The totalitarian state

Comments about your favorite candidate, the newest PROPOSED law, and the FEMA camp near your hometown should go here.
Post Reply
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1474
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

9/11 false flag attack

Post by Firestarter » Mon Sep 12, 2016 3:46 pm

I still haven’t found any website or story that puts all the pieces together. Here’s a summary of the (in my opinion) most important facts that prove that the terrorist attack on the USA on September 11, 2001 was an inside job, by: Bush, Cheney, the CIA and FBI.
Post removed to “new” thread on the 9/11 false flag attack: https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/viewto ... =31&t=1126
Keywords: terrorist attack 11 September 2001, inside job, Bush Cheney CIA FBI, planes WTC, Pentagon, CONTROLLED DEMOLITION TWIN TOWERS, kerosene fuel, demolition explosions, Larry Silverstein INSURANCE FRAUD, CELL PHONE CONVERSATIONS, INSIDER TRADING PUT OPTIONS, American United Airlines, Morgan Stanley Merrill Lynch, Michael C. Ruppert, STRATASEC ACE ELEVATOR COMPANY, Wirt Walker, Kuwait-American Corp, CIA filmed fake Bin Laden video, Michael Glassner, Jacob Rothschild Blackstone Group, Israeli Zim Shipping Company.
Attachments
Sept11-South-tower-explosion-911.jpg
Sept11-South-tower-explosion-911.jpg (38.75 KiB) Viewed 9307 times
Last edited by Firestarter on Sun Dec 03, 2017 2:00 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1474
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: The totalitarian state

Post by Firestarter » Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:26 pm

Post removed to “new” thread on the 9/11 false flag attack: https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/viewto ... =31&t=1126
Keywords: Al Qaeda, Reagan-Bush administration, British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook heart attack, Tanzania Kenya attack USS Cole, AFGHANISTAN GAS PIPELINE UNOCAL, Hamad Karzai, PETRODOLLAR, Paul O'Neill fired, KBR/Halliburton Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld Pentagon missile, World Trade Center, Tim Roemer
terrorist attack 11 September 2001, inside job, Bush Cheney CIA FBI, planes WTC, Pentagon, CONTROLLED DEMOLITION TWIN TOWERS, kerosene fuel, demolition explosions, Larry Silverstein INSURANCE FRAUD, CELL PHONE CONVERSATIONS, INSIDER TRADING PUT OPTIONS, American United Airlines, Morgan Stanley Merrill Lynch, Michael C. Ruppert, STRATASEC ACE ELEVATOR COMPANY, Wirt Walker, Kuwait-American Corp, CIA filmed fake Bin Laden video, Michael Glassner, Jacob Rothschild Blackstone Group, Israeli Zim Shipping Company
.


GEORGE ORWELL’S 1984 - QUOTES ON WAR
The object of waging a war is always to be in a better position in which to wage another war.
The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent.
War, it will be seen, not only accomplishes the necessary destruction, but accomplishes it in a psychologically acceptable way. In principle it would be quite simple to waste the surplus labour of the world by building temples and pyramids, by digging holes and filling them up again, or even by producing vast quantities of goods and then setting fire to them. But this would provide only the economic and not the emotional basis for a hierarchical society.
War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. In the past, the ruling groups of all countries, although they might recognize their common interest and therefore limit the destructiveness of war, did fight against one another, and the victor always plundered the vanquished. In our own day they are not fighting against one another at all. The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact. The very word "war", therefore, has become misleading. It would probably be accurate to say that by becoming continuous war has ceased to exist.
Last edited by Firestarter on Sun Dec 03, 2017 2:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 769
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: The totalitarian state

Post by notmartha » Tue Sep 20, 2016 11:41 am

Why Socialism Is Here To Stay by Tyler Durden
Sep 19, 2016 7:15 PM

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-1 ... -here-stay

Image

“[T]he government has to take resources from someone before it can dole them out to others. This act of taking destroys an economy. The more you take from the productive members of society, the less productive they become. That’s the primary lesson of the history of socialism.
The above quote is from Porter Stansberry – from his book, America 2020: The Survival Blueprint. It states a concept I’ve described for years, but Porter states it more succinctly than I ever have. In particular, it negates the argument by many “progressives” that, even if they don’t recommend full-on socialism, they believe in getting “just the right mix” of socialism and capitalism to create the ideal system.

