparently, to do nothing...
While the planet had seemingly infinite resources, freedom was an easy thing, wasn't it? You once walked through the Garden of Eden plucking the fruit off trees. Now look what you must do.
Jaw, jaw, jaw, or die, die, die. Freedom has always been, and will always be, an abstraction, and you'll get what you pay for - in effort.
Your assumption for that appears to be a static population on an infinite planet, and not be what actually confronts us at all.
Our position is that of a small boat (in which we're all in) upstream of the Niagara Falls, where we have to agree on a propulsion machine and steering mechanism before we save ourselves. If we don't, we go over, if we do, we save ourselves. Your vote is, apparently, to do nothing...
While the planet had seemingly infinite resources, freedom was an easy thing, wasn't it? You once walked through the Garden of Eden plucking the fruit off trees. Now look what you must do.
Jaw, jaw, jaw, or die, die, die. Freedom has always been, and will always be, an abstraction, and you'll get what you pay for - in effort.
I can deal with honesty, even if I don't like it, I respect peoples right to say it.
Are you suggesting a future along the broad lines of Hunger Games, Time, 1984, Starship Troopers, Star Wars etc, all of which share a broad commonality of an 'all powerful elite' which is technology rich and a sub caste of the plebeian masses which are kept down; is an inevitability?
Population control is definitely a massive issue which needs urgent address. China, being the worst affected, is the first to try to do something about it legislatively by mandating a 'one child only policy'.
Starship Troopers envisages a world in which one must 'earn the right to procreate'.
That's fair enough, the reason I am a bit disturbed about it is because it appears to me a little uneven handed.
For example, when I responded in a personal manner, the post was only partially removed and a stigmatic invitation for me to view 'guidelines' was amended, making it appear that I had overstepped the mark and been reprimanded for it.
However, Clock's post, was simply removed entirely thereby giving this sanitised appearance of 'we do nothing wrong'
It just seems a bit suspicious to me and as I said, uneven handed
That's fair enough, the reason I am a bit disturbed about it is because it appears to me a little uneven handed.
For example, when I responded in a personal manner, the post was only partially removed and a stigmatic invitation for me to view 'guidelines' was amended, making it appear that I had overstepped the mark and been reprimanded for it.
However, Clock's post, was simply removed entirely thereby giving this sanitised appearance of 'we do nothing wrong'
It just seems a bit suspicious to me and as I said, uneven handed
Well, respectfully, I think you seem prone to seeing suspicious things everywhere based on very limited observations. I've done partial edits and warnings on MANY debunker posts. I've also cleanly excised MANY believer posts.
I'm interested in your take on that Oxy, if Nixon is part of the conspiracy, and the Grove is part of the conspiracy then what is this conversation about:
ALL THE PHILOSOPHER KING'S MEN.(President Richard Nixon, John D. Ehrlichman, and H. R. Haldeman)(Brief Article)Harper's Magazine, Feb, 2000, by James Warren From a May 13, 1971, conversation among President Richard Nixon, John D. Ehrlichman, and H. R. Haldeman. On October 5, 1999, the National Archives made available to the public 445 hours of previously unreleased Oval Office tapes. The following dialogue was transcribed by Chicago Tribune reporter James Warren.
RICHARD NIXON: We're going to [put] more of these little Negro bastards on the welfare rolls at $2,400 a family--let people like Pat Moynihan and [special consultant] Leonard Garment and others believe in all that crap. But I don't believe in it. Work, work--throw 'em off the rolls. That's the key.
JOHN D. EHRLICHMAN: The key is Reagan's neutrality. If Reagan blasts this thing and says it's not strong enough on the work-requirement end, that will be very bad.
NIXON: I have the greatest affection for them [blacks], but I know they're not going to make it for 500 years. They aren't. You know it, too. The Mexicans are a different cup of tea. They have a heritage. At the present time they steal, they're dishonest, but they do have some concept of family life. They don't live like a bunch of dogs, which the Negroes do live like.
