Billionaires and World War Two?..

[IJesusChrist]

There are plenty of anarchistic "nations" around the world that distribute money evenly. They are not large but they do exist - and they are quite farther in extremity than those seen in communism or socialism, as far as "normal" goes.

See:
Freetown Christiania

Kibbutz

ASAP Spokane

Crimethinc

There are plenty of small communities everywhere that attempt to do it. One is off the island of rhode island which seems cool but I can't find it. There are a few in california/oregon/washington that are run completely off pot production, and then the ones above (some less important than others).

I suppose what I'm getting at is that socialism and communism can be implemented, however on a large scale someone always attempts to gain control. That is not a direct outcome of the system, or even an innate personality of people in general, it is simply our envision of of "what once was".

I will make the claim that these do not work because of our connection with old systems. When the "founding fathers" of europe moved over here they essentially wanted to be rid of monarchy - it had grown out of control and had become disgustingly powerful and biased.

Now, we are seeing (luckily not as bad as monarchies) the bias and inequality evoked by capitalism. The need for exponential wealth, or atleast the prospect of becoming rich is, in my opinion, the strongest driving forces for capitalism.

Once you realize you aren't going to invent the next ipod or own the next Microsoft, or find an old picasso in your garage - you start playing the lottery and cursing the system (my experience, anyways). Great aspirations of wealth drive us through school, work, and play - why I will not make claim.

I would like to make the claim that billionaires should never exist and that a philanthropy at its core is not beneficial, but I can't say it in great faith.

I'm going to have to sit this one out for a year and give anarchy and capitalism more thought.

 

[Sprax]

I agree that anarchism or communism could work on a small scale (even if I wouldn't want to live in such a society, for various reasons). The problem is largely, imo, a problem of scale. There is a NEED for control in any system which tries to coordinate millions of people, a large percentage of whom will oppose the system. This requires a strong government, thus destroying the original idea.This makes the flaw inherent in the system,

Even if the problem was someone always trying to get control, that would still be an inherent flaw of the system, because the system is designed for people and therefore has to handle the flaws that we have. If it cannot handle the realities of human nature, it does not work, no matter how good the idea sounds on paper.

I'm familiar with the two first examples and while they demonstrate the principles of anarchism / communism to some extent, they are limited because both work within the confines of a capitalist state. A kibbutz is not a state but a small community. It lacks almost all the functions of an actual state and could therefore not handle a larger community with more diverse needs. I visited Christiania a few years ago. A very interesting and inspiring place in many ways, but not a town and not free. It is very much a part of the city of Copenhagen and very strongly tied to it. As are its inhabitants.

 

[IJesusChrist]

A great part of the non-existance of anarchistic communities (and communistic within USA / UK) is that it is literally illegal.

This past year I worked close with a writer who wrote for an anarchistic journal and magazine. He had travelled the world and spoken to many people & was generally a well educated man. I liked his presence alot as it reminded me of an inspiring poet or the like - seeing beauty in everything.

The FBI had raided his house and taken everything but the appliances. He was a wreck. They said they were getting him for terrorism, or conspiracy. Of course he wasn't a terrorist - he was an anarchist. It was rather sad - one of his (and the group he was in) friends was actually the agent who turned him in. She had been hired by the FBI to report, and such.

Prime example of why no larger communities exist in the united states - along with ceding from the nation requires one to abide by laws and go through a legal system which is inherently against one's belief if one is attempting to cede. The red scare is also a great example.

I wouldn't say that we have ever seen a large scale anarchistic system gone wrong - so I wouldn't be so quick to judge that it cannot be done on a large scale. I can say with confidence that communism (pure communism) doesn't work because it has been tried multiple times to go large scale and failed every time.

I personally am one of those people who find the internet, the tv, the video games, the cars, the working life an addiction that is impossible to escape for me. I would much rather all of them cease to exist and my euphoria come from the land and socialization, but alas, I am surrounded and in most ways required to use these things. I live with 6 other people my same age and there is only about 6 hours of the day where the giant 50 inch TV is not displaying advertisements.

These things were a necessary outcome of capitalism, for numerous reasons - escape, brain washing (perhaps too biased of a term), and most definitely consumerism. The radio at first was meant for communication. Meant to relay information to and from with instantaneous speed, and important information. Slowly it became a place for stories, fiction, songs, politics. Advertisement was soon to follow. holy fuck I'm getting off topic.