Unfortunately, as viable as this concept may sound, even moderate socialistic national policies result in moderate deterioration of the system. It’s not unlike being “just a little” addicted to heroin.

It may be argued that, “That’s different. With heroin, the addict will always end up wanting more and he’ll become even more dependent.” Exactly so – and that’s unquestionably true for socialism as well. Once the concept of “free stuff” is part of a nation’s governing system, the desire for more free stuff will inexorably rise.

And, of course, historically, we have seen that governments always step up to the plate whenever the demand for more free stuff is suggested. But why should this be so? Wouldn’t a more conservative government be less likely to proffer entitlements than a more liberal government?

Actually, no. To believe this is to misunderstand the very nature of governance. Those who are governed like to believe that their government exists to serve them, and all political leaders are quick to encourage this perception. However, amongst themselves, political leaders fully understand that they exist primarily to feed off of and dominate the electorate. Of course, they can’t actually admit this, but, regardless of party affiliation, that is their very raison d'tre.

In a free-market society, a government is not especially necessary. It may be needed to defend the country if it’s invaded, or, arguably, it may be useful in creating a national currency, building national highways, etc. (But even these needs may be argued.)

A free-market society is beneficial, as it creates prosperity. It enriches the population with money, goods, and services. It also rewards those who are most productive. However, it does tend to leave behind those who are less productive, and here’s where political leaders find their opportunity to cash in.

Let’s say we have a country that’s made up of five voters, with their respective net worth as follows:

Voter A: $1

Voter B: $10

Voter C: $100

Voter D: $1,000

Voter E: $10,000

If I were running for office and declared that no one should own more than $10, I would not be elected, as most voters would quite rightfully regard me as a threat. But if I were to declare that “the greedy rich” have too much money and should be required to “give some back,” I might get all voters except Voter E to vote for me.

Why should this be so? Because no one thinks of himself as being amongst “the greedy rich.” For the man who is worth $1,000, the greedy rich are those who are worth $10,000 or more. But, likewise, the man worth $100 thinks of the greedy rich as those worth $1,000 or more. Human nature dictates that we don’t see ourselves as greedy, but it’s not too difficult for politicians to convince us that those who have more than us are greedy. Further, once we’re convinced of this, it’s not too difficult to fool us into believing that the greedy rich have, in some way, achieved this wealth by swindling us out of it. And, now that you mention it, yes, we would like to have some of it back, thank you.

So, any population becomes an easy target for leaders who promise to take from the rich and “give back” to the less rich, like a modern-day Robin Hood. But what of that claim that “just the right mix” of socialism could take some away from the rich, but leave prosperity intact? Well, here’s why that will never happen in any country…

Political leaders, as stated above, do not exist to serve the populace, they exist to feed off of and dominate them. They cannot do this without the wealth of the electorate passing through their hands. The more of the electorate’s wealth passes through their hands, the greater the amount that can be skimmed off to both enrich themselves and increase their power. (Only in Uruguay does the President leave office driving the same Volkswagen he did when he took office.)

And so, it’s the nature of governments (whether they claim to be conservative or liberal) to seek to increase the size of government annually (requiring ever-more revenue to pass through their hands) and to take an ever-greater part in the hands-on distribution of the nation’s wealth. All governments will do all they can to grow themselves, as it’s very much in their interest to do so. All governments will, regardless of their party rhetoric, continually pursue a greater level of socialistic policies. In this regard, political parties are interchangeable.

So, where does that leave the individual voter? Well, the vast majority will vote for the candidate whose rhetoric most closely follows his own ideals, but he will surely be the loser as a result. (Campaign rhetoric almost always proves to be a lie.)

The choice, really, is whether the individual is living in a jurisdiction where he believes the government has already become so socialistic that he’s a net loser, rather than a net recipient. Beyond this point, his future can only be on a downward trajectory.

This is a most unpleasant conclusion to come to grips with, as it informs the individual not only of his current situation, but the rest of his life. In standing back and observing his entire future from a greater vantage point, he realises that, increasingly, he will be beating his head against the wall if he remains where he is.

