Catherine Austin Fitts: Purpose of Flu Vaccine is Depopulation

[demonon]

I don't want to disrupt your discussion, but please let Chavez and all the others out.

They are no socialists or communists, just some authoritarian asses.

You may say whatever you want, but true socialism can only be achieved under the motto of freedom, not force.

[LeetPirate]

You might be right, I stopped paying attention to that entire ordeal years now, I stopped applying logic to illogical people, Israel continues to disregard the UN and so did the US so American gov't lawlessness confirmed. Which is why I respect men like Chavez, Castro, and Kim Jong, all men with large balls of steel.

Communism shows balls of steel huh? Please do explain this...

It's not about communism, just about those leaders. They have the courage to stand up for what they believe is right even though the rest of the world decides to treat them unfairly. The problem is that too many people are convinced that communism is something evil that needs to be stopped or something. Take Kim Jong for instance, I don't blame him for conveying threats to the rest of the world when he wants to test out his weapons. The fact is that everyone hears North Korea wants to test out a weapon and all of a sudden it's unfair and should not occur so in reality it's only fair for America to test out their MOABs and so on but when North Korea wants to do it all of a sudden it's wrong. Put yourself in that position, imagine that anything you want to do in your life the rest of the world and the media spins it around into something bad like if you are a villain, what would you do?

Venezuela is more Federal than communist but the fact is that on the news they only portray a minor set of people who are against Chavez and make you believe the entire nation is against him and he is some prime evil. No leader could please 100% of the population, as I am sure not 100% of the people will like what Obama does but this is just how it is, the usual method is to do what pleases the majority. True my neighbour was a victim of organ harvesting on his visit to Venezuela but I won't brand the entire country as criminals for the acts of a few.

Not to mention little ole Cuba, what oh what could Cuba such a small country ever have done to deserve years and years of embargoes and trade blocking by the US of A? Even with all that they still manage to prosper. Many people say Cuba is a bad place which is why they all try to migrate to USA but nobody stops to think that maybe they won't have to do that if USA would lift the embargoes and allow them to prosper as a country freely. Did you know that recently a book in a Miami library was taken off the shelf because it portrayed happy children in Cuba playing? So in other words Cuba could not possibly have happy children for those things only occur in a place with white picket fences and we don't want to give the American kids the wrong idea. American gov't practices the same type of censorship as the other countries they portray as evil, the pot calls the kettle black as they say.

The American gov't has a habit of imposing their way on other countries and if they don't want to comply well they play really nasty. I put nothing past them because they cannot be trusted. The days of honest Abe are over and long gone.

[Bizarre™]

Yes but 'democracy' IS the system. You're referring to the system as 'the people who are using it'(the rich guys who decide everything and bla bla bla), but I don't mean that. I really mean that the system, democracy, as a system, is totally wrong ;)

Ludicrous :bag:

The ones who are using Democracy are the ones who are wrong.

I mean, sure Democracy is not followed to the letter, but it doesn't mean it's the one at fault.

And do you know why? Because the system is just using it as a front to make people obey.

Consider following Democracy to the letter.

Can you still say that it's totally wrong?

[demonon]

Ludicrous :bag:

The ones who are using Democracy are the ones who are wrong.

I mean, sure Democracy is not followed to the letter, but it doesn't mean it's the one at fault.

And do you know why? Because the system is just using it as a front to make people obey.

Consider following Democracy to the letter.

Can you still say that it's totally wrong?

If there is a true democratic system where everyone is equal and everyone remains equal, then it is right. But in such a situation a government cannot exist because all power is corrupt. And of course a corrupt power stops everyone from being equal and remaining equal.

In that situation there would be a social-anarchistic society.

I also want to add that todays system is far from democracy, it is very clear that people are ruled by a elite group and that good things only come from the people themselves.

Just look at the history of the world. The people choose to take care of the elderly and the sick. And only after allot of pressure, the governments agreed.

[shought]

Yes but 'democracy' IS the system. You're referring to the system as 'the people who are using it'(the rich guys who decide everything and bla bla bla), but I don't mean that. I really mean that the system, democracy, as a system, is totally wrong ;)

Ludicrous :bag:

The ones who are using Democracy are the ones who are wrong.

I mean, sure Democracy is not followed to the letter, but it doesn't mean it's the one at fault.

And do you know why? Because the system is just using it as a front to make people obey.

Consider following Democracy to the letter.

Can you still say that it's totally wrong?

Following democracy to the letter:

Wikipedia: 'Democracy is a principle that the control of authority comes from public, and ruler and non-ruler are the same.'

shought: Ruler and non-ruler should not be the same, in my opinion.

Wikipedia: 'Even though there is no specific, universally accepted definition of 'democracy', there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes. The first principle is that all citizens, not invested with the power to govern, have equal access to power and the second that all citizens enjoy legitimized freedoms and liberties.'

shought: Not all citizens should have equal access to power.