My point being - I seem to be a bit wired and/or loose right now - I think that capitalism, in all its economics, politics, and governmental entities, has not necessarily blinded, but swooned the masses into something that does not have to be, and is not necessarily better. Like I said in a previous thread capitalism (pure, unadulterated, powerful capitalism) created the car, the freeway, the downtown, the suburb, the fast food, the fashion, the slums, the gated communities, the wealthy divide, the list goes on.

Anarchy - an extremely biased and misunderstood topic - is utopia. I will romanticize it to the grave, for I've lived in it - most of us have. Camping is anarchy. Going for a walk in the woods is anarchy. Smoking pot on a log in the middle of nowhere is anarchy. Do shrooms in a national park and looking at the stars is anarchy. Skinny dipping, get wasted underage, sleeping naked (in my state) - it is all anarchy. Doing what you want regardless of the city, regardless of the law is anarchy.

Doing what you know is beneficial to yourself, either temporarily or forever regardless of the rules is anarchy. We are all anarchists yet we can be manipulated by fear, we need protection, stability, a teet to suck on in the apartment we need to sleep for work.

Its shit. Sorry for the long post... Camping is anarchy

 

[Sprax]

It’s early in the morning, we’ll see if I can think clearly.

A great part of the non-existance of anarchistic communities (and communistic within USA / UK) is that it is literally illegal.

Absolutely. Being very liberal myself I see no reason to restrict peoples lives the way we do.

This past year I worked close with a writer who wrote for an anarchistic journal and magazine. … The FBI had raided his house and taken everything but the appliances. He was a wreck. They said they were getting him for terrorism, or conspiracy. Of course he wasn't a terrorist - he was an anarchist …

This is just tragic. Even if he was trying to get rid of / overthrow the state, that in itself shouldn’t be illegal in a democracy. Being allowed to do that is the point of democracy. What should be illegal are methods that use violence instead of persuasion.

I’m careful about criticizing America because there has been so much America bashing in the last few years, but human rights seem to be a huge problem area. Imo, what you guys need is a basic charter of rights and a meaningful way to enforce it. While I’m sure such legal documents exist, they don’t seem to work in practice.

Prime example of why no larger communities exist in the united states - along with ceding from the nation requires one to abide by laws and go through a legal system which is inherently against one's belief if one is attempting to cede. The red scare is also a great example.

Well, it’s convenient this way of life if practically outlawed, because it keeps the argument alive that it’s possible.

I wouldn't say that we have ever seen a large scale anarchistic system gone wrong - so I wouldn't be so quick to judge that it cannot be done on a large scale. I can say with confidence that communism (pure communism) doesn't work because it has been tried multiple times to go large scale and failed every time.

I’m not quick to judge. I’ve spent four and a half years at uni studying nothing but how the state is organized.

These things were a necessary outcome of capitalism, for numerous reasons - escape, brain washing (perhaps too biased of a term), and most definitely consumerism.

They’re also a possible outcome in a system which enables them to exist.

Anarchy - an extremely biased and misunderstood topic - is utopia.

That’s why I criticize it. If it doesn’t work in practice, it’s not a good system. Imo, anarchy like communism is a system build for an ideal world. It is not built to handle the realities of life. If a system doesn’t work in practice, it doesn’t work.

What do you do if...?
- You have a custody battle. A father abuses his children and won't let the mother see them? Nothing? Let the stronger party win?
- Someone won't share
- Someone steals resources
- Someone is assaulted
- Some people decide to create their own state
- Someone does something which everyone but that person believes should not be allowed, what rules apply?
- One community has no water and people are dying, how do you organize to help them?

Etc... everything requires organization.

A major problem with all communities of anarchists is that they consist of people who have chosen that way of life. So the system is per definition suitable for them.

Capitalism turns selfishness into something positive. People are inherently selfish. By creating a system whereby people work for their own benefit, but tax some of that income and share it, we end up with more resources for even those have the least, than in a system where resources are shared, because the pie that we are sharing is so much bigger.

As I get older I seem to become more pragmatic and less idealistic. Is this a process of growing up or becoming bitter?

 

[IJesusChrist]

Alright - here we go. I was having trouble seeing what was wrong with your statements - you have obviously been an educated (wo)man and I have found that you are quite well at defending, or atleast explaining what I have been against for the past few years of my life - i.e. large economies, large countries, etc... and have gradually leaned myself from democratic middle ground (not well developed mentally) to rebellious stages, but finally found anarchism, at its root form to be of my liking.