Those who internationalise do so with the understanding that, if they choose one country because it’s the most ideal to do banking in and choose another because it’s the most productive to invest in, they will prosper. At some point, they additionally realise that it’s also beneficial to apply that logic to their choice of country of residence.

Throughout the life of anyone who advances himself, there’s a tendency to change neighbourhoods from time to time to attain a better quality of life. Yet most people drop this logic as soon as they reach the borders of the country they were born in. In truth, the decision to move beyond national borders to choose a neighbourhood – one where the system has not deteriorated to the point that it’s dramatically usurping the wealth of the individual – is not such a great leap. In fact, it’s relatively easy to do.

In much of the former “free world,” socialism is here to stay, but the individual citizen needn’t be. He may vote with his feet and move to a better neighbourhood.
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1474
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: The totalitarian state

Post by Firestarter » Wed Sep 21, 2016 3:08 pm

Post removed to “new” thread on the 9/11 false flag attack: https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/viewto ... =31&t=1126
Keywords: SHANKSVILLE, Patrick Madigan, swallowed, chosen deliberately, Jamie McIntyre CNN, Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), planes American Airlines, Air Traffic Control (ATC) UA93, Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) UA175 flying
Al Qaeda, Reagan-Bush administration, British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook heart attack, Tanzania Kenya attack USS Cole, AFGHANISTAN GAS PIPELINE UNOCAL, Hamad Karzai, PETRODOLLAR, Paul O'Neill fired, KBR/Halliburton Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld Pentagon missile, World Trade Center, Tim Roemer
terrorist attack 11 September 2001, inside job, Bush Cheney CIA FBI, planes WTC, Pentagon, CONTROLLED DEMOLITION TWIN TOWERS, kerosene fuel, demolition explosions, Larry Silverstein INSURANCE FRAUD, CELL PHONE CONVERSATIONS, INSIDER TRADING PUT OPTIONS, American United Airlines, Morgan Stanley Merrill Lynch, Michael C. Ruppert, STRATASEC ACE ELEVATOR COMPANY, Wirt Walker, Kuwait-American Corp, CIA filmed fake Bin Laden video, Michael Glassner, Jacob Rothschild Blackstone Group, Israeli Zim Shipping Company
.
Attachments
Sept11-Sun-north.jpg
Sept11-Sun-north.jpg (103.08 KiB) Viewed 9279 times
Last edited by Firestarter on Sun Dec 03, 2017 2:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1474
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: The totalitarian state

Post by Firestarter » Fri Sep 30, 2016 4:36 pm

Post removed to “new” thread on the 9/11 false flag attack: https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/viewto ... =31&t=1126
Keywords: computer animations can also die, Kevin Cleary, Social Security Death Index (SSDI) database, Vincent Sammartino, 9/11 Victims Compensation Final Report, Brian S. Stavely, exif data pictures, Mark Bingham American hero, piping system 94th floor, Henry Kissinger, put options trading Deutsche Bank, anthrax attacks, Patriot Act Tom Daschle Patrick Leahy, USAMRIID Bruce Ivins suicide, BIOPORT BAYER Battelle Memorial Institute (BMI), Blackstone, BioPort.
Last edited by Firestarter on Sun Dec 03, 2017 2:01 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
editor
Site Admin
Posts: 690
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:24 am
Contact:

Re: The totalitarian state

Post by editor » Sat Oct 01, 2016 6:00 am

I read today that Bayer just bought Monsanto for something like $66 billion.
--
Editor
Lawfulpath.com
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 769
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: The totalitarian state

Post by notmartha » Sat Oct 01, 2016 1:32 pm

editor wrote:I read today that Bayer just bought Monsanto for something like $66 billion.
What a great business move! Can you imagine the increased speed with which they can implement their eugenics program, combining AIDS tainted factor 8 with Round-up, causing death and destruction around the world!
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1474
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Palast - The Best democracy money can buy