Concluding: Democracy, as a principle, system or whatsoever is wrong, in my opinion, of course.

If there is a true democratic system where everyone is equal and everyone remains equal, then it is right.

But in such a situation a government cannot exist because all power is corrupt. And of course a corrupt power stops everyone from being equal and remaining equal. In that situation there would be a social-anarchistic society.

I also want to add that todays system is far from democracy, it is very clear that people are ruled by a elite group and that good things only come from the people themselves.

Just look at the history of the world. The people choose to take care of the elderly and the sick. And only after allot of pressure, the governments agreed.

I disagree. People who do not have the proper means(which includes a variety of things, not just knowledge/intelligence) to cast a 'valuable/meaningful' should have a less important vote. For instance 2 'less valuable/meaningful' votes should be equal to one valuable vote. I know it is very hard to come up with a proper system to make this work, but it is not impossible.

Power isn't corrupt, the people who use it are... A democracy is, in my opinion, the best solution to rule out as much corruption as possible, known to me at the moment.

I can not judge all countries but I, for one, think this is not the case, at least not where I live.

[demonon]

shought: Ruler and non-ruler should not be the same, in my opinion.

shought: Not all citizens should have equal access to power.

I disagree with both.

If you create a society with different classes, you won't be giving everyone the same rights and freedom. This is neither democracy, or a fair system.

You also failed to explain why people should have different rights.

And if you give people certain rights to coerce above others, there is still corruption.

It doesn't matter if power is corrupt, or the people themselves. In a system with different classes, there still is corruption.

[Bizarre™]

@demonon:

Indeed... I agree :think:

I didn't comment earlier since shought already said that it's his opinion.

If he was objective in his statement, I would've adviced:

Expand your horizon... don't limit your views upon what your current environment shows you.

[shought]

In a system that involves humans ruling other humans(or for all I care: all humans ruling all humans) there will ALWAYS be corruption. Corruption has nothing to do with the system that is operated, it has to do with human nature. I'm not saying all humans are corrupt, some are, some aren't, when in power, 'some aren't' changes into some are and some aren't as well(some people who weren't corrupt before will become corrupt as soon as they're in power).

The political system should be aimed at finding out who is capable to rule the country and most likely not to abuse his power. The current political system is aimed at finding out who is capable to disguise his lies well enough to be elected without actually making any senseless promises.

To make this happen, which is my argument for people not being equal, people with more factual experience of what is going on should have a more important vote than people who're sitting in front of the TV thinking: he seems like a nice guy, let's vote for him. Or: man, I love his ideas, fighting world hunger and all... The votes of the people from my last category are based on (almost completely) pure randomness, it depends on when they're watching the TV(as in which politician with all those great ideas they get to see) and in what mood they are at the time, their votes might not be completely useless, but they are of less use than the votes people who actually read into the stuff cast.

The democratic system will never allow a difference in importance of votes. Therefore not all citizens should not have equal access to power(as in voting, when you vote, you have access to power, doesn't matter how little, it is access) and ruler and non-ruler should not be the same, then the ruler makes a decision he should not care for his non-ruler self(which is what is currently happening) and therefore he should be very careful making decisions that could benefit his non-ruler self. So: ruler and non-ruler are distinct but in one case the same person. I know it might look like it's saying the same thing in different words, but it's really not, it's all about awareness.

Also I try my best NOT to limit my view on what my current environment is showing me and think of a system that should work everywhere(which is why I started basically from scratch thinking of all this).

ps I didn't give any argument because quite frankly, I didn't have the time :P

[demonon]

I still fail to understand your argument.

You are saying because in a democratic system everyone is equal, not everybody should be equal?

You are explaining what a feudal system is because the ruler should not care about the people.

I do agree with that people just vote on whatever they see and TV and how many ads a politician has.

[Bizarre™]

In a system that involves humans ruling other humans(or for all I care: all humans ruling all humans) there will ALWAYS be corruption. Corruption has nothing to do with the system that is operated, it has to do with human nature. I'm not saying all humans are corrupt, some are, some aren't, when in power, 'some aren't' changes into some are and some aren't as well(some people who weren't corrupt before will become corrupt as soon as they're in power).

The political system should be aimed at finding out who is capable to rule the country and most likely not to abuse his power. The current political system is aimed at finding out who is capable to disguise his lies well enough to be elected without actually making any senseless promises.

To make this happen, which is my argument for people not being equal, people with more factual experience of what is going on should have a more important vote than people who're sitting in front of the TV thinking: he seems like a nice guy, let's vote for him. Or: man, I love his ideas, fighting world hunger and all... The votes of the people from my last category are based on (almost completely) pure randomness, it depends on when they're watching the TV(as in which politician with all those great ideas they get to see) and in what mood they are at the time, their votes might not be completely useless, but they are of less use than the votes people who actually read into the stuff cast.