I was walking home today and was having trouble finding why I couldn't agree with you - even though you seemed spot on on most things, and it seems I hadn't brought up the best points for my argument against our economy. Now, I'm sure you have disagreements about our economy and political ones - you plainly stated that it has problems and what not, but you still seemed to lean towards it rather than anarchistic type governmentation.

What you were missing (or I simply failed to bring up!) was the biggest point of all: Why do we need a large government in the first place?

When I said I favored anarchistic ideals over the current in place, you seemed a bit wary, and your statement was that when you have a large population you need a large and strong government - contradicting the possibility of anarchistic nations.

Well you are assuming! that we need a large nation to begin with;

The problem that I have been discussing, and half-heatedly condemning simply arises from having a large nation!

An anarchistic ideal does not pertain to something the size of a nation. You cannot have an anarchistic America - like you said. It is not possible, due to the various reasons you brought up - but it is not necessary! Anarchistic ideals really emphasize geographical surroundings. Those who live in this area need to thrive on this type of plant, and those who live in this area must thrive on this type of fish, simply due to the proximity of resources.

Playing devils advocate:
That quickly leads to an unwanted conclusion, however; "Well how am I going to get strawberries in winter if I live in Alaska"
[Or insert other problem]

The problem is resolved by the person moving to a strawberry growing area - but with the cost of losing what was once at home. It is an eternal problem with the small community, if the moral dilemma of excess transportation is realized.

However, exceedingly important goods and resources will be an exception, i.e. water to a steel or iron mine.

So what am I saying so far...? My point right now is a problem I deal with in anarchistic societies; to live truly in anarchy, one (or a group) must live within bounds of their immediate resources, with less (limited) trade and transportation to that compared of today's standards. I say this because I am constantly questioning my own motives and understanding, hence I have a hard time arguing any one point (I'm arguing against myself right now :roll: )

WITH THAT SAID, however, and using the USA as the prime example, there is no need for a nation state. We do not need a white house in order to promote order and law within the 50 states. Europe has been divided for its existence - and only now wants to become an entire nation state of countries. The reason for this, I will leave you to explain better, is that financial systems with different currencies that literally have a chalk-drawn line between them (i.e. borders) will not work!

Let me ask you this;
1. If the united states was to completely disband into it's states, adopting at first the national laws and upholding them at the state level, do you think chaos would ensue. Or better yet - do you think chaos would have to ensue (would it be possible to have a smooth transition).
2. If Europe was to completely convert all its currency to a single system, i.e. Euro, and completely ignore any inter-countrial control other than the currency system, do you think it would be fine?

Eventually, what I am going to say no matter what, is that large government systems, those that control the US, China, and certain countries in Europe are the product of power-lust. I will use that much of a biased term because it is true. When the colonies (sorry if you aren't american - my examples may be a bit harder to see) first began, they were divided nations, most the size or smaller of european countries. You will see on the east coast, most states were exceedingly small - they had rather small populations. As population grew, technology grew, and most of all, the ability to control grew, states increasingly became larger as the colonizers moved west.

This is not an outcome of a need to have more control and more power, but rather the want to have more control. Rhode island's people were in no more trouble with resources than those of neighboring massachussettes, even though they were smaller. In fact, the states were doing quite fine until they started to adopt different currencies (a product of Europe's past). Then it was initiated that governance should control the states themselves. The founding fathers (sorry) wanted control, but not a monarchy. They went to great lengths to minimize the strength of one man, and divide into a larger group. This worked very well in the days at the time, due to the small populations. However - the population has exponentially increased, but the seats in our system which represent it have grown in a much slower fashion.

My second point? The greater the number of people in a system, the same must go for division of power.

so, I digress to my original point - anarchism. In true anarchism, there is not chaos. It is unfortunate the stereo types that anarchy is given - ambitionless pot growers, punks who want to smash windows with pink mohawks, angry people pissed off at their life, etc...

The purest form of anarchy would kick most of these people out of the community. Pure anarchy would strive to have a homogeneous currency, live where one works, (unfortunate) limited transportation & travel (unless powered by the sun ), and commities that are transparent - and most definitely include - all those involved as equals.