Post by Firestarter » Sun Oct 02, 2016 3:46 pm

AIDS isn’t caused by HIV, so it is impossible to infect anybody with AIDS.
Probably the most important whistleblower on AIDS is Peter Duesberg. In the following article Duesberg explains that because the AIDS epidemic didn’t spread exponentially, a virus like HIV cannot be the cause of AIDS: http://www.duesberg.com/subject/africa2.html

When I searched for “whistleblowers” on the World Bank I found Joseph Stiglitz. Stiglitz was chief economist at the World Bank, before being fired and being awarded the Nobel Prize for economics. And the strange thing is that he – a tool for the corporate elite - really criticises the IMF.
See for example the following article “This, argues Stiglitz, is not only a betrayal of the ideas underlying the IMF’s inception, but it is simply bad economics”: http://web.archive.org/web/201612032218 ... text_id=33

Why would Stiglitz criticise the IMF? To get the attention away from "real" whistleblowers! This is the most interesting quote I found “from” Stiglitz:
According to insider Joseph Stiglitz, World Bank staff meet some begging, busted finance minister who is handed a ‘restructuring agreement’ pre-drafted for his ‘voluntary’ signature. The Bank hands every minister the same exact four-step program.
Step One is Privatization – which Stiglitz said could more accurately be called, ‘Briberization.’ Rather than object to the sell-offs of state industries, national leaders – using the World Bank’s demands to silence local critics – happily flogged their electricity and water companies. “You could see their eyes widen” at the prospect of 10% commissions paid to Swiss bank accounts for simply shaving a few billion off the sale price of national assets.
Step Two of the IMF/World Bank one-size-fits-all rescue-your-economy plan is ‘Capital Market Liberalization.’ Stiglitz calls this the “Hot Money” cycle. Cash comes in for speculation in real estate and currency, then flees at the first whiff of trouble. A nation’s reserves can drain in days, hours. And when that happens, to seduce speculators into returning a nation’s own capital funds, the IMF demands these nations raise interest rates to 30%, 50% and 80%.
At this point, the IMF drags the gasping nation to Step Three: Market-Based Pricing, a fancy term for raising prices on food, water and cooking gas. This leads, predictably, to Step-Three-and-a-Half: When a nation is, “down and out, the IMF takes advantage and squeezes the last pound of blood out of them.
Now we arrive at Step Four of what the IMF and World Bank call their “poverty reduction strategy”: Free Trade. This is free trade by the rules of the World Trade Organization and World Bank.

In reality this isn’t a quote from Stiglitz at all, but from investigative reporter Greg Palast (after speaking with Stiglitz). I recommend Palast’s book - The Best democracy money can buy (2002).
On his website is more interesting information: http://www.gregpalast.com/


The following is a summary of the topics in Palast's book most relevant to this thread.


WTO, TABD, TRIPS, GATS
Before transitory heads of state (like presidents) meet at the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Transatlantic Business Dialogue (TABD) provides them with the details of their agenda. TABD pairs influential politicians to powerful CEOs. The corporate directors give the politicians a grade on “the scorecard”. In this way the big corporations can control politrics.
One TABD proposal would reverse the $5 billion judgment against Exxon for the Exxon Valdez oil spill. TABD’s Products Liability Group that, under the guise of eliminating “non-tariff” trade barriers, takes aim at American citizens’ right to sue corporations.

The WTO’s penal system to keep the colonies in slavery is the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The USA unilaterally exempts itself from TRIPS, so US retailers can still import cheap drugs. The WTO requires, on penalty of sanctions, that every nation pass laws granting patents on genetically modified seeds and drugs. When Thailand tried to register traditional medicines as intellectual property, the US Trade Representative wrote that this would “hamper medical research”, so Thailand got nothing.
In March 2001, the WTO would design a system to replace democracy with article VIA of General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). The GATS Disputes Panel decides if a law is “more burdensome than necessary”, in which case the WTO can simply set it aside.

Goldman Sachs chaired TABD when Peter Sutherland was president of WTO, and Sutherland went to Goldman Sachs after he left WTO.