The democratic system will never allow a difference in importance of votes. Therefore not all citizens should not have equal access to power(as in voting, when you vote, you have access to power, doesn't matter how little, it is access) and ruler and non-ruler should not be the same, then the ruler makes a decision he should not care for his non-ruler self(which is what is currently happening) and therefore he should be very careful making decisions that could benefit his non-ruler self. So: ruler and non-ruler are distinct but in one case the same person. I know it might look like it's saying the same thing in different words, but it's really not, it's all about awareness.

'sigh' if you had been specific much earlier, I would've partially agreed with you :bag:

Why partially agree? Because I can't deny the fact that some people take democracy for granted.

They have done this by disregarding their part in society: to be a responsible citizen.

Why partially disagree? Because if democracy was followed to the letter, and people becomes responsible, the end-result would be a utopia.

Also I try my best NOT to limit my view on what my current environment is showing me and think of a system that should work everywhere(which is why I started basically from scratch thinking of all this).

That's why I said:

If he was objective in his statement, I would've adviced:

Expand your horizon... don't limit your views upon what your current environment shows you.

I still fail to understand your argument.

You are saying because in a democratic system everyone is equal, not everybody should be equal?

You are explaining what a feudal system is because the ruler should not care about the people.

This is what he was pointing out:

The democratic system will never allow a difference in importance of votes. Therefore not all citizens should not have equal access to power(as in voting, when you vote, you have access to power, doesn't matter how little, it is access) and ruler and non-ruler should not be the same, then the ruler makes a decision he should not care for his non-ruler self(which is what is currently happening) and therefore he should be very careful making decisions that could benefit his non-ruler self. So: ruler and non-ruler are distinct but in one case the same person. I know it might look like it's saying the same thing in different words, but it's really not, it's all about awareness.

[shought]

@demonon

Bizarre pretty much explained what my argument was.

@Bizarre

I can see that, but as the system is currently used it is not even near to an utopia and for that simple reason there should be changes :D

[Bizarre™]

I can see that, but as the system is currently used it is not even near to an utopia and for that simple reason there should be changes :D

I can't deny the fact that the current system we have at present is nothing but garbage.

However, you failed to understand why I partially disagreed.

Why partially disagree? Because if democracy was followed to the letter, and people becomes responsible, the end-result would be a utopia.

[shought]

No no, I didn't fail to understand. I totally understand and totally disagree :P

The system of democracy you are referring too is a whole different system than I'm talking about ;) We're talking about different things and therefore will never reach an understanding. You're talking about a democratic system in which people should be responsible, if you include that into the definition of democracy then I'll agree with you. The definition Wikipedia provided us with didn't include this though and it's that definition of democracy I am talking about.

I'm a big fan of defining whatever concepts you might be discussing before you actually start discussing this. If you're talking about concepts before you defined what they actually are your interpretation of the concept might differ which will cause an infinite disagreement.

[manpe]

I do believe that this theory can be true. For example, research codex alimentarius, the new nutrition law which will become mandatory in 2010 for WTO countries. Cancer, swine flu and all such terminal illnesses are preventable, but not much is done to prevent them. It is just too profitable for the economy (as stated in the article) and drug companies. I do believe there is more to it than we are made to believe.

Talking about politics in general... it's rotten through and through. It's achieved and sustained such an horrific tendency that it literally is undermining the well-being of the human being, and our home Earth.

I suggest watching documentaries like Zeitgeist, Zeitgeist Addendum, The Obama Deception and The Corporation. You don't have to take everything as the truth over what is showed and said there, but many things do make a lot of sense.

Earlier leaders, like Thomas Jefferson, warned people about the system which we see today. He warned about oligarchs and government forms which work against the people, not for. The last president who stood some ground for his principals was Kennedy, and look what happened to him. But the truth is that we were destined for misery and suffering since the beginning of the monetary system.

Democracy is an illusion, a nice fairytale to make people more controllable. We are like little children reading Cinderella and believing everything in it. They repeat the lies over and over again until people start believing them. There is no democracy like there is no Santa... sadly.

What we have got is the love, support and compassion of our fellow people - family, friends and just kind people. Polticians, business sharks? They are far bottom in the list.

[Janus]

I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration , Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids... "

-Base Commander Ripper

:fear: :fear: :fear:

[Bizarre™]

No no, I didn't fail to understand. I totally understand and totally disagree :P

The system of democracy you are referring too is a whole different system than I'm talking about ;) We're talking about different things and therefore will never reach an understanding. You're talking about a democratic system in which people should be responsible, if you include that into the definition of democracy then I'll agree with you. The definition Wikipedia provided us with didn't include this though and it's that definition of democracy I am talking about.

I'm a big fan of defining whatever concepts you might be discussing before you actually start discussing this. If you're talking about concepts before you defined what they actually are your interpretation of the concept might differ which will cause an infinite disagreement.

Like I said before :bag:

Expand your horizon... don't limit your views upon what your current environment shows you.

Besides, I'm just making an example out of wikipedia's definition.