Sure it's ideal, its romanticized, and not going to happen any time soon, but I urge you to understand that economics is the study of how to control something that is itself the problem. Economics is the study of how to hold itself up, as balanced as possible, when a nation can do just as well without an entire system in place.

It is hard to argue this point, because so many before me have given not only the argument itself a bad name, but also the outcome - see thread Money should be discontinued.

Money itself is crucial to advancement, the study and pursuit of one's passions, health, and experience itself. Not due to its power, but due to it's innate ability to give value, a universal trade.

I am just going on and on and on holy shit. I'll give everyone a break. phew. :lol:

 

[Sprax]

This is a great post. Discussion should be about learning and testing ones opinions by exploring arguments, not about winning (there is nothing to win anyway). You’ve obviously put a lot of thought into this so I hope I can add something meaningful.

Let’s see…

1 : Communism and the problem of scale

The Soviet Union was more than twice the size of America and had roughly the same population. Organizing such a large and diverse state creates a need for a strong government. More so when the ideology requires the state to be ran according to certain principles. For instance, the idea that money should be distributed based on the principle of need, creates the need for someone with oversight and a need for the ability to control individual transactions between people.

Such a system cannot be implemented while it also aims to give power to the individual people, the workers, and if it doesn’t work in practice, it doesn’t work. Part of the problem arises from the need to control resources since the ideology requires them to be distributed according to certain principles. Most of the problem however, arises from scale. Even the ability to control individual transactions largely disappears on a small scale, because a small community always has the necessary oversight.

So, the problem with communism is indeed largely one of scale and therefore the reason I oppose communisn is that it imo doesn’t work.

Speculation: If the communists had not seen capitalism as en enemy and subsequently tried to force their ideology on the rest of the world, they might not have had the same need to organize.

Why do we need a large government in the first place? -> We need a large government in order to run a large organization, which is not saying that having a large organization is necessarily desirable.

2: Questions

1. If the united states was to completely disband into it's states, adopting at first the national laws and upholding them at the state level, do you think chaos would ensue. Or better yet - do you think chaos would have to ensue (would it be possible to have a smooth transition).

No, absolutely not. Keep in mind though that even individual states are very large in absolute terms, even if they are small in relation to the country as a whole. European countries are often referred to as “small” by Americans (I'm European). In relative terms they are, but they still have populations in the millions. England for instance has a population of around 50 millions and even one of the smaller countries such as Belgium has 10 million. That’s a lot of people.

2. If Europe was to completely convert all its currency to a single system, i.e. Euro, and completely ignore any inter-countrial control other than the currency system, do you think it would be fine?

Hmm. I don’t know what you mean by intra-countrial control so I’m afraid I can’t answer this part of the question in a meaningful way.

I will say this. The European countries have not always cooperated within the framework of the European Union and they have therefore demonstrated they can exist without the EU. However, having individual nation states has historically created conflict and competition. We are now able to, for instance, travel freely through Europe, creating more and more ties to each other and thus making conflict less and less likely as we stop thinking of each other in terms of “us and them”. Tying countries together economically also makes war nearly impossible. So imo the EU has been a huge success as a peace project, which is how it originally started – and in many other ways that are off topic.

3 : Anarchy

Implementing anarchy on a national level would, imo and you seem to agree, create similar problems as described above with communism. Again a problem of scale. So could in work in a small scale? The short answer, I don’t know. I think it’s possible but unlikely.

...large government systems, those that control the US, China, and certain countries in Europe are the product of power-lust

Agreed.

This is not an outcome of a need to have more control and more power, but rather the want to have more control.

Agreed, it’s a different but equally real problem.

While our current governments in Europe are democratic, they are a result of converting previous monarchies (driven by power lust) and taking over those institutions. Power-lust is also the reason I doubt anarchy would work.

Historically we see a similar pattern around the world. Small communities that start out as families, tribes, clans etc grow into small settlements, small towns, small cities and so on which expand into ever larger areas, eventually countries and continents. This expansion has been largely driven by power lust. If we were to revert back to our starting point of small communities, wouldn’t we see the same pattern of someone always trying to take control?

Many years back we would be fighting for control within the countries of Europe. Later we fought for control between countries. Now Europe as a continent is largely united. As ever increasing organizations create a monopoly on power, they stop conflict within that area. So isn’t what we really need a world government?