DESTROYING NATIONS - ECUADOR, BOLIVIA, ARGENTINA, CHILE, BRAZIL
The strategy to destroy economies is something like: take money out of circulation to crash the economy, then the big bankers buy the economy pennies for dollars, while in the meantime the country has been indebted, and has to do what the World Bank tells them.
In 1983 the IMF forced Ecuador’s government to borrow $1.5 billion to take over the private debts of Ecuador’s elite. In return Ecuador had to hike prices in electricity and other necessities, and eliminate 120,000 jobs. Then in 2000, 2001 to finish Ecuador off, it was ordered to: 1) raise the price of cooking gas with 80%, 2) eliminate 26,000 jobs, 3) cut wages with 50%, 4) transfer its biggest water system to foreign operators, 5) allow British Petroleum’s ARCO to build an oil pipeline.

In Bolivia some riots broke out, when Bolivians couldn’t get drinking water. To “help” Bolivia: Samuel Soria deposited $10 million on a Citibank account in New York, that never returned to Bolivia. Water prices, could rise with 150% under the new owner, International Waters Ltd (IWL) of London.

In 2001 Argentina got ordered to cut their government budget deficit from $5.3 billion to $4.1 billion. Taking 1.2 billion dollar out of the economy already in recession, did wonders: by the end of March 2001, Argentina’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) had already dropped with 2.1% compared a year earlier. Argentina had to reduce jobs, wages, and pensions. While the IMF offered an $8 billion aid package - Argentina had to pay $27 billion a year because of their debt of $128 billion (to the likes of Citibank). The French bought the water system and raised prices up to 400%. And Argentina got threatened with sanctions by the USA to liberalise the pharmaceuticals industry.

In 1973 General Pinochet took dictatorial control of Chile, and destroyed the economy. The CIA, since October 1970, had helped Pinochet to oust president Salvador Allende. US Ambassador to Chile, Edward Malcolm Korry explained that US companies used the CIA as an international collection agency. In 1973 Chile’s unemployment rate was 4.3%; by 1983, after 10 years of free market liberalisation, unemployment was at 22%, while wages had declined by 40%. In 1970 20% of Chile’s population lived in poverty, by 1990 – when dictator Pinochet left office - this number had doubled to 40%. In 1982 and 1983, the GDP dropped with 19%, and foreign companies bought 85% of Chile’s profitable industries. The USA the State Department reported: “Chile is a casebook study in sound economic management”. The respected economist Milton Friedman called this “The Miracle of Chile”.

In 1998 —the World Bank, IMF, Inter-American Development Bank and the International Bank for Settlements — offered $41.5 billion credit to Brazil. The World Bank designed a “Master Plan for Brazil” to create a “flexible public sector workforce”: reduce Salary/Benefits; Pensions; Job Stability; Employment, and increase Work Hours. After the Brazilian real dropped with 40%: British Gas bought the SaoPaolo Gas Company, while Enron and Houston Industries bought the Rio and Sao Paolo electricity companies and a pipeline.


ENERGY – EXXON-VALDEZ
On March 24, 1989, The Exxon Valdez covered 1,200 miles of Alaska’s shoreline in oil. British Petroleum’s role has been somewhat overlooked by the state media.
In 1969 Alyeska, the Exxon-BP oil pipeline consortium, bought the Valdez oil terminal land, from the Chugach Natives, for one dollar. The natives got “help” from attorney Clifford Groh, head of Alaska’s Republican Party, that only a few months later represented Alyeska. Alyeska created sham emergency teams, listing names of oil terminal workers that didn’t know how to use oil spill equipment.

Before 1989 Theo Polasek had warned executives about an oil spill at the location of the later disaster and asked for millions of dollars for spill containment equipment. Although the law required it, this was rejected. When James Woodle prepared a report for the government about an oil spill at Valdez, his supervisor forced him to take it back: “This was not an oil spill”. Woodle delivered his list of missing equipment and “phantom” personnel to George Nelson, BP’s president for Alaska. In September 1984, independent oil shipper Charles Hamel informed BP of falsification of reports.


DEREGULATING ELECRICITY
In the 1970s British professor Dr. Stephen Littlechild invented a scheme to privatise British electricity utilities. In 1990 the England-Wales Power Pool, went into business.
From Atlanta headquarters, Southern’s executives learned they could charge in “deregulated” England double the price in Georgia. In 1995, Southern bought up England’s South Western Electricity Board. The cash rolled in and American companies grabbed the majority of the British electricity sector. Although (or because) the British consumers were terribly overcharged, the IMF and World Bank required deregulation of electricity if countries wanted assistance.

