The People Of Ireland Are Waking Up: Legal Initiative Against Unconstitutional Bankster Debts

[Lewis Gordon Pugh]

Considering the soviet union was created (behind the scenes) by the same people who run the West (through a fake 'people's revolution'), you cannot conclude much from its fall other than it was probably planned. Once the soviet union had served it purpose as the bogie man for the west, and we had lost a few more freedoms in the name of the cold war, it was disbanded and a rapid process of privatisation of state owned assets was begun to further impoverish the Russia folk to the great benefit of a few carefully chosen individuals.

[dances with sheeple]

Without a subset of people, stealing other people's property, society just collapses, right?

Theft and violence isn't a prerequisite for society to function.

You can argue that thugs have always attempted to rule over others, but that doesn't make it right or inevitable. The mask of 'consent' is slipping from our 'democracies', partly because of the abuse of citizens by their rulers, but largely because the Internet has allowed people to educate and communicate with one another.

When people start to see the state for what it is, they will reject it. State free, horizontal democracy will return and the state, along with its violent, top down rule, will disintegrate.

People simply don't need a violent, monolithic system to tell them what to do. They can organise themselves, in distributed, voluntary, bottom up, groupings as and when they are required.

TBH, it all seems rather inevitable to me. The Internet has let the genie out of the bottle and no amount of FUD and propaganda from the establishment is going to put it back in again. It's funny watching you squirm though!

I don`t believe the masses do much more with the internet than facebook, celeb watching etc? The internet is just another barrier to groups of people coming together in person to exchange ideas? People being afraid to mix with strangers in a sociable way, and choosing to be "plugged in" to internet and social media instead, benefits only those who are trying to channel the way we should think?

[Sour Mash]

You can see the change happening in the way people think. I always give this forum as an example. Ideas and theories that are discussed on here now would not have got a look in even two years ago.

In fact if you search the previous posts it is quite alarming how many more people on this site are now realising that the right left paradigm, politics in general and banking is just one big scam. More and more people seeing through the smoke and mirrors. A couple of years ago this site was mainly of the opinion it was incompetence.

People are starting to realise it really is a conspiracy, there really is an elite that control the world and they really will do anything to bring total fascism.

I don't think there's a conspiracy per se - just the people at the top looking after their own interests. But they are heavily networked so quite often they'll collaborate since it's in their mutual interests to do so.

Of course, those in power are always looking for more of it and there has been an alarming swing towards less personal freedom under the cover of 'protecting' the public from evil arabs, pedos or whatever. The politicians have realised that scaring people and promising to protect them is much more effective than making pie-in-the-sky promises and the media have realised that scaring people sells newspapers and gets viewers of 24-hour news channels - Mutual interest at work.

People are also inherently mentally lazy and the media cater for this by dumbing things down ever more. This of course suits the 'smart guys' in authority as it makes the rest of the population even easier to fleece, so they encourage it and pander to it.

At the moment the erosion of civil liberties is just being used to make some well-connected businesses huge profits and some people in authority very powerful. Once we get a truly organised political movement in power - some kind of idealistic zealots determined to impose their philosophy at all costs - we are going to be in a whole heap of trouble with the raft of laws designed to spy on the public and suppress people's ability to protest.

[The Eagle]

I don't think there's a conspiracy per se - just the people at the top looking after their own interests. But they are heavily networked so quite often they'll collaborate since it's in their mutual interests to do so.

Well, duh that is the very definition of a 'conspiracy'!

What else did you think 'conspiracy' means? It doesn't need to involve voodoo and child sacrifice to be a conspiracy!

Edited April 4, 2012 by awake_eagle

[Game_Over]

Without a subset of people, stealing other people's property, society just collapses, right?

Theft and violence isn't a prerequisite for society to function.

You can argue that thugs have always attempted to rule over others, but that doesn't make it right or inevitable. The mask of 'consent' is slipping from our 'democracies', partly because of the abuse of citizens by their rulers, but largely because the Internet has allowed people to educate and communicate with one another.

When people start to see the state for what it is, they will reject it. State free, horizontal democracy will return and the state, along with its violent, top down rule, will disintegrate.

People simply don't need a violent, monolithic system to tell them what to do. They can organise themselves, in distributed, voluntary, bottom up, groupings as and when they are required.

TBH, it all seems rather inevitable to me. The Internet has let the genie out of the bottle and no amount of FUD and propaganda from the establishment is going to put it back in again. It's funny watching you squirm though!

I have never argued what happens is fair, just that it is inevitable

because life is a competition for resources with other organisms

Nothing we can say or do alters that basic fact of existence.

No system of anarchy can ever survive because it would allow some humans to organise and these humans would rapidly dominate all others

this process is inevitable.

NOT fair

Inevitable

[Game_Over]

Actually we spent a million years as communal hunter gatherers, and only the past 5000 years as statists. Some would say our genes are still the former.

