Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 03/01/2010 12:43:15 PM PST by TaraP
Follow the associations.
http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/EntityDisplay.php?Entity=ClintonGlobIni
Look like a bunch of upstanding inividuals to you?
You seem somewhat dull...or troll-like. MHO
I think Gates took a lesson that day about what kind of people he was sidling up to.
One can only wonder at the hypocrisy of theses people, that, they don’t voluntarily remove their carbon footprint.
Oh, sorry, that is only for other people.
See post #61
Outstanding group of individuals.
Inability to answer a few simple questions about this not so secret cabal seems the height of dullness.
It's also sad that many on this thread have about the same capacity for rational thought as a northern Nigerian Imam. The conspiracy nonsense on this thread is absolutely mind-boggling.
Agreed.
I remember catching bits and pieces of this story from the Phillipines back in the 1990s. The Rockefellers have been involved in various left-wing Malthusian conspiracies for decades. A completely despicable family.
Thanks for the complete story.
We control the vertical.
We control the horizontal.
Some people seem to have the overarching desire to think that this wild wacky world we live in is controlled by someone, even a nefarious conspiracy is to be preferred psychologically to the frightening concept that there is no one in control, just different people with different interests and agendas exercising power.
The concept that 17 nutjobs could kill 3,000 Americans and do billions of dollars in damage apparently caused roughly 25% of our population to suffer from this affliction.
And then there are those who worried about the NWO back in the days of NWA. ;)
Let's just hope these nut jobs (and that's exactly what they are) don't cause us to lose what community immunity we've earned over the decades. Eschewing vaccinations in favor of wild assed conspiracies presents us with a much greater threat than anything Gates, the Rockefellers, the Illuminati or the Bilderbergers could dream up. Conservatism shouldn't be associated with Neo-Luddism. But, there it is.
You have no idea of what a planner is? You ask questions that indicate ignorance of brick-and-morter political history and terminology. You are off the rez of the discussion, baiting with assinine questions...scornworthy, as well as dull, m’thinks!
I get the last word. Nannanannabooboo. [hands over ears]
Was Gore's loss part of the “plan”?
Was Bill Gates a “planner” at birth, or did they induct him upon his first billion?
Was Ronald Reagan part of this evil “plan” or a deviation from it?
Is the plan evil?
Come on, if you are so enlightened and in on things with your esoteric knowledge of these things, then lay them out for one who is, while quite knowledgeable about the real world - is entirely unfamiliar with the bizarre world you seem to inhabit.
Here y’ go...a neat little primer for ya.
(you must have me confused with some other poster(s). I’m no conspiracy theorist.)
Human Relationships and Planned Societies
By Nathan - Posted on 08 April 2009
Essay:
A typical conversation on the topics of freedom, economics, and social welfare will often include a very important question: “So what if you have to pay all of your money to the government, if in return you get everything you would have bought anyway? You will get a job, health care, childcare, food on the table, and even retirement. In addition many of the needs of the poor are met as well because the standard of living in some socialistic countries is quite comfortable.”
Side note: For the record, I am not talking about cold, hard communism. I’m referring to the sort of “enlightened socialism” where bureaucrats redistribute wealth to the masses.
There are a number of well-rehearsed arguments against this. If you are an American conservative, you might appeal to the principles of federalism in the Constitution. If you are an economist, influenced by Mises and Hayek, then you might try to demonstrate how this is a pipe dream. For the more philosophically minded, you will probably expostulate on the principle of liberty while quoting Patrick Henry. However, if you are starving, jobless, or even just poor, the power of these arguments will fade like a mirage.
It is human nature to try to survive. We can’t shake it. Demagogues throughout history have recognized this and they have channeled this for their own gain by appealing to oppressed and downtrodden to rise up and put them in power. I think this whole discussion must take place on a deeper level. Something more is needed for this discussion to be relevant to all people, regardless of their bank account.
In the first half of the twentieth century, George Orwell and Aldous Huxley both wrote powerful books about planned societies. Despite the fact that they are often linked together, the two works have stark differences. Orwell’s 1984 evokes the hobnail boot of totalitarianism while Huxley’s Brave New World reveals a society captive to recreational sex and drug addiction. Interestingly, both works reveal a stunning similarity between the main characters. They are both human dwarves.
Both Winston Smith and Bernard Marx are isolated individuals who are emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually stunted. This is even more the case with the societies they live in. (At least Winston and Bernard have the courage to ask questions and take risks.) The reason for this is because planned societies are based on fear. It might be fear of “Big Brother” or it might be fear of losing security and pleasure. Either way, social structures based on fear fundamentally limit the capacity of the human spirit.
Notice that both societies are fundamentally utilitarian. They must either serve the purposes of production (in “Oceana) or pleasure (in the “World State”). No art. No poetry. No literature. Why? It is because these things are too dangerous. It takes courage to create and the act of creation is fatal to a society based on fear. “Oceana” cannot have it because it testifies the insufficiency of the state in meeting fundamental human needs. The “World State” cannot bear it because it shatters the incubator of pleasure.
Besides stunting the human spirit, a planned state reduces the idea of human community to itself. It does this by overawing all other spheres of human activity and making itself indispensable to every facet of human life. No longer is the state a function and part of a human community it IS the new community. Every human relationship is mediated by the state and is ultimately defined by it. You can’t have food, healthcare, or even a house without the state either giving it or at least blessing its acquisition. It is like the Hebrew children eating food sacrificed to idols. Still the same food, but you really can’t thank God for it.
Such a society inevitably destroys human relationships by undercutting our dependence on one another. Paul Elie’s description of Peter Maurin’s philosophy is helpful in explaining this point:
Maurin’s whole philosophy was meant to express his instinctive sense of the Body of Christ. He urged people to be self-sufficient, independent of industry and government, not for the sake of independence, but the better to recognize and act upon the truth that the human race is one, and we are all dependent on one another. (“An American Pilgrimage”)
A planned society certainly has its benefits, but it undermines the fundamental aspects of human community and the boundlessness of the human spirit. In such a society, there is no consecrated ground because it is inherently secular. Nothing, not home, not altar, not grave is sacred. Such a world can only be attractive to an already secular, displaced and alienated culture. The more decadent we become the more we will lose the intuitive grasp of what it means to belong to a healthy community and the more we build our lives on fear of loss rather than the hope of creation.
Here y’ go...a neat little primer for ya.
(you must have me confused with some other poster(s). I’m no conspiracy theorist.)
Human Relationships and Planned Societies
By Nathan - Posted on 08 April 2009
Essay:
A typical conversation on the topics of freedom, economics, and social welfare will often include a very important question: “So what if you have to pay all of your money to the government, if in return you get everything you would have bought anyway? You will get a job, health care, childcare, food on the table, and even retirement. In addition many of the needs of the poor are met as well because the standard of living in some socialistic countries is quite comfortable.”
Side note: For the record, I am not talking about cold, hard communism. I’m referring to the sort of “enlightened socialism” where bureaucrats redistribute wealth to the masses.
There are a number of well-rehearsed arguments against this. If you are an American conservative, you might appeal to the principles of federalism in the Constitution. If you are an economist, influenced by Mises and Hayek, then you might try to demonstrate how this is a pipe dream. For the more philosophically minded, you will probably expostulate on the principle of liberty while quoting Patrick Henry. However, if you are starving, jobless, or even just poor, the power of these arguments will fade like a mirage.
It is human nature to try to survive. We can’t shake it. Demagogues throughout history have recognized this and they have channeled this for their own gain by appealing to oppressed and downtrodden to rise up and put them in power. I think this whole discussion must take place on a deeper level. Something more is needed for this discussion to be relevant to all people, regardless of their bank account.
In the first half of the twentieth century, George Orwell and Aldous Huxley both wrote powerful books about planned societies. Despite the fact that they are often linked together, the two works have stark differences. Orwell’s 1984 evokes the hobnail boot of totalitarianism while Huxley’s Brave New World reveals a society captive to recreational sex and drug addiction. Interestingly, both works reveal a stunning similarity between the main characters. They are both human dwarves.
Both Winston Smith and Bernard Marx are isolated individuals who are emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually stunted. This is even more the case with the societies they live in. (At least Winston and Bernard have the courage to ask questions and take risks.) The reason for this is because planned societies are based on fear. It might be fear of “Big Brother” or it might be fear of losing security and pleasure. Either way, social structures based on fear fundamentally limit the capacity of the human spirit.
Notice that both societies are fundamentally utilitarian. They must either serve the purposes of production (in “Oceana) or pleasure (in the “World State”). No art. No poetry. No literature. Why? It is because these things are too dangerous. It takes courage to create and the act of creation is fatal to a society based on fear. “Oceana” cannot have it because it testifies the insufficiency of the state in meeting fundamental human needs. The “World State” cannot bear it because it shatters the incubator of pleasure.
Besides stunting the human spirit, a planned state reduces the idea of human community to itself. It does this by overawing all other spheres of human activity and making itself indispensable to every facet of human life. No longer is the state a function and part of a human community it IS the new community. Every human relationship is mediated by the state and is ultimately defined by it. You can’t have food, healthcare, or even a house without the state either giving it or at least blessing its acquisition. It is like the Hebrew children eating food sacrificed to idols. Still the same food, but you really can’t thank God for it.
Such a society inevitably destroys human relationships by undercutting our dependence on one another. Paul Elie’s description of Peter Maurin’s philosophy is helpful in explaining this point:
Maurin’s whole philosophy was meant to express his instinctive sense of the Body of Christ. He urged people to be self-sufficient, independent of industry and government, not for the sake of independence, but the better to recognize and act upon the truth that the human race is one, and we are all dependent on one another. (“An American Pilgrimage”)
A planned society certainly has its benefits, but it undermines the fundamental aspects of human community and the boundlessness of the human spirit. In such a society, there is no consecrated ground because it is inherently secular. Nothing, not home, not altar, not grave is sacred. Such a world can only be attractive to an already secular, displaced and alienated culture. The more decadent we become the more we will lose the intuitive grasp of what it means to belong to a healthy community and the more we build our lives on fear of loss rather than the hope of creation.
Vaccines are great as long as the purpose is to save lives. When the purpose is something other than that, they can become evil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.