The greater the number of people in a system, the same must go for division of power.

Absolutely! This is crucial! The larger the government the more important this becomes. An important principle of the European Union is the principle of subsidiarity, according to which a decision should not be taken on a higher level of government if it can be taken on a more local level.

Imo we are currently not able to enforce the principle properly, but the idea is good, or even crucial.

 

[IJesusChrist]

I think we are seeing the opposite sides of the same coin...

The Soviet Union was more than twice the size of America and had roughly the same population. Organizing such a large and diverse state creates a need for a strong government. More so when the ideology requires the state to be ran according to certain principles. For instance, the idea that money should be distributed based on the principle of need, creates the need for someone with oversight and a need for the ability to control individual transactions between people.

The problem, then, is not communism itself, but the want to control that large of a region. I don't like argueing for or against communism, because we just havn't seen it - the communistic russia back in the day failed not because of communism, but because of control.

1. If a nation is to be communistic, there can inherently not be a leader. This is nearly impossible to do with the human species due to our primal nature to be alpha males... Female leaders are nearly unheard of until the past few decades.

2. If a nation is to be communistic or anarchistic, it cannot govern a size which itself cannot interact with, meaning a moral (think anarchistic judicial/legislative) system in Belgium would have exponentially diminished power in the netherlands, and vice-versa. Meaning The president of the US - in an anarchistic state could not have final say in anything happening in california (if he is to have his "seat" in washington DC).

3. Division of power. With #2 in mind, still some global or international regulations would need to be in place for the smoothest and most fair system to work, however, like that of distance, the power that a group has over any population exponentially must decrease as the population being controlled increases. I.E. the leader of the UK would have to consult the mayor of London, who would have to consult the "neighbor hood council" of west london, etc, in order to get anything done, not vice-versa.

The only benefit to having top-down control is for the people on the top. The same applies to capitalistic ideologies as well, and essentially, the farther and farther you get away from the subject, the more and more the situation starts to resemble peasant-owner labor, or even dictatorship. In order to see this, however, one must get a fresh look - which is nearly impossible, and eventually comes down to why this site was made in the first place.

We are so good at normalizing things we tend to not realize how oppressed or controlled we are, hence if you were put in a peasant's position 700 years ago you may end up killing people to get your freedom - yet it rarely happened back then. Now, imagine a fictional eutopia of fantasy and being placed from there into these systems we have now - you may kill someone to get your freedom back, but we rarely see it here. If you do go crazy and fly your plane into the IRS building you're labelled a lunatic and "should have been put down"...

I see where you are, and believe me - the system we have now is actually quite wonderful. I rarely complain and it's conveinences outweigh its drawbacks as far as I'm concerned, however - it could be better.

 

[Sprax]

I see where you are, and believe me - the system we have now is actually quite wonderful. I rarely complain and it's conveinences outweigh its drawbacks as far as I'm concerned, however - it could be better.

It certainly could. The principle of subsidiarity that I mentioned before is imo a good guiding principle for how democracies should work - that decisions cannot be taken on a higher level if they can be taken on a lower, more local level.

I think this concludes the debate.

 

[IJesusChrist]

sounds good

 

[spice]

" the system we have now is actually quite wonderful. I rarely complain and it's conveinences outweigh its drawbacks as far as I'm concerned"

yes, but allowing certain facts to intrude upon your awareness might alter that



I'd love to catch up with you in 30 years., we'd have a really good laugh about what you said up there.

 

[IJesusChrist]

In 30 years I won't be in this sinking ship...

 

[spice]

He's too young to care, he thinks things are rosy.

Living proof psychedelics don't work for everyone

 

[spice]

In 30 years I won't be in this sinking ship...

seems to be one of your favorite devices


'inappropriate humor'


You are politically a conservative whether you know it or not, I say this based on everything you have ever said on this board, IJC.


Go join the party, eric cantor needs you

 

[IJesusChrist]

Spice get real.

And aemilius the shinking ship is western world, USA, Japan, China, Britain, etc... I plan to be in costa rica or some place like that. In 30 years I will be 50 years old, and if we are still able to comfortably move about the earth in some kind of vehicle I will most definitely have moved by then.

Spice you need to learn to discuss rather than simply put others down below you. Constantly belittling me and "what I know" about where I fucking live. Seriously man, get a grip! There's two sides to every coin - stop seeing the negative.

 

[spice]

I have a grip.

why don't you try to Hear what I am saying to you, it's something I have said to you before, and BTW, so have others....!


I'll probably be saying it again.

 

[spice]

and to tell me I need to learn to discuss-

go a couple of posts back and take your own fookin advice


at least I address the issue.


as good at spin and deflection as you are, coupled with that inappropriate humor mentality I think you have a future in politics


just sayin

 

[IJesusChrist]

I have often (listened) agreed with most of what you have had to say, just not in the extremity that you extrude it, but you're always up for disagreement...

I just think you give "them" too much credit, and too much finger pointing. "they" - the government and people at power - are not super geniuses that know how to sway us and control us, "we" - the apathetic Americans - are often just too stupid to see through it. You don't need elaborate and intricate theories on how they can control most of us - it is not purposely that we are disinformed and radically under educated in places of necessity, it is just how it has come to be. We have focused on putting youths in to the economy for "growth" and that "GDP" number, not that we want them to be stupid about self awareness, awareness of the planet, or any of those types of ideas - - it is that people in power often place money and "growth" in priority and forget or ignore other important aspects of the human life.

We are too submissive and too apathetic.

I liked this video yesterday, maybe it somehow fits in this discussion:
[youtube]zDZFcDGpL4U[/youtube]

 

[spice]

I apologize, and will attempt to be civil.



1) It is NOT 'how it has to be'......it is how we ALLOW it to be


2) You really are a smarter guy than to say that "the government and people at power - are not super geniuses that know how to sway us and control us" (PS - they dont have to work very hard at it, we're easily controlled, ask any woman)


yes, they are, exactly how many examples do you need?


.....and you have been given many, many, many examples and intimations of this. For starters, why don't you refute the Elkhorn Manifesto? Show us exactly where and why it's BS.....



And you blur the line, in my view, with that statement. The government in this country actually are not the ultimate arbiters
of control and influence, unless you EXPAND your definition of government to include INDUSTRY and BIG BUSINESS. No, they aren't 'super-genuises', why would that be necessary? We are soft, mentally pliable mammals that like comfort and take two decades to raise our young, look at it from a biologists POV, we ARE EASILY CONDITIONED. See Konrad Lorenz's work, he won a fucking Nobel Prize for his insights into this subject and it has a DIRECT bearing on how we are ledto behave certain ways.

IJC- what's the pharma lobby, if not a hidden (in plain sight) control bloc which acts like they are doing one thing, while actually doing another? Telling us they care, while their actions say otherwise. Since the pharma lobby actually persuades congress with $$$ and acts like they have our best interests at heart, all the while acting in collusion with the FDA to mislead us, sell us drugs that make us sicker and kill us while giving us overproduced commercials full of subconscious symbolism which has ONE PURPOSE and ONE PURPOSE ONLY my friend; to persuade us, to modify our behaivour. To.....control us.

What's Big Oil but another example? Does anyone here even BELIEVE it all comes out of the ground anymore? How fucking STUPID are we? (if you dont know what I am talking about google 'Fischer-Tropsch' for starters. But you have to WANT to see this shit, a guy like you who is young and 'got the world by the balls' probably wont see it simply by force of reverse osmosis)


I understand that you may feel that this intrudes on a comfortable worldview, but if you never ever took any of what I am saying seriously, take this seriously;


There is a reson I spend a lot of time on this subject with you and it isn't because I insist on being 'right'


I do this in the real world anytime (rarely, but it happens) whenever I encounter intelligent people who accept the status quo a bit too willingly.


I see potential

 

[spice]

PS- can't change a paradigm whilst insisting on comfort, (which seems to be your stance) it has never happened ONCE in the written history of the world

 

[spice]

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson."
- U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt in a letter written Nov. 21, 1933 to Colonel E. Mandell House

"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government."
- Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference in Evians, France, 1991

"The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining super capitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control.... Do I mean conspiracy? Yes I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent."
- Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976, killed in the Korean Airlines 747 that was shot down by the Soviets

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years... It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries."
- David Rockefeller, Bilderberg Meeting, June 1991 Baden, Germany


“A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the Nation and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the world - no longer a Government of free opinion no longer a Government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men.... Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” –
Woodrow Wilson - In The New Freedom (1913)



You need to understand that this isn't my imagination overworking.



It's time for you to pull your head out of the sand, and get pissed off