When we were hunter gatherers we had no surplus to steal and no property to defend

Nevertheless violence was endemic.

The state began once agriculture was invented

So unless we uninvent agriculture there is no going back

[Game_Over]

i dont believe there is anything wrong with a welfare state, infact i wouldnt want to live in a country without some fall back mechanisim, i dont want to see india or somalia in the uk where people starve literaly.

The problem is the abuse of and stupidity of the system and rules. a welfare state that pays out more than working is just sick, and one that pays out to mass immigrants on massive scales is plain evil to the populance.

I think you need some form of safety net

But what we have now has clearly bankrupted our economy

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

You can see the change happening in the way people think. I always give this forum as an example. Ideas and theories that are discussed on here now would not have got a look in even two years ago.

Actually it's got more to do with the MCLs leaving after repeatedly seeing their theories debunked. With them gone and no longer misleading people we've had a lot more thought about more sensible solutions to the problems - because were looking to solve the right problem.

Problem is that in trying to compete with Soviet propaganda the West created the welfare state

The USSR then went bankrupt and now the big state social welfare model in the west is bankrupt.

I am not even trying to sell an ideology - I have just always been interested in history.

The economy of the USSR collapsed for obvious reasons and the economies of Western Europe and the US have also now inevitably collapsed.

It's worth remembering that socialism has never really been tried - you can't say it's really been tried when it was economically fighting the entire capitalist world, which, after WW2 had a significant head start. (after WW2 most of the world was paying the US either reparations or war-debts for decades)

Then in the 70s and 80s countries like the UK effectively bankrupted itself trying to bring down communism. We dumped all our oil on the market near enough at once (pumping as fast as we could) holding prices down and depriving the USSR of oil income, rather than selling it in a controlled manner, spreading the income and getting a better price. Then we blew all that money on tax cuts, sold all the national infrastructure, and ran up a huge unfunded state pension liability. All for a fantastic "Capitalist" lifestyle. And now were bankrupt as a result, where-as Russia still has all it's oil which it's selling for 20x per barrel what we got for ours. Russia also still has some of it's infrastructure, doesn't have the same debts we do and still has affordable house prices and operation factories.

Face it - everyone thought socialism had been defeated, but in the long run, they won and we lost... even after all the damage the capitalists did economically raping the USSR after the break-up, they are still going to end up better off than us in a few years.

Edited April 4, 2012 by RufflesTheGuineaPig

[Game_Over]

Actually it's got more to do with the MCLs leaving after repeatedly seeing their theories debunked. With them gone and no longer misleading people we've had a lot more thought about more sensible solutions to the problems - because were looking to solve the right problem.

It's worth remembering that socialism has never really been tried - you can't say it's really been tried when it was economically fighting the entire capitalist world, which, after WW2 had a significant head start. (after WW2 most of the world was paying the US either reparations or war-debts for decades)

Then in the 70s and 80s countries like the UK effectively bankrupted itself trying to bring down communism. We dumped all our oil on the market near enough at once (pumping as fast as we could) holding prices down and depriving the USSR of oil income, rather than selling it in a controlled manner, spreading the income and getting a better price. Then we blew all that money on tax cuts, sold all the national infrastructure, and ran up a huge unfunded state pension liability. All for a fantastic "Capitalist" lifestyle. And now were bankrupt as a result, where-as Russia still has all it's oil which it's selling for 20x per barrel what we got for ours. Russia also still has some of it's infrastructure, doesn't have the same debts we do and still has affordable house prices and operation factories.

Face it - everyone thought socialism had been defeated, but in the long run, they won and we lost... even after all the damage the capitalists did economically raping the USSR after the break-up, they are still going to end up better off than us in a few years.

Oh yes, that old chestnut - not proper Socialism

And Russia failed because of the West.

Still doesn't explain why the USSR had to murder millions of its own citizens

Or why Zimbabwe failed, or Cambodia or North Korea.

And isn't it funny how the left in the west think Capitalism is dead at the same time as both Russia and China are desperately adopting capitalism as all Socialism ever delivered was grinding poverty and economic failure.

[Traktion]

I have never argued what happens is fair, just that it is inevitable

because life is a competition for resources with other organisms

Nothing we can say or do alters that basic fact of existence.

No system of anarchy can ever survive because it would allow some humans to organise and these humans would rapidly dominate all others

this process is inevitable.

NOT fair

Inevitable

So why is there no global government then?

If it is inevitable that there will be a monopoly on violence, by that logic, there should only be one big state.

As there isn't one big state, I reject your assertion.

[Game_Over]

So why is there no global government then?

If it is inevitable that there will be a monopoly on violence, by that logic, there should only be one big state.

As there isn't one big state, I reject your assertion.

That's utterly ridiculous

We are clearly heading for a global government

And again I am not saying this is necessarily desirable

just that it is inevitable.

The overall sum of human suffering would probably be greatly reduced by such a government

but getting there will probably involve the deaths of hundreds of millions of people over the next few centuries.

[Lewis Gordon Pugh]

I wish the people of Ireland luck in throwing out the bankers. I hope they get some tips from the Icelandic people and then are successful. Then i hope other nations see the results and follow suit. And then i hope it ends up with 1000s of arrests and long prison sentences for all the criminals that have taken over out governments and positions of 'power'.

[Game_Over]

You may want to try "Deterring Democracy" for a different perspective.

Thanks for that, but somehow I don't think I would agree with Chomsky's analysis.

Also my views are based on what has happened since the establishment of the first city states around 5000 years ago

not on what the US may or may not have been up to for the last 50 years or so.

[MarkG]

We are clearly heading for a global government

They can't even make the EU work, yet you're convinced that they're going to manage to make a global government work?

[Lewis Gordon Pugh]

Thanks for that, but somehow I don't think I would agree with Chomsky's analysis.

Also my views are based on what has happened since the establishment of the first city states around 5000 years ago

not on what the US may or may not have been up to for the last 50 years or so.

You are not meant to read books in order to agree with the author. You are meant to read books to learn new things (and hopefully enjoy them too). To hopefully challenge yourself and your beliefs in some way.

If you are selecting books that have a similar viewpoint to your own, so you can pat yourself on the back, it explains why you are the way you are.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Lewis Gordon Pugh

[Traktion]

That's utterly ridiculous

We are clearly heading for a global government

And again I am not saying this is necessarily desirable

just that it is inevitable.

The overall sum of human suffering would probably be greatly reduced by such a government

but getting there will probably involve the deaths of hundreds of millions of people over the next few centuries.

Close to home, Scotland is looking at splitting from the UK and the EU is creaking at the seams. Inevitable? I think not.

After some brief googling, I found this: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100616200808AA9hcTg

Is the number of countries in the world increasing or decreasing?

It totally depends on how you define the term country. By the loosest of definitions, it is increasing, with maybe over 260 different political entities. By the strictest of definitions, a sovereign nation, the number has been fairly static over the last decade. But if we go back as far as the 1980s and 1990s, those decades saw a big increase. That was because of the break-up of the former Soviet Union and some new Pacific island nations.

There seems to be little sign of the number of countries decreasing and in fact the reverse seems to be true.

I have heard more about countries fragmenting than combining over recent years. This includes African countries, but even unions are showing signs of collapse. Elements in Syria want the country split into two. Sudan has recently broken into two (IIRC).

After such a strong assertion that it is 'inevitable' that we will have one world state, which uses force to enslave the citizenry in every corner of it, the evidence backing it up seems to be sorely lacking.

Ofc, if you have any strong evidence to the contrary, let's see it.

[South Lorne]

After Iceland, Ireland is finally waking up too (UK still appears sound asleep).

Legal action is being taken against the unconstitutional bailouts of Irish banks that transferred private bankster debts onto the taxpayer.

http://ItsNotOurDebt.com

See also:

Constitution halts sheriff: youtube.com/watch?v=PpUjl4LvQM8

What happened next: youtube.com/watch?v=odX-oTdjIeI

Constitution in the video - http://www.eire2016.com/pdf/irish-text.pdf

http://www.peopleforeconomicjustice.com

...haa...Gordo Clown needs to be questioned.....

[goldbug9999]

And Russia failed because of the West.

East european and especially ex-USSR countries will always struggle economically because of certain social norms such as a deep distrust of strangers and acute short termism. There is consequently little or no credit or venture capital available, business dont last because they cant build long term relationships and reputations because they are too predatory (or become the victims of other businesses acting in this way).

In short their whole social dynamic just isn't conducive to modern commerce in the way it is in the west. Actually we should thankful because if not for this holding them back they would quickly take us to the cleaners because of their vastly superior education system.

Edited April 5, 2012 by goldbug9999

[Sour Mash]

Well, duh that is the very definition of a 'conspiracy'!

What else did you think 'conspiracy' means? It doesn't need to involve voodoo and child sacrifice to be a conspiracy!

To me, a conspiracy involves a number of people acting together in an organised and directed way to achieve a specific goal or set of goals. Not individual actors looking after their own personal interests and finding that amongst their network of associates they can scratch each other's backs on some issues which is frankly an integral part of human society and has been since day one.

e.g. The media and the government both see it as in their own interest to scare the bejaysus out of the public with all manner of exaggerated issues. Doesn't mean that the media are conspiring with the government to push out their typical endless scaremongering crap about Muslims, pedos, drugs, killer bug of the week, health issue of the week, black kids with knives etc. - just that both parties see it in their mutual interest and are quite happy to feed off the actions of the other. The media get a bigger audience for their schlock, the government get an opportunity to grab more power for themselves and look tough on issues that scare people.