The USA had a regulatory system to keep tight lids on utility monopolies’ profits, with the result that Americans had about the lowest electricity prices in the world. In 1996 California tossed out this regulatory system. The parents of Palast saw their energy bill rise with a whopping 379% in the first year of deregulation. California’s electricity watchdog claims that electricity consumers were overcharged by $6.2 billion in 2001. After PG&E bankrupted California consumers had to pay off the speculators for some $35 billion.


GREAT BRITAIN – EVEN WORSE
While Palast dedicates a lot of his book to criticise the dictatorship of US corporations, the British monarchy is arguably even worse than the USA. The Home Office doesn’t consider a payment to a Member of Parliament a bribe if it’s “remuneration” for services rendered. Great Britain has an Official Secrets Act, libel laws that effectively censors journalism, privacy laws protecting politicians, with the result that that there’s no freedom of the press. Even facts can be prohibited from being published.

Palast went undercover and got in touch with LLM and told them that he represented some wealthy American clients.
Derek Draper proudly boasted that LLM had given the US investment bank Salomon Brothers, a week advance knowledge, that the cap on total spending was 2.75% instead of the expected 2.5%. Salomon made a fortune.
PowerGen PLC wanted to buy a regional electricity company in violation of anti-monopoly regulations. Draper arranged a confidential meeting between a top adviser to Chancellor Brown with the chairman of PowerGen, Ed Wallis, which secured the PowerGen merger deal.
Roger Liddle is one of the important men in government, in charge of European affairs. Liddle told Palast that “Derek knows all the right people.” Liddle had been managing director at LLM, before he put his shares into a blind trust. Any new business Liddle gets Draper goes straight into his “blind” trust.

Here are some other deals in Britain Palast found out by going undercover: 1) Rupert Murdoch’s News International got valuable amendments to union recognition bills; 2) Tesco won exemption from a car park tax worth 20 million pounds per year; 3) Enron reversed a government plan to block new gas-fired power stations.


STEALING FLORIDA ELECTION 2001 – GOVERNOR JEB BUSH
Palast dedicates some pages in his book to how the presidential elections of 2001 were stolen by George W. Bush, with the help of the governor of Florida, Jeb Bush (George’s younger brother)
Where Bush officially won with a margin of 537 votes, Palast explains tens of thousands of voters were illegally prevented from voting, , most of which would have voted Al Gore for president. Greg Palast estimates that 52,000 voters were removed in Florida, because they were erroneously considered “criminals” without the right to vote.

ChoicePoint DBT was the company that purged “criminals” from the voting list. One of the tricks was to purge anybody with a 90% name match (for example: “Anderson” would make “Andersen” lose his vote). 179,855 ballots were simply not counted, depending on skin colour. For example: in Leon (a “White” county) one in 500 ballots was “spoiled”, while in neighbouring Gadsden, (with a high percentage Black) one in eight ballots was rejected.
Since George Bush junior became inaugurated as president: Colorado, Indiana, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, Georgia, Kansas, Montana and Washington have passed laws that cleanse voter rolls in a similar (illegal) way as Florida did in 2001.


BILLIONAIRES & BALLOT BANDITS (2012)
I wanted to order this interesting book, but couldn’t get a regular (paper) book and instead ordered this later (disappointing) book of “Greg Palast”.
It focuses on the illegal obstruction of the “poor” in the USA from voting (6 million in the whole USA, instead of ten thousands in Florida). “Palast” concludes that people must take action to take back their democratic right to vote.
I draw a different conclusion. If millions of people are illegally prevented from voting, than the USA isn’t a democracy. When you don’t live in a democracy, to vote is “stooopid” (in the words of the 2002 Greg Palast).


Greg Palast - The Best democracy money can buy (2002): http://web.archive.org/web/201707110625 ... ast%20.pdf
Last edited by Firestarter on Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 769
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: The totalitarian state

Post by notmartha » Mon Oct 03, 2016 5:43 am

Firestarter wrote:AIDS isn’t caused by HIV, so it is impossible to infect anybody with AIDS.
That is circular reasoning. Whatever the means, HIV or otherwise, Bayer paid out over $600 million in U.S. lawsuits to hemophiliacs who got AIDS from factor 8.
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1474
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: The totalitarian state

Post by Firestarter » Tue Oct 04, 2016 4:37 pm

Maybe you’re right that this is circular reasoning, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t valid. That Bayer paid more than 600 million dollar to settle law suits because they sold tainted blood with the “AIDS virus” is certainly interesting. Of course Bayer knows that no virus causes AIDS, so the real reason is more sinister: http://anonhq.com/yes-bayer-drug-knowin ... eople-hiv/

Possibly it’s even more sickening that the goal of the UNAIDS of the United Nations is “In achieving universal access to HIV treatment, an important milestone is passed when the annual increase in the number of adults receiving HIV treatment exceeds the number of adults becoming newly infected with HIV”: http://aidseugenics.blogspot.nl/2013/07 ... neers.html
And President Obama has signed the HIV Care Continuum Initiative which strives for mandatory HIV testing (remember that HIV tests are unreliable): “The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force now recommends that clinicians screen all individuals ages 15 to 65 years for HIV”.


ELECTION DEBATE
Some call Donald Trump a clown, but in fact he did the nearly impossible: he made Hillary Clinton look good in their first debate.
Hillary was helped by a defect microphone of Trump (this has been admitted), and had an earpiece so that her team could tell her what to say in the debate (see the photograph): https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1868904/h ... re-theory/
Image


CLINTON – LAFARGE, ISIS
Clinton earned 100,000 dollar from French company Lafarge (she has worked for Lafarge since the late 1980s) that was financing ISIS: http://www.thecanary.co/2016/07/29/pari ... y-clinton/
In 1992 (when Clinton served on its board of directors) Lafarge was fined $1.8 million by the Environmental Protection Agency. After Bill Clinton became president that fine was reduced to less than $600,000: http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2016/ ... l-weapons/


RACISTS TRUMP AND CLINTON
Trump has made some racist comments on Mexicans (often misquoted) “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime, their rapists. And some, I assume, are good people”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jqn3V8EJVPg
Hillary Clinton has publicly supported the eugenics racist Margaret Sanger of Planned Parenthood: http://www.lifenews.com/2014/09/23/hill ... et-sanger/


CORRUPT FOUNDATIONS - OPM
Trump has explicitly admitted that he prefers Other People’s Money (OPM) to make investments. According to Trump he doesn’t run any risk, while bagging huge profits. I have another interpretation, that is that Trump has to repay all of his bad investments (he couldn’t even run a casino!) to get Hillary Clinton on the throne of the presidency. Repeatedly Trump has used money of the Trump Foundation – more than a quarter million dollar - to pay for his losses in law suits and even for a painting: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... &tid=ss_tw

Donald Trump has said he’s such a good negotiator that he will make Mexico pay for the wall between the USA and Mexico. He could be right, the US army is probably the most ruthless, barbarous and murderous in the whole wide world, so President Trump could make Mexico an offer it cannot refuse: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/d ... ney-228434

Of course anything the Trump Foundation can do, the Clinton Foundation can do better. Jerome Corsi did his own investigation of the crimes of Clinton. The Clinton Foundation is nothing but a “philanthropic foundation the Clintons appear to use as a personal piggy bank”, that uses pass-through bank accounts to hide the kickbacks from the Clinton Foundation to the Clintons themselves. According to Wall Street analyst Charles Ortel the Clintons “developed a methodology of exploiting epidemics and natural disasters to raise hundred of millions in "charitable donations" that in a relaxed regulatory environment could be diverted to personal gain” (conveniently the Clinton Foundation hasn’t been audited since 2001). Bill Clinton got 131 million dollars from Canadian Frank Giustra (of UrAsia) for a deal in Kazakhstan. Reportedly also millions of dollars were donated from Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and Saudi Arabia to the Clintons. This money was labelled as six-figure speaking fees for Bill Clinton: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -bank.html
The Clintons got tens of millions of dollars from Laureate Education and Uranium One: http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/27/these ... l-trouble/


HADJEMAAR, BIAFRA
Some people have entered politrics to ridicule it.
In 1921 the homeless, alcoholic beggar “Hadjememaar” (You’d-like-to-have-me, Nelis de Gelder) and his running mate Bertus Zuurbier were elected for the Rapaille party to the city council of my home city Amsterdam (see the photograph). In a clear disregard for democracy an emergency law was passed by Dutch parliament and they even arrested Hadjememaar shortly before the elections to prevent him from taking his rightful seat. They forced Hadjememaar to resign from the city council: http://listverse.com/2016/01/20/10-ridi ... t-elected/
Image
In 1979 the front man for punk band Death Kennedys - Jello Biafra - finished fourth in the election for mayor of San Francisco: http://archives.sfweekly.com/shookdown/ ... yoral-race


RHINO, DOGS, DONKEY, GOAT, FICUS - NOBODY FOR PRESIDENT
Arguably Jello Biafra and Hadjememaar should be taken more seriously than crooked Hillary Clinton or Donald Duck Trump. Even animals (unfortunately no ducks or lizards) have successfully entered politrics.
Back in 2000 when Michael Moore was still making interesting satirical television, 23 ficus plants were running for congress, but the election committee refused to count their votes. The following was part of the campaign:
First of all, this Ficus will never vote to put the U.S. into any sort of war or invade a country. This Ficus will never try to block a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body. This Ficus will not cause any harm to the environment. In fact, just the opposite, this Ficus does something that no politician can do: it creates photosynthesis, so, you know, it gives us oxygen. I mean, this is the beauty of this plant, that it actually is doing something that allows us to live, and I don’t think you can say that about a single member of Congress
http://www.democracynow.org/2000/6/7/ficus_for_congress

Here are some of the non-humans that actually won elections: Pulvapies foot powder (1967, Ecuador); Cacareco the rhinoceros (more than 100,000 votes in 1959 in Brazil); Boston Curtis the mule (1938, Milton, Washington); Billy Gumboot the goat (1999, New Zealand); Tai the poodle (New Zealand); Stubbs the cat (major of Talkeetna, Alaska for 15 years):
http://listverse.com/2013/06/26/10-trul ... n-results/

In 1981 the town Sunol, California elected Bosco, the black Labrador and Rottweiler mix, for mayor.
Image
Since the 1960s “Nobody” has entered the presidential election campaigns. Probably the “Nobody” for president campaign of 1976 led by Wavy Gravy and Curtis Sprangler was the most successful: http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/nob ... _president
Image

Once again I’ve got evidence that internet is censored. This thread has so much information that it’s easy to make an internet search that should find this uniquely. I’ve searched with Google.nl and the following 5 searches should find my thread, but none of them do:
1. “Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership Treaty (TTIP) banana republics General Agreement on Tariffs in Services (GATS) Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) Hugo Chávez Nicolás Maduro cash reserve ratio LuxLeaks Horowitz Montagnier aspartyl-tRNA Merck Julian Huxley”
2. “Neville Hodgkinson Saxinger Silvestri Neuhaus Gottlieb multivitamins selenium Fawzi Jiamton Perkins Omar Torrijos Jaime Roldos Aguiler Roberto Diaz Herrera Alberto Purcell TckTckTck astroturfers Michael Moore Judicial watch BCOAR”
3. “Bureau Alcohol Tobacco Firearms (BATF) Branch Davidians Nixon Protocols Zion Verizon Strub Biskind Benghazi Bryan Suits al-Baghdadi Simon Elliot Bonwit Teller”
4. “Atlantic imprisoned Jeffrey Edward Epstein Dershowitz Ghislaine Maxwell Goldman Sachs Mezvinsky Eaglevale Bannon Société Générale Riady Joseph Giroir Lippo”
5. “deGrasse Kuwait-American Glassner Yemen Armitage McIntyre ACARS Cleary Sammartino Stavely exif Bingham Cantor Marsh Mclennan Daschle Hatfill Duley Tylenol BioPort Schwartzman Battelle Matsumuto TABD Samuel Soria Korry Chugach Polasek Littlechild PowerGen”
Last edited by Firestarter on Thu Nov 23, 2017 2:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Post Reply