EHRLICHMAN: The Mexican American is not as good as the Mexican. You go down to Mexico--they're clean, they're honest, they're moral.
NIXON: Mexico is a much more moral country.
EHRLICHMAN: Monterrey, Cuernavaca. Go into slum areas, and by God they come out with clean shirts on a Sunday morning.
NIXON: The church. You find a helluva lot less marijuana use in Mexico than the United States.
EHRLICHMAN: The unions are actually a stronger force down there than the church.
NIXON: For what?
EHRLICHMAN: For conduct and social policy.
NIXON: ... CBS ... glorifying homosexuality.
EHRLICHMAN: A panel show?
H. R. HALDEMAN: No, it's a regular show. It's on every week. It's usually just done in the guy's home. It's usually just that guy, who's a hard hat.
NIXON: That's right; he's a hard hat.
EHRLICHMAN: He always looks like a slob.
NIXON: Looks like Jackie Gleason.
HALDEMAN: He has this hippie son-in-law, and usually the general trend is to downgrade him and upgrade the son-in-law--make the square hard hat out to be bad. But a few weeks ago, they had one in which the guy, the son-in-law, wrote a letter to you, President Nixon, to raise hell about something. And the guy said, "You will not write that letter from my home!" Then said, "I'm going to write President Nixon," took off all those sloppy clothes, shaved, and went to his desk and got ready to write his letter to President Nixon. And apparently it was a good episode.
EHRLICHMAN: What's it called?
NIXON: "Archie's Guys." Archie is sitting here with his hippie son-in-law, married to the screwball daughter. The son-in-law apparently goes both ways. This guy. He's obviously queer--wears an ascot--but not offensively so. Very clever. Uses nice language. Shows pictures of his parents. And so Arch goes down to the bar. Sees his best friend, who used to play professional football. Virile, strong, this and that. Then the fairy comes into the bar. I don't mind the homosexuality. I understand it. Nevertheless, goddamn, I don't think you glorify it on public television, homosexuality, even more than you glorify whores. We all know we have weaknesses. But, goddammit, what do you think that does to kids? You know what happened to the Greeks! Homosexuality destroyed them. Sure, Aristotle was a homo. We all know that. So was Socrates.
EHRLICHMAN: But he never had the influence television had.
NIXON: You know what happened to the Romans? The last six Roman emperors were fags. Neither in a public way. You know what happened to the popes? They were layin' the nuns; that's been goin' on for years, centuries. But the Catholic Church went to hell three or four centuries ago. It was homosexual, and it had to be cleaned out. That's what's happened to Britain. It happened earlier to France. Let's look at the strong societies. The Russians. Goddamn, they root 'em out. They don't let 'em around at all. I don't know what they do with them. Look at this country. You think the Russians allow dope? Homosexuality, dope, immorality, are the enemies of strong societies. That's why the Communists and left-wingers are clinging to one another. They're trying to destroy us. I know Moynihan will disagree with this, [Attorney General John] Mitchell will, and Garment will. But, goddamn, we have to stand up to this.
EHRLICHMAN: It's fatal liberality.
NIXON: Huh?
EHRLICHMAN: It's fatal liberality. And with its use on television, it has such leverage.
NIXON: You know what's happened [in northern California]?
EHRLICHMAN: San Francisco has just gone clear over.
NIXON: But it's not just the ratty part of town. The upper class in San Francisco is that way. The Bohemian Grove, which I attend from time to time--it is the most faggy goddamned thing you could ever imagine, with that San Francisco crowd. I can't shake hands with anybody from San Francisco. Decorators. They got to do something. But we don't have to glorify it. You know one of the reasons fashions have made women look so terrible is because the goddamned designers hate women. Designers taking it out on the women. Now they're trying to get some more sexy things coming on again.
EHRLICHMAN: Hot pants.
NIXON: Jesus Christ.
Hitler and Stalin were racist and homophobic, what is the difference. (Think I put a bit better the first time)
What this typifies to me, is the problem of putting 'too much power' into the hands of one man or even an elite of like minded. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely
