RE: Re: POLITICAL: Obama's Agricultural Sec Vilsack

[Guest guest]

I don't think anyone posting quotes from the book Holdren co-authored are

giving a complete view of the argument presented in the book. I'm going to

blog about this in the next day or two.

In the most relevant chapter, they divide population reduction methods into

two categories: family planning, which is administered by individual

families, and direct population control, which is administered by

governments. They state that in the developed world where individuals are

considered to have fundamental rights, governments are not widely seen to

have the right to control population, but that the population crisis is so

imminent that the world does not have time to wait for the values of people

in these countries to catch up.

They present a number of types of population control, all of which were

first proposed by other authors with no role in writing the book. The most

mild is using the tax system to encourage low reproduction, such as taxing

children or giving out payments to women who agree to marry after the age of

25. In this section they also discuss requiring all illegitimate children

to be given up for adoption, especially those born to young mothers. The

intermediate solution is forcing all women to get a birth control

implantation at puberty and requiring them to get permission for the

government to have it removed, thus allowing the government to directly

limit each female to two children. More extreme scenarios include adding a

sterilant to the drinking water, or, better, adding a component that would

very specifically interfere with fetal implantation and would only reduce

fertility partially, anywhere between 5 and 75 percent, with the government

able to adjust the reduction as needed.

They levy criticisms of ALL of these solutions, both practical and moral.

They even call the most extreme examples " appalling. "

However, they also state that an imminent population crisis exists and that

allowing it to occur would be MORE horrifying than the worst of the

population control measures. They state they would prefer " mild " solutions

because if used immediately they MIGHT be enough to avert the NEED for the

" appalling " solutions, but state very clearly that they believe direct

population control is an absolute necessity and individual family planning

is not enough.

The authors do not seem to see world government as a positive end. They

state clearly in the conclusion of the book that ultimately we should favor

an aversion to " bigness " of all sorts and should favor political and

economic decentralization, and hold the hunter-gatherer society up as a

richer society than ours. What they seem to be arguing is that, in order to

achieve the small-scale ideal, big government will be necessary to achieve

the requisite reductions in population.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Hi

Thanks for the clarifications. Not being able to get a copy of the book in

my own hands is obviously an issue. I look forward to your blog

discussions.

I am glad to be wrong.

Dawn

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of Masterjohn

Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 10:37 AM

Subject: Re: Re: POLITICAL: Obama's Agricultural Sec Vilsack

I don't think anyone posting quotes from the book Holdren co-authored are

giving a complete view of the argument presented in the book. I'm going to

blog about this in the next day or two.

In the most relevant chapter, they divide population reduction methods into

two categories: family planning, which is administered by individual

families, and direct population control, which is administered by

governments. They state that in the developed world where individuals are

considered to have fundamental rights, governments are not widely seen to

have the right to control population, but that the population crisis is so

imminent that the world does not have time to wait for the values of people

in these countries to catch up.

They present a number of types of population control, all of which were

first proposed by other authors with no role in writing the book. The most

mild is using the tax system to encourage low reproduction, such as taxing

children or giving out payments to women who agree to marry after the age of

25. In this section they also discuss requiring all illegitimate children

to be given up for adoption, especially those born to young mothers. The

intermediate solution is forcing all women to get a birth control

implantation at puberty and requiring them to get permission for the

government to have it removed, thus allowing the government to directly

limit each female to two children. More extreme scenarios include adding a

sterilant to the drinking water, or, better, adding a component that would

very specifically interfere with fetal implantation and would only reduce

fertility partially, anywhere between 5 and 75 percent, with the government

able to adjust the reduction as needed.

They levy criticisms of ALL of these solutions, both practical and moral.

They even call the most extreme examples " appalling. "

However, they also state that an imminent population crisis exists and that

allowing it to occur would be MORE horrifying than the worst of the

population control measures. They state they would prefer " mild " solutions

because if used immediately they MIGHT be enough to avert the NEED for the

" appalling " solutions, but state very clearly that they believe direct

population control is an absolute necessity and individual family planning

is not enough.

The authors do not seem to see world government as a positive end. They

state clearly in the conclusion of the book that ultimately we should favor

an aversion to " bigness " of all sorts and should favor political and

economic decentralization, and hold the hunter-gatherer society up as a

richer society than ours. What they seem to be arguing is that, in order to

achieve the small-scale ideal, big government will be necessary to achieve

the requisite reductions in population.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Hi,

I don't know anything about Germany but I wanted to touch on some things.

1) I did hear that the UN has requirements for " child's rights " and

some of those " rights " dictate no homeschooling is allowed and also that a

child must be givena proper name. There was a family that was taken to

court by the Italian government because they named their child something

unacceptable and they were forced to change his name. There is a group here

in the USA trying to oppose the signing and implementation of these so

called Child's Rights. I get updates from them all the time about this

insanity. If Germany has signed onto this treaty then what is being said

here is no surprise at all and would be pretty recent. How long have your

friends been out of Germany, Bill? Parents Rights Group

http://www.parentalrights.org/

2) This is an interesting article on centralized education which takes

the position that it is NOT to create more educated people for a democratic

society to function. that's just the spin they put on it. Instead it is a

mode for the state to control and mold our children and from my experience

in public schools that's exactly what they do. We spent so much time in

special programs brought to our school by Green Peace and very little time

on geography, grammar, history etc. We would spend a TON of time doing the

" DARE " program which taught us all about the various drugs available, how to

find them and what they do to the body all masked " drugs are bad " . Ever

seen the movie Reefer Madness? It is so ludicrous that it's entertaining

and it makes a getting some pot look fun to me!

http://www.nheld.com/schools_to_careers_editorial.htm

3) Also I did a lot of reading an research on German schooling system

and the method they have set up does require a testing exam and that

determines if you go on to higher education or a vocational school. It says

it varies state by state on the actual rules and in East Germany things are

still stuck in a lot of ways in the past practices.

4) It may very well be wherever our poster was there is still a lot of

discrimination against women. I was reading about that too. It could be

because the government guarantees them 3 years unpaid maternity leave and in

a management position such as 'professor' sounds to me that they do not want

someone in place that would leave for maternity leave for 3 years then come

back and want the same job back. By law it has to be given back to them.

And there seems to not be a good day care infrastructure, mothers/women are

still expected to be at home cooking and caring for children if they have

them. It could be a combination of things as well. But I wouldn't totally

negate what she is saying and say she's wrong or been misled.

Discrimination still happens here in the USA all the time but not across the

board and it might surprise someone who is not experiencing it themselves.

I am subjected to it on a daily basis.

5) Here when on unemployment if there is a job available and you do not

apply for it you can lose the unemployment insurance benefits. No matter if

that job is distasteful or difficult for you. If prostitution were legal

employment.. Well, it's always possible. I know in Nevada where it is legal

it is licensed so you can't get a job doing it legally without the license I

would assume. Perhaps it was a job working at a place of prostitution as a

clerk or cashier or whatever which many people would still have serious

moral objections too. I worked for a credit card company and the things

they had us doing to customers. made me hate myself.

Dawn

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of slbooks4me

Sent: Monday, October 19, 2009 10:54 PM

Subject: Re: POLITICAL: Obama's Agricultural Sec Vilsack

This is the last reply to you. I could care less if you or they are

offended. I know what happened, i know what the Germans told me, etc. I did

not live on the base i lived on the economy (= in German neighborhoods 30

minutes or more from the post) and found out many things directly from the

Germans and others i lived around. I already stated this in one of my other

replies. When i heard certain things i would then check with the authorities

who were over me to see if they were true or not in regard to the law. When

hearing, reading, seeing on the news strange stories i asked my German

friends directly who were not in the military, as well as some who were

married to soldiers. So the Germans you know now are saying not true but the

ones i lived around said they were. I feel you are speaking dbl talk. You

are saying what you saw and hear is fact, but not me, it is only my

perception, narrowed by living on post, which i did not. This is yet one of

the reasons i hardly post on this forum because people like yourself act

like you are the ultimate authority on issues that you can't prove either.

You can't prove your hear say but act as if i should have to or am not

allowed to speak about the things i learned and observed from being there.

Your holier than thou attitude and covered insults are offensive to me. I am

totally entitled to my opinion and have a right to liken it to dictatorship,

just as you have your right to hold it up as the picture of perfection and

what all of America or it's health care should be like. As i stated before

maybe it is a difference in states, etc. Or maybe you are right and all the

professional and non professional Germans i spoke with were lying. So i

guess it was one big conspiracy to freak the American girl out. If that were

the case and they are liars as you have said, that does not say much for

your friends either then, because either things are different or Germans

happen to have a higher level or story stretchers than i realized, and if so

then that tells me i can't trust your comments from the Germans you know

cause they could be liars too. It was my German OB who had nothing to do

with the military who told me that only men could have the professor status

at the hospital = be in charge, not a woman.

I never said our schools were better, i said one family specifically was

debating on leaving there so her daughter(s) could choose her own career

path. I did say that at the time they also ranked the lowest in the EU

reports, that was in the news/newspaper not anything i made up. If they asp

arents feel their school system is not up to speed and want to homeschool it

is their right. We do it because our kids do not get a good enough education

especially in history. So just because their students are better educated

than here does not mean they are poor compared to other countries nor that

the parents there should be denied their rights to provide their children

with a better one at home.

As far as i know many countries and our own states have homeschooling legal

in their own constitutions that were made prior to the " zealous " parents

activism to make it legal. Many of the original settlers were home schooled

and home schooled their kids so this is not something modern or new. Where

as taking away parental rights to home school in our country and others is

modern, info on the home school issues i brought up can be read here

http://tinyurl.com/yf8qgh5

I have also read about things on personal websites and blogs of German

" underground " homeschoolers. I believe they said it is one of the only

enforced Nazi laws, that prior to Hitler it was legal to home school. But

hey you can research that one yourself. AS for rooting out the homeschoolers

you ask them how they feel about it. I am sure they do feel it is Reno style

especially when they are being fined with such hefty fines they are facing

the reality of losing their home, imprisonment after, and losing their kids.

As for great access to raw milk and whole natural foods did you not read

that there was only 1 store in our entire town to get organic foods from and

even the store owners said raw milk was illegal when i asked if they knew

where to get some. We found one farmer who told us we HAD to " cook the milk "

to make it safe. When we asked if she drank the same milk she said but " only

cooked " . I find it far easier here to find all that i want in regards to

WAPF in my own home town. in fact i could not even begin to get totally

strict with our WAPF diet until leaving there because most things were not

accessible. I had to mail order it from the US. Their farmers sprayed

pesticides too. 2 of the houses i lived in the German landlords warned to

stay inside and keep the doors closed when spraying came because it was " bad

for you " . You could buy round up there too at any home and garden store. It

was far from this idealist picture perfect scenario you paint. Especially in

regards to food. Yeah fresh food at weekly farmers markets but when you

asked do you use pesticides/sprays they would laugh and say " well yes! " The

only thing i found true to the healthy food claim was they are fearful of

GMO and hormones in animals.

Back to you saying they are just telling me what i want to hear or pulling

one over on me, i guess not only was the various Germans i associated with

liars/kidders but their media (which after knowing about ours, i guess so).

Boy they sure had to cover their bases from the neighbor to the OB and the

news and all those inbetween to really pull one over on the American girl.

Sorry i did not think to save the online news articles from German

newspapers regarding some of the other issues. If i had foresight to know

that some know-it-all was going to rake me over the coals for my own

observations, experiences, to keep it in case i was accused of lying or

twisting facts etc. i would have saved all the articles regarding some of

the cases just for your personally. And again i echo my experiences were

very off post talking to people who worked in stores i shopped at, German

neighbors in my German neighborhood, professionals like the doctors i saw

during PG as military does not provide for that on some posts, etc. It was

not jsut military people and even if so they knew far more than you realize.

Many have lived there 5 - 20 yrs and are very aware of German culture and

politics, who felt it was home away from home and these are the people i ran

questions by. Not ignorant people who never left post.

I will not reply further to you because of your constant insinuation i am

lying and purposely skewing info and experiences for my own agenda.

Thank you though Bill for the unfriendly reminder to avoid pots by people

like you who act as though you, only you, and only your ideas, experiences,

etc. are accurate.

> > >

> > > East Germans had their career path set--that's why they were happy to

be reunited, to get rid of it and go to the Western model. This description

does not match the reality over there at all. I can only imagine that

someone was having a little fun with you. They have more of an active

democracy and practical freedom than over here. It's not the middle ages any

more and no one fines you if you work on the sabbath. Some people might be

conservative and set in their ways but others are extremely libertine. The

laws are, on the whole, very much less confining than here. It just doesn't

sound like a description of Germany at all.

> > >

> > > Bill

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I think a good deal of the bad perception we have is our troops forcing

democracy down the throats of people who do not want it or are not ready for

it. These " wars " where we don't declare war are just to profiteering at its

best and totally illegal.

I didn't get a feeling from her posts that she was anti-German but that she

was expressing her experiences when she was there and her distaste of what

she experienced. Critical thinking and discussion of how other countries

are government is healthy for us and I think can help us put into

perspective our own government, history and methods. She obviously has her

own point of view, whether or not you think it is accurate as a whole I

don't think it's right say she's doing it to insult the Germans or out of

prejudice. She did live there and has a right to formulate her own point of

view based on her own experiences.

Dawn

From:

[mailto: ] On Behalf Of Bill

Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 10:54 AM

Subject: Re: POLITICAL: Obama's Agricultural Sec Vilsack

> Your holier than thou attitude and covered insults are offensive to me. I

am totally entitled to my opinion and have a right to liken it to

dictatorship,

Either they are a dictatorship or not--the form of government a state has is

not an opinion. I did my best to draw out the distortions in your factual

information that you have blown up to make it appear Germany is like the

Soviet Union. It is a profoundly distorted picture, objectively so, in part

because you deny that other cultures are allowed to make their own decisions

about how they run their society without running afoul of your very narrow

and self-satisfied definition of what universal human rights entails.

Anything that is a difference from us (home-schooling, vitamins, etc.) is a

sign of a fundamental denial of human rights.

This is the kind of nonsense that leads to aggressive wars to " spread our

god-given way of life " and it's why Americans are called " ugly Americans "

wherever we go. Its arrogant and refuses to understand different points of

view by ruling them out of court in advance. You began by viciously

insulting an entire country as a dictatorship that has taken remarkable

efforts to overcome the period in their history when they had a real

dictatorship. It's a cheap and insulting take on a modern, vibrant,

democratic country (like calling the French cowards for losing to the

Germans in WWII when many exhibited extreme courage in the Underground). You

don't just state that you would prefer to live in a country where you can

get megadoses of vitamins and home schooling, but that any country that does

not allow for these is an oppressive dictatorship. Then when I try to

disentangle your mix of cherry-picked facts and cultural prejudices, you

throw a fit and shout " it's just my opinion! "

Bill

[Guest guest]

> I don't think anyone posting quotes from the book Holdren co-authored are

> giving a complete view of the argument presented in the book. I'm going

to

> blog about this in the next day or two.

I'm the only one who posted quotes, so you must be addressing me

specifically. (I've been offline since Saturday due to a computer virus and

just got my computer back this afternoon.) If you've read the book or

relevant chapters in their entirety I'm interested in your interpretation of

them as I know they won't be partisan like the partisan pundit Mooney's

were. Doesn't necessarily mean I'll agree with your interpretation, but

would certainly like to see it. I've only read the relevant pages and not

the entire chapters, although I've put that on my list of " to-do " which is

currently dominated by swine flu vaccine issues, so not sure when I'll get

to it.

> However, they also state that an imminent population crisis exists and

that

> allowing it to occur would be MORE horrifying than the worst of the

> population control measures. They state they would prefer " mild "

solutions

> because if used immediately they MIGHT be enough to avert the NEED for the

> " appalling " solutions, but state very clearly that they believe direct

> population control is an absolute necessity and individual family planning

> is not enough.

Um...I don't see how that differs significantly from what I wrote...since I

said they proposed them as possibilities if overpopulation became " dire " . It

seems like you're saying they don't support them quite to the degree that I

interpreted them as saying, but I don't see any significant difference.

> The authors do not seem to see world government as a positive end. They

> state clearly in the conclusion of the book that ultimately we should

favor

> an aversion to " bigness " of all sorts and should favor political and

> economic decentralization, and hold the hunter-gatherer society up as a

> richer society than ours. What they seem to be arguing is that, in order

to

> achieve the small-scale ideal, big government will be necessary to achieve

> the requisite reductions in population.

Yeh right...as if once government gets BIG, that it'll give up any of its

power or won't fight with all it's got to prevent others from shrinking it.

Those Ehrlichs and that Holdren were clever, clever people.

Suze

[Guest guest]

> East Germans had their career path set--that's why they were happy to be

reunited,

> to get rid of it and go to the Western model. This description does not

match the

> reality over there at all. I can only imagine that someone was having a

little fun with

> you. They have more of an active democracy and practical freedom than over

here.

> It's not the middle ages any more and no one fines you if you work on the

sabbath.

> Some people might be conservative and set in their ways but others are

extremely

> libertine. The laws are, on the whole, very much less confining than here.

It just

> doesn't sound like a description of Germany at all.

I was in Germany in the summer of 2006 visiting old German friends from when

I studied there in high school. The one thing I can confirm that wrote

about is the availability of supplements. It's very strictly regulated there

- I think Germany is under Codex already? In any event, the health food

stores there have only a fraction of the supplements available as the health

food stores here in the US. The supplement industry is very strictly

regulated. I could not get betaine HCl for instance, which I take regularly

with each meal since I have digestive issues. I looked into ordering it from

neighboring European countries and having it shipped to my friend's house,

but in the end, I just brought it with me. I stuffed two weeks worth of

capsules into my pockets.

I think this is an egregious affront to Germans' freedom of choice to

consume what they wish. I think often times that supplements fill critical

nutritional holes that are lacking in modern foods. Apparently, Germans are

expected to simply accept nutritional deficiencies....or...spend an arm and

a leg on organic foods (which may not be more nutritional dense anyway).

Couldn't believe how much a small organic chicken costs there!

But of course, nutritionally bankrupt highly processed foods are readily

available to all Germans.

Suze

[Guest guest]

Dawn and others,

> Thanks for the clarifications. Not being able to get a copy of the book in

> my own hands is obviously an issue. I look forward to your blog

> discussions.

My comments seem to have led to some confusion. I wasn't trying to

defend Holdren. I was saying that neither side was quite capturing

the entirety of the argument in the book, whether those providing the

juiciest quotes of the most appalling measures discussed or those

providing quotes wherein the authors say they advocate more mild

measures. The actual argument is that the most extreme measures

appalling, but that the population crisis is so great they could be

warranted, and that they find defense of individual rights to regulate

family size to be without merit.

The claim that they considered the " mild " measures they preferred to

be access to abortion and birth control is a direct lie, because they

clearly state that individual freedom to use birth control and

abortion can not in any way be considered sufficient to address the

population issue.

I have to do some more research before writing my blog post, but I

think these people are nutcases. The idea that we need totalitarian

government to arrive at smallness is very reminicent of Marx's idea

that we need a dictatorshp of the proletriat in order to achieve the

stateless society in which no one needs government because we all love

each other. The result was governments that slaughtered tens or

hundreds of millions of their own people.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> My comments seem to have led to some confusion. I wasn't trying to

> defend Holdren. I was saying that neither side was quite capturing

> the entirety of the argument in the book, whether those providing the

> juiciest quotes of the most appalling measures discussed or those

> providing quotes wherein the authors say they advocate more mild

> measures.

I would like to point out that my interpretation of the pages with the most

disturbing proposals was not an attempt to capture the entirety of the

argument in the book. From what I know so far of the work and of other

things Holdren has said or done, I would not trust the implied overt

argument in the book anyway.

I would also suggest that " juicey " is hardly an appropriate word as this is

not Hollywood gossip we are discussing here but rather issues that could

potentially affect the entire population of the planet. Of course the most

disturbing portions of the book would be the ones most widely discussed

because of the very fact that they are disturbing! If there were nothing

disturbing in the book, there would be nothing to be concerned about and

hence no discussion.

The actual argument is that the most extreme measures

> appalling, but that the population crisis is so great they could be

> warranted, and that they find defense of individual rights to regulate

> family size to be without merit.

While I was not trying to capture the entirety of the argument of the book

with my previous comments, I did however point out what you said here - that

it seems the authors think those extreme measures would be warranted if the

circumstances were dire enough. That alone is important enough that this

piece of work (and surely others) should've been more thoroughly examined

before Ehrlich was appointed as an advisor to the most powerful man on the

planet and before Holdren was after him.

Did you happen to find a free online copy? I just searched but couldn't find

one for free unless I subscribe to this service or that. Please post a link

if you've found a free copy somewhere online.

Thanks,

Suze

[Guest guest]

OThe idea that we need totalitarian

> government to arrive at smallness is very reminicent of Marx's idea

> that we need a dictatorshp of the proletriat in order to achieve the

> stateless society in which no one needs government because we all love

> each other. The result was governments that slaughtered tens or

> hundreds of millions of their own people.

>

> Chris

>

Does the fact that these governments were so brutal prove that Marx

was wrong? I'm not sure how that works. (not a Marxist, but can't

stand glib pontificating like this)

[Guest guest]

I think that it proves, in practice, that Machiavelli was right, that power

corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The implication for

Marxism is that it is never possible for a dictatorship to be a dictatorship

of the proletariat, because a totalitarian dictatorship will always lead to

absolute corruption, and thus brutality.

I got the book from a university library -- any library should be able to

interlibrary loan it from somewhere.

Chris

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <

implode7@...> wrote:

>

>

> Does the fact that these governments were so brutal prove that Marx

> was wrong? I'm not sure how that works. (not a Marxist, but can't

> stand glib pontificating like this)

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

It doesn't prove anything. I mean, we all know that power tends to corrupt, but

it doesn't by definition, and the fact that it does in this instance or that

doesn't prove that it must. In this country for instance, the fact that most

people who have power are corrupt (intellectually, morally, and some

financially) isn't necessarily because 'power corrupts' but also because you

don't rise to positions of power unless you make the necessary accomodations.

Has the presidency corrupted Obama? No - he hasn't changed a bit, as any astute

person would have realized from looking at his actual history.

Re: Re: POLITICAL: Obama's Agricultural Sec Vilsack

 

I think that it proves, in practice, that Machiavelli was right, that power

corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The implication for

Marxism is that it is never possible for a dictatorship to be a dictatorship

of the proletariat, because a totalitarian dictatorship will always lead to

absolute corruption, and thus brutality.

I got the book from a university library -- any library should be able to

interlibrary loan it from somewhere.

Chris

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <

implode7@... > wrote:

>

>

> Does the fact that these governments were so brutal prove that Marx

> was wrong? I'm not sure how that works. (not a Marxist, but can't

> stand glib pontificating like this)

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I was reading from a guy R. Hawkins that we should implement another

branch that would have older, experienced men like in our judicial branch. It

would be a oligarchy branch. I see why it's better to have older men, because

younger men are more easily corruptible whereas money doesn't matter as much to

older people so they make their decisions based on values rather than greed or

to accomodate a source that finances them. Politicians are the most

knowledgeable guys on the bigger matters of our country.

I would look at a benevolent soveriegn from China to see how that type of

government could be successful. China kinda got out of hand though. But for a

time it was one of the most advanced and civilized cultures in the world, and

it's government was better ran than ours ever was with a benevolent sovereign

Dan Holt.

________________________________

From: Ancient Eyeball Recipe <implode7@...>

Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 10:18:22 AM

Subject: Re: Re: POLITICAL: Obama's Agricultural Sec Vilsack

It doesn't prove anything. I mean, we all know that power tends to corrupt, but

it doesn't by definition, and the fact that it does in this instance or that

doesn't prove that it must. In this country for instance, the fact that most

people who have power are corrupt (intellectually, morally, and some

financially) isn't necessarily because 'power corrupts' but also because you

don't rise to positions of power unless you make the necessary accomodations.

Has the presidency corrupted Obama? No - he hasn't changed a bit, as any astute

person would have realized from looking at his actual history.

Re: Re: POLITICAL: Obama's Agricultural Sec Vilsack

I think that it proves, in practice, that Machiavelli was right, that power

corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The implication for

Marxism is that it is never possible for a dictatorship to be a dictatorship

of the proletariat, because a totalitarian dictatorship will always lead to

absolute corruption, and thus brutality.

I got the book from a university library -- any library should be able to

interlibrary loan it from somewhere.

Chris

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Ancient Eyeball Recipe <

implode7comcast (DOT) net > wrote:

>

>

> Does the fact that these governments were so brutal prove that Marx

> was wrong? I'm not sure how that works. (not a Marxist, but can't

> stand glib pontificating like this)

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Would all nations ruled by one primary man always be considered a totalitarian

government? I think their were some good quality emperors in the Roman or

Byzantine Empire, Byzantine for sure. I would imagine while that form of

Government can be good there is too much room for corruption. Religion has

inspired some Emperor's to really improve the quality of living for their

nation.

Dan Holt

________________________________

From: mike <tropical@...>

Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 5:57:51 PM

Subject: Re: POLITICAL: Obama's Agricultural Sec Vilsack

It's all well and good to talk about the evil of totalitarian governments. ..but

what about totalitarian religious figures and groups? The Spanish Inquisition,

the Salem witch trials...churches have at least as bad a history as governments,

do they not?

mike

>

> >

> >

> > Does the fact that these governments were so brutal prove that Marx

> > was wrong? I'm not sure how that works. (not a Marxist, but can't

> > stand glib pontificating like this)

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> I was reading from a guy R. Hawkins that we should implement another

> branch that would have older, experienced men like in our judicial branch.

It would

> be a oligarchy branch.

Yeh, I really look forward to being ruled by a small group of unelected

elites.

I see why it's better to have older men, because younger

> men are more easily corruptible whereas money doesn't matter as much to

older

> people so they make their decisions based on values rather than greed or

to

> accomodate a source that finances them.

I can tell you are a younger man as only a young, inexperienced mind could

entertain such thoughts.

>Politicians are the most knowledgeable guys on the bigger matters of our

country.

If I didn't get the sense you sincerely believe this based on your other

posts I would've thought this entire post was tongue-in-cheek to give us a

laugh.

>

> I would look at a benevolent soveriegn from China to see how that type of

> government could be successful.

Good luck - there hasn't been a sovereign human being in China since the

Maoist revolution and anyone having the slightest sovereign thoughts was one

of the millions murdered by Mao, jailed or currently lives a life of silent

desperation.

Suze

[Guest guest]

<<<<> I was reading from a guy R. Hawkins that we should implement another

> branch that would have older, experienced men like in our judicial branch.

It would

> be a oligarchy branch.

Yeh, I really look forward to being ruled by a small group of unelected

elites.>>>

I think the judicial branch has a fair way of putting those guys in charge. Use

the same strategy for an oligarchy branch.

I see why it's better to have older men, because younger

> men are more easily corruptible whereas money doesn't matter as much to

older

> people so they make their decisions based on values rather than greed or

to

> accomodate a source that finances them.

I meant our politicians " aren't " . I hate when my fingers work faster than my

brain. They aren't the most knowledgeable guys on making the kind of decisions

that go beyond their affiliates agenda. That's all they know how to do.

<<I can tell you are a younger man as only a young, inexperienced mind could

entertain such thoughts.

>Politicians are the most knowledgeable guys on the bigger matters of our

country.>>

[Guest guest]

> Yeh, I really look forward to being ruled by a small group of unelected

> elites.>>>

>

>

> I think the judicial branch has a fair way of putting those guys in charge.

Use the

> same strategy for an oligarchy branch.

, do you know what " oligarchy " means? While Wiki is not the most reliable

source of information, I think they explain what this means quite well:

" An Oligarchy (Greek ὈλιγαÏχία, Oligarkhía) (oligocracy) is a form of

government in which power effectively rests with a small elite segment of

society distinguished by royal, wealth, intellectual, family, military, or

religious hegemony. The word oligarchy is from the Greek words for " few "

(ὀλίγος olígos) and " rule " (á¼€Ïχή arkhÄ“). Such states are often

controlled by politically powerful families whose children are heavily

conditioned and mentored to be heirs of the power of the oligarchy.[citation

needed]

Oligarchies have been tyrannical throughout history, being completely reliant on

public servitude to exist. Although Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as a

synonym for rule by the rich, for which the exact term is plutocracy, oligarchy

is not always a rule by wealth, as oligarchs can simply be a privileged group. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy

So you'd like to be ruled by a small group of tyrannical wealthy families? Maybe

we can import the Queen of England? The Duchess of York?

Oh wait, we already have King Rockefeller and et al.

> I meant our politicians " aren't " . I hate when my fingers work faster than my

brain.

> They aren't the most knowledgeable guys on making the kind of decisions that

go

> beyond their affiliates agenda. That's all they know how to do.

Oh - that makes more sense! Although I disagree that we need a ruling cabal of

wealthy older elite to run things, which, to some extent, already exists.

Suze

[Guest guest]

Emperor ian and Emperor Constantine were both far better quality emperors

I guess I had a more positive influence on their people. Benevolent Sovereign

was more well ran than the United States currently is.

Here is the term of an Oligarchy I found: The confluence of wise, seasoned,

experienced, brilliant, accomplished, integrous, balanced, proven, gracious,

sagacious, educated, good-will statesmen. It means mentor, advisor, mature,

objective, well-rounded, well-spoken, successful, top level, self-fulfilled, and

beyond the desire of gain, whether personal, political, or financial.

This is different than a cabinet because it is purely ran for the people rather

than by the intentions of politicians or their affiliates. Hawkins was

saying we should develop a fourth branch to our country that is equal to or

atleast highly advisable to the other three branches.

Switzerland is a successful oligarchy. They have low crime rates and such..

Dan Holt

________________________________

From: Suze Fisher <suzefisher@...>

Sent: Sun, November 1, 2009 8:29:08 AM

Subject: RE: Re: POLITICAL: Obama's Agricultural Sec Vilsack

> Yeh, I really look forward to being ruled by a small group of unelected

> elites.>>>

>

>

> I think the judicial branch has a fair way of putting those guys in charge.

Use the

> same strategy for an oligarchy branch.

, do you know what " oligarchy " means? While Wiki is not the most reliable

source of information, I think they explain what this means quite well:

" An Oligarchy (Greek ὈλιγαÏχία, Oligarkhía) (oligocracy) is a form of

government in which power effectively rests with a small elite segment of

society distinguished by royal, wealth, intellectual, family, military, or

religious hegemony. The word oligarchy is from the Greek words for " few "

(ὀλίγος olígos) and " rule " (á¼€Ïχή arkhÄ“). Such states are often

controlled by politically powerful families whose children are heavily

conditioned and mentored to be heirs of the power of the oligarchy.[citation

needed]

Oligarchies have been tyrannical throughout history, being completely reliant on

public servitude to exist. Although Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as a

synonym for rule by the rich, for which the exact term is plutocracy, oligarchy

is not always a rule by wealth, as oligarchs can simply be a privileged group. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy

So you'd like to be ruled by a small group of tyrannical wealthy families? Maybe

we can import the Queen of England? The Duchess of York?

Oh wait, we already have King Rockefeller and et al.

> I meant our politicians " aren't " . I hate when my fingers work faster than my

brain.

> They aren't the most knowledgeable guys on making the kind of decisions that

go

> beyond their affiliates agenda. That's all they know how to do.

Oh - that makes more sense! Although I disagree that we need a ruling cabal of

wealthy older elite to run things, which, to some extent, already exists.

Suze

[Guest guest]

>

> Here is the term of an Oligarchy I found: The confluence of wise,

seasoned,

> experienced, brilliant, accomplished, integrous, balanced, proven,

gracious,

> sagacious, educated, good-will statesmen. It means mentor, advisor,

mature,

> objective, well-rounded, well-spoken, successful, top level,

self-fulfilled, and beyond

> the desire of gain, whether personal, political, or financial.

Dan,

This definition is a load of crap. Sorry to be so blunt.

Secondly, even if a country or the entire world were to be ruled by a small

group of elites that are benevolent:

a) you're giving up your right to make decisions about your own life - IOW -

you lose control over your own life and just better hope that those

benevolent dictators don't make benevolent decisions like mandating you take

H1N1 flu shots (which is currently considerd to be a benevolent act by many

powers that be). There are lots of things that some group thinks is

benevolent that in reality is harmful.

Who's to say that benevelont group, once empowered, isn't taken over by

malicious power-hungry eugenicists? Or Genocidal dictators?

Once you give up power to live your life as you choose, you have to be

prepared to be ruled by the worst monsters the human race has to offer. They

often gravitate towards positions of extreme power as history attests...

Suze

[Guest guest]

That's a very silly comment you made. Someone evil can take control of any

government, even our current presidency. I never said our freedoms should be

lost. It already is run by a small group of elites. You don't think the common

man is making decisions for our country. Our politics are driven by the

interests of those who have money and have the influence in the world. It is an

illusion that we the people have as much freedom as we think, as we are

currently slaves to propaganda and lies.

It's interesting that with the right set up and principals, their are many types

of governments that can be just as successful and advanced if not more than our

own. It's interesting to see that their have been " dictatorships " in the past

with leaders that were more beneficial in shaping their culture than our current

presidents.

There's already been some states where people are being forced to get the shots.

Already happened with our " fair democracy " . If you ask me our country is

looking more and more like socialism.

Dan,

This definition is a load of crap. Sorry to be so blunt.

Secondly, even if a country or the entire world were to be ruled by a small

group of elites that are benevolent:

a) you're giving up your right to make decisions about your own life - IOW -

you lose control over your own life and just better hope that those

benevolent dictators don't make benevolent decisions like mandating you take

H1N1 flu shots (which is currently considerd to be a benevolent act by many

powers that be). There are lots of things that some group thinks is

benevolent that in reality is harmful.

Who's to say that benevelont group, once empowered, isn't taken over by

malicious power-hungry eugenicists? Or Genocidal dictators?

Once you give up power to live your life as you choose, you have to be

prepared to be ruled by the worst monsters the human race has to offer. They

often gravitate towards positions of extreme power as history attests...

Suze

[Guest guest]

>

> That's a very silly comment you made.

Which one?

Someone evil can take control of any

> government, even our current presidency.

That was not my point - authoritarian types have a history of gravitating

toward positions of great power historically, and presently. That said, the

mere fact that a perceived " benevolent " oligarchy *could* make

non-benevolent decisions and/or be replaced by non-benevolent totalitarians

is reason enough to prevent oligarchies from forming. (Not that they don't

already exist.)

I never said our freedoms should be

> lost.

By wishing for an oligarchy you automatically lose your freedoms. An

oligarchy is not a *representative* body. (Not that our current

representatives actually do any real representing.)

It already is run by a small group of elites. You don't think the common

man is

> making decisions for our country. Our politics are driven by the

interests of those

> who have money and have the influence in the world. It is an illusion

that we the

> people have as much freedom as we think, as we are currently slaves to

> propaganda and lies.

Absolutely.

>

> It's interesting that with the right set up and principals, their are many

types of

> governments that can be just as successful and advanced if not more than

our

> own.

How do you define " success " ?

It's interesting to see that their have been " dictatorships " in the past

with

> leaders that were more beneficial in shaping their culture than our

current

> presidents.

Beneficial how?

>

> There's already been some states where people are being forced to get the

shots.

> Already happened with our " fair democracy " . If you ask me our country is

looking

> more and more like socialism.

Yep. Take a look at my website: www.swineflushots.us You'll see the top

article is about how my own state Legislative Council voted to maintain a

bill that effectively allows the governor of Maine at any time to invoke

forced drugging, forced vaccinating and detaining Maine citizens. This H1N1

" pandemic " is a phony pandemic and the vaccines are a toxic soup, untested

for safety. I'll be damned if any bureaucrat tries to force me to take any

drug against my will. The appeal is this week, and I must go now and write

to the 6 members of the Council who voted against a prohibition of mandatory

vaccines. Totally partisan vote, BTW, all 6 who voted to maintain the

government's power to force drug us are Dems and the 4 who voted to move the

prohibition to the full house and senate for debate are all Republicans. It

boggles my mind how force drugging citizens could be a partisan issue...

Suze

[Guest guest]

We should develop a type of oligarchy that would work with our constitution.

Based on the description I gave that shouldn't be too hard. Our government

wouldn't be an oligarchy, it would just have an oligarchy branch attached to it.

Voting and rights would still be allowed. Communication with the people would

improve and more positive stuff would get done.

I define success as low crime, human rights, more and better quality job

opportunities, no poverty, affordable better quality education, better

healthcare, better health and farming quality. I'm sure I can put together a

much bigger list. We have much to learn from Switzerland and Singapore. We can

even learn from a good quality dictatorship like from Emperor ian and

Emperor Constantine. We also have much to learn from a benevolent Soveriegn.

We need to learn what works and what doesn't work, instead of repeating the same

mistakes we have been for the past hundred years because our culture is stupid

and lazy and don't like to think.

Dan Holt

That was not my point - authoritarian types have a history of gravitating

toward positions of great power historically, and presently. That said, the

mere fact that a perceived " benevolent " oligarchy *could* make

non-benevolent decisions and/or be replaced by non-benevolent totalitarians

is reason enough to prevent oligarchies from forming. (Not that they don't

already exist.)

I never said our freedoms should be

> lost.

By wishing for an oligarchy you automatically lose your freedoms. An

oligarchy is not a *representative* body. (Not that our current

representatives actually do any real representing. )

It already is run by a small group of elites. You don't think the common

man is

> making decisions for our country. Our politics are driven by the

interests of those

> who have money and have the influence in the world. It is an illusion

that we the

> people have as much freedom as we think, as we are currently slaves to

> propaganda and lies.

Absolutely.

>

> It's interesting that with the right set up and principals, their are many

types of

> governments that can be just as successful and advanced if not more than

our

> own.

How do you define " success " ?

It's interesting to see that their have been " dictatorships " in the past

with

> leaders that were more beneficial in shaping their culture than our

current

> presidents.

Beneficial how?

>

> There's already been some states where people are being forced to get the

shots.

> Already happened with our " fair democracy " . If you ask me our country is

looking

> more and more like socialism.

Yep. Take a look at my website: www.swineflushots. us You'll see the top

article is about how my own state Legislative Council voted to maintain a

bill that effectively allows the governor of Maine at any time to invoke

forced drugging, forced vaccinating and detaining Maine citizens. This H1N1

" pandemic " is a phony pandemic and the vaccines are a toxic soup, untested

for safety. I'll be damned if any bureaucrat tries to force me to take any

drug against my will. The appeal is this week, and I must go now and write

to the 6 members of the Council who voted against a prohibition of mandatory

vaccines. Totally partisan vote, BTW, all 6 who voted to maintain the

government's power to force drug us are Dems and the 4 who voted to move the

prohibition to the full house and senate for debate are all Republicans. It

boggles my mind how force drugging citizens could be a partisan issue...

Suze

[Guest guest]

,

> We should develop a type of oligarchy that would work with our constitution.

> Based on the description I gave that shouldn't be too hard. Our government

> wouldn't be an oligarchy, it would just have an oligarchy branch attached to

> it. Voting and rights would still be allowed. Communication with the

> people would improve and more positive stuff would get done.

> I define success as low crime, human rights, more and better quality job

> opportunities, no poverty, affordable better quality education, better

> healthcare, better health and farming quality. I'm sure I can put together

> a much bigger list. We have much to learn from Switzerland and Singapore.

> We can even learn from a good quality dictatorship like from Emperor

> ian and Emperor Constantine. We also have much to learn from a

> benevolent Soveriegn. We need to learn what works and what doesn't work,

> instead of repeating the same mistakes we have been for the past hundred

> years because our culture is stupid and lazy and don't like to think.

This is exactly how the current shadow-government type oligarchy came

into being. All of the modern scientific establishment, especially

fields like psychology, sociology, genetics, and molecular biology,

were based on the idea of " social control " promoted primarily by the

Rockefeller Foundation, with the purported aim of benevolently

bringing the science of controlling people up to par with

technological science so that crime and poverty could be reduced while

opportunity, healthcare, and better food could could be produced.

I would recommend on this subject reading the book " The Rockefeller

Foundation's Molecular Vision of Life " by the respected science

historian Lilly Kay, which I've reviewed here:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Rockefeller-Foundation-Social-Control-Euge\

nics.html

I would also recommend viewing how this oligarchic control of American

and international institutions has differed in theory and practice.

" Better food " has brought us genetic engineering, which destroys

health and increases direct oligarchic control of the food supply.

The benevolent vision of social control was initially associated with

eugenics, and, after Hitler, switched to overpopulation. To see the

potential consequences of this concern among the scientific elite, see

my review about the extremist Pianka, who got a standing ovation

from the Texas Academy of Sciences for his speech about how 90% of the

world's population must be destroyed for the sake of such benevolent

care about living standards:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/FBI-Anthrax-Terrorist-Army-Insider.html#Pi\

anka

I think you are missing something when you refer to Constantine and

ian. Whatever the faults some may identify in their practice as

benevolent rulers, they held themselves to a law above themselves. In

the so-called " Byzantine " (Christian Roman) Empire, political

philosophy of the time held that even the rulers are subject to the

law, and that man discovers the divine law and only creates decrees to

imperfectly adhere to that law, rather than creating law himself.

Constantine and ian sought advice from holy ascetics in the

dessert who believed that every individual had the ultimate destiny

of, while remaining completely an individual, nevertheless

participating fully in the divine nature. They sought the advice of

ascetic bishops like Basil the Great, who invented the hospital (as a

charitable and non-profit institution) and the orphanage.

In the ancient world, the Greek word for person was prosopon, meaning

" mask. " Thus, like the Asian religious traditions, they held the

individual was an illusion. The Trinitarian theologists who advised

Constantine and ian brought a new word to the table for person,

hypostasis, meaning underlying principle, thus holding that each

individual had a real, true, indepedent existence.

The current science Czar, JP Holdren, co-authored Ecoscience, a policy

textbook. In this book, Holdren and the Erlichs state that the

question of when life begins is meaningless to the biologist, because

to the biologist, life began only once when it spontaneously developed

billions of years ago, and there is no distinction between individual

lives that have resulted from it, but merely a continuum.

According to the highest scientific authority in this land, you carry

the same meaning as a bacterium, and I carry the same meaning as a

bacterium.

This is according to the molecular biology developed by the benevolent

Rockefeller Foundation, who sought to create a ruling oligarchy that

would benevolently increase opportunity and healthcare while

decreasing crime and poverty.

Do you really think that an oligarchy born out of this philosophy will

produce whatever benevolent qualities you see in Constantine or

ian?

Chris

[Guest guest]

I disagree with your definition Chris. Switzerland is an Oligarchy and look how

well they are run. Obviously our Oligarchy branch wouldn't quite be like their

government. This version would work well with our own constitution. I don't

know what Oligarchy you seem to be referring to. It's about putting very

experienced older men that are connected to biased financial sources like

politicians. It would be like how the people in the judicial branch are chosen.

Older men without corruption and bias. One thing their Oligarchy represents is

tradition like our own government.

We don't have many men at the top that are going out of there way to make

selfless decisions that would massively benefit our country. These men can take

the time to listen to our concerns and act on them. It's the politicians that

are more likely to support GMO crops, not selfless statesmen. It would better

organize our government. There would be more positive communication with the

governors therefore better communication with the people so people can act

accurately with their freedom of speech and voting.

Our country and maybe even the whole world seems to be surviving on the

backwards conventional concepts that were introduced in the 20th century.

Poor quality farming, poor quality hospital care, etc. etc. etc. While an

Oligarchy won't fix all the problems it will certainly be a step in the right

direction to connect the people with the Government without all the diarhea

politic bullshit.

Right now our current government and most of the governments in the world are

already working for the intentions of these rich select few. I would see an

Oligarchy as a step to being able to spread more financial opportunities to the

common man and given the people more power.

The Oligarchy I am thinking of the the Greek term of it and what Switzerland is

currently using. What gives you the idea that the Oligarchy supports such

corruption? List some countries that ran by an Oligarchy like the ones you are

listing.

So yes, an Oligarchy will produce benevolent qualities such as ian and

Constantine. They too will be held by the law and are held accountable by the

people and their peers. This form of government will influence a higher

integrity out of people.

My take on population control: If we continue to consume as we do there will be

overpopulation and our resources with dissipate. This will lead to many

problems, loss of control of our own people, leading to massive chaos, death,

and the beginning of another dark age.

We have two choices: Limit the amount of children people are allowed to have,

and perhaps we still risk the " NWO " unleashing a plague that will kill off

2/3rds of mankind, or choose to consume less like Native Americans, Chinese, and

East Indians. The entire world's standard of living would have to go down in

order to support a higher population for the future without major issues

arising. That would mean giving up the shallow wasteful over consuming American

lifestyle. I don't know how our economy could work that out... So a higher

population can thrive with a lower standard of living. I like how educated

college people like to bend the truth to fit their daisy view of how the world

and make these rich guys out to be pure evil who have no logic. We have to look

at what they are doing, why they are doing it, and then see if we can work out a

better solution. Most college people are liberals and they don't seem to

realize just how meek and

vulnerable we all are if we don't make the necessary choices.

If we reduce our population down to 90-95% our standard of living would all rise

to rich status. If we reduced it to two billion everyone in the world would

live by middle class standards. If we increased it to 10-20 billion everyone

would become lower class with a rich select few in charge proportionally.

Dan Holt

________________________________

From: Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...>

Sent: Tue, November 3, 2009 7:20:43 AM

Subject: Re: Re: POLITICAL: Obama's Agricultural Sec Vilsack

,

> We should develop a type of oligarchy that would work with our constitution.

> Based on the description I gave that shouldn't be too hard. Our government

> wouldn't be an oligarchy, it would just have an oligarchy branch attached to

> it. Voting and rights would still be allowed. Communication with the

> people would improve and more positive stuff would get done.

> I define success as low crime, human rights, more and better quality job

> opportunities, no poverty, affordable better quality education, better

> healthcare, better health and farming quality. I'm sure I can put together

> a much bigger list. We have much to learn from Switzerland and Singapore.

> We can even learn from a good quality dictatorship like from Emperor

> ian and Emperor Constantine. We also have much to learn from a

> benevolent Soveriegn. We need to learn what works and what doesn't work,

> instead of repeating the same mistakes we have been for the past hundred

> years because our culture is stupid and lazy and don't like to think.

This is exactly how the current shadow-government type oligarchy came

into being. All of the modern scientific establishment, especially

fields like psychology, sociology, genetics, and molecular biology,

were based on the idea of " social control " promoted primarily by the

Rockefeller Foundation, with the purported aim of benevolently

bringing the science of controlling people up to par with

technological science so that crime and poverty could be reduced while

opportunity, healthcare, and better food could could be produced.

I would recommend on this subject reading the book " The Rockefeller

Foundation's Molecular Vision of Life " by the respected science

historian Lilly Kay, which I've reviewed here:

http://www.choleste rol-and-health. com/Rockefeller- Foundation- Social-Control-

Eugenics. html

I would also recommend viewing how this oligarchic control of American

and international institutions has differed in theory and practice.

" Better food " has brought us genetic engineering, which destroys

health and increases direct oligarchic control of the food supply.

The benevolent vision of social control was initially associated with

eugenics, and, after Hitler, switched to overpopulation. To see the

potential consequences of this concern among the scientific elite, see

my review about the extremist Pianka, who got a standing ovation

from the Texas Academy of Sciences for his speech about how 90% of the

world's population must be destroyed for the sake of such benevolent

care about living standards:

http://www.choleste rol-and-health. com/FBI-Anthrax- Terrorist- Army-Insider.

html#Pianka

I think you are missing something when you refer to Constantine and

ian. Whatever the faults some may identify in their practice as

benevolent rulers, they held themselves to a law above themselves. In

the so-called " Byzantine " (Christian Roman) Empire, political

philosophy of the time held that even the rulers are subject to the

law, and that man discovers the divine law and only creates decrees to

imperfectly adhere to that law, rather than creating law himself.

Constantine and ian sought advice from holy ascetics in the

dessert who believed that every individual had the ultimate destiny

of, while remaining completely an individual, nevertheless

participating fully in the divine nature. They sought the advice of

ascetic bishops like Basil the Great, who invented the hospital (as a

charitable and non-profit institution) and the orphanage.

In the ancient world, the Greek word for person was prosopon, meaning

" mask. " Thus, like the Asian religious traditions, they held the

individual was an illusion. The Trinitarian theologists who advised

Constantine and ian brought a new word to the table for person,

hypostasis, meaning underlying principle, thus holding that each

individual had a real, true, indepedent existence.

The current science Czar, JP Holdren, co-authored Ecoscience, a policy

textbook. In this book, Holdren and the Erlichs state that the

question of when life begins is meaningless to the biologist, because

to the biologist, life began only once when it spontaneously developed

billions of years ago, and there is no distinction between individual

lives that have resulted from it, but merely a continuum.

According to the highest scientific authority in this land, you carry

the same meaning as a bacterium, and I carry the same meaning as a

bacterium.

This is according to the molecular biology developed by the benevolent

Rockefeller Foundation, who sought to create a ruling oligarchy that

would benevolently increase opportunity and healthcare while

decreasing crime and poverty.

Do you really think that an oligarchy born out of this philosophy will

produce whatever benevolent qualities you see in Constantine or

ian?

Chris

[Guest guest]

Daneil,

> I don't know what Oligarchy you seem to be referring to.

> It's about putting very experienced older men that are connected to biased

> financial sources like politicians. It would be like how the people in the

> judicial branch are chosen. Older men without corruption and bias. One

> thing their Oligarchy represents is tradition like our own government.

If you read the link I posted and the book contained therein, it will

become much clearer what I mean by the currently ruling oligarchy.

America has been ruled for the last century by a network of

foundations, other organizations of enlightened statesmen and elites.

To give a good example, that book covers the how the Rockefeller

Foundation virtually created the modern scientific establishment for

the purpose of " social control, " which was promoted as a tool of

benevolency with the very aims you are talking about.

The judicial branch is either chosen by elections, and thus in the

same way as politicians are chosen, or is appointed by politicians.

So I fail to see how the selection of judges is different than the

selection of politicians in this country.

If the judicial branch is any less corrupt than the legislative

branch, it is probably because its job is to interpret laws rather

than create them, and they are thus more bound by existing law.

However, this branch is arguably more corrupt than the legislative

branch because it creates laws anyway, despite this having nothign to

do with its constitutional mission.

Chris

[Guest guest]

I wouldn't call these statesman that have been running our country

" enlightened " . I think money can become a burden to rich men influences them to

make greedy decisions at times. Look up the terms enlightened and benevolent,

they don't match how you are placing them. Benevolent terms those that do

things for the greater good. Enlightened refers to a heightened state of highly

positive awareness. You must mean to say manevolent and forceful. You are

definately twisting my words around.

It will be interesting to read these books to learn more about the " NWO " . You

have not answered my question of how you would remedy the dillema of our current

population problems and of the reality that we may run out of resources...

It's not hard to imagine that they used science to control the masses. Science,

psychology, and nutrition in farming are all backwards in their current

approaches. All it takes though is our people to fight and raise awareness of

quality produce and for people to buy it. Ultimately it's supply and demand

that wins over dark agendas, and that's how people should fight.

Because it's the job of the judicial branch to interpret laws and not to meet

the demands of corrupt elites they are less corrupt. They too may do wrong at

times, but because it's not their job to do so they likely are doing that nearly

at the same rate a politician is. They are also all older men so they what

motivates them is far different than what motivates a politician. And so would

be the same nature of the Oligarchy branch. They would likely be older men with

years of experience who are not affiliated with corruption. There may be issues

of corruption, but they have to hold themselves accountable if they get caught.

Their job would be to make decisions that are better for the country. Perhaps

it would be better to communicate with them rather than politicians for what we

need because the politicians and the presidents are too busy following there

agendas. The Oligarchy council on the other hand would not. It would be their

job to serve

the people. Like the judiciary branch, if the common man calls to be heard, he

can make it public and get his point across. It's the Oligarchy's job to

listen. If you had actually read my description this Oligarchy would be

different than a cabinet or whatever you may be terming an Oligarchy. In the

description of this Oligarchy it is said that these men in particular aren't

affiliated with the rich select few or corruption. Go and study Switzerland's

Oligarchy before comparing it to the NWO which I have never heard in the same

sentence until talking to you.

________________________________

From: Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...>

Sent: Tue, November 3, 2009 1:52:29 PM

Subject: Re: Re: POLITICAL: Obama's Agricultural Sec Vilsack

Daneil,

> I don't know what Oligarchy you seem to be referring to.

> It's about putting very experienced older men that are connected to biased

> financial sources like politicians. It would be like how the people in the

> judicial branch are chosen. Older men without corruption and bias. One

> thing their Oligarchy represents is tradition like our own government.

If you read the link I posted and the book contained therein, it will

become much clearer what I mean by the currently ruling oligarchy.

America has been ruled for the last century by a network of

foundations, other organizations of enlightened statesmen and elites.

To give a good example, that book covers the how the Rockefeller

Foundation virtually created the modern scientific establishment for

the purpose of " social control, " which was promoted as a tool of

benevolency with the very aims you are talking about.

The judicial branch is either chosen by elections, and thus in the

same way as politicians are chosen, or is appointed by politicians.

So I fail to see how the selection of judges is different than the

selection of politicians in this country.

If the judicial branch is any less corrupt than the legislative

branch, it is probably because its job is to interpret laws rather

than create them, and they are thus more bound by existing law.

However, this branch is arguably more corrupt than the legislative

branch because it creates laws anyway, despite this having nothign to

do with its constitutional mission.

Chris