|3 years ago :: Mar 07, 2012 - 10:47PM #101|
Once all the "isms" are dropped, there are really only two philosophies of government, top-down or bottom-up.
When top-down gets "top billing," so to speak, tyranny reigns---especially when the masses THINK it is their "elected representatives" that truly wield power(instead of corporate heads/banksters who pull behind-the-scenes strings).
When "bottom-up" is enforceable, liberty and individuality consistent with mutual respect is obtainable...as long as the individuals concerned not only accept, but welcome responsibility...not only for themselves, but their neighbors and communities.
Now, the wealthy love and prefer top-down; always have, always will, hence my signature line.
To the degree that they can deceive the majority into acceptance of this status-quo, the more secure their hold on the reigns of power...and the more enslaved the hoi-polloi become.
Would it surprise anyone reading here to discover that wealthy financiers helped the Bolsheviks destroy the Democracy set up in Russia after the fall of the Czar? Has anyone reading here ever wondered what would motivate wealthy capitalists to finance a form of governance supposedly dedicated to the elimination of capitalism?
Those who wrote and those who ratified the Constitution were keenly aware of the dangers that banks and corporations posed to the fledgling Republic, but unfortunately were unable to write legislation sufficient to keep them in check---now, they effectively rule the world...but to what purpose?
"... as all history informs us, there has been in every State & Kingdom a constant kind of warfare between the governing & governed: the one striving to obtain more for its support, and the other to pay less. And this has alone occasioned great convulsions, actual civil wars, ending either in dethroning of the Princes, or enslaving of the people. Generally indeed the ruling power carries its point, the revenues of princes constantly increasing, and we see that they are never satisfied, but always in want of more. The more the people are discontented with the oppression of taxes; the greater need the prince has of money to distribute among his partisans and pay the troops that are to suppress all resistance, and enable him to plunder at pleasure. There is scarce a king in a hundred who would not, if he could, follow the example of Pharaoh, get first all the peoples money, then all their lands, and then make them and their children servants for ever ..."
-- Benjamin Franklin(1706-1790) US Founding Father
Source: before the Constitutional Convention, (June 2, 1787)
Perhaps the foregoing will hand the reflective a tool to help them discover the truth; others will simply reject it as "irrelevant" or "pontificating," or "18th Century Thinking," and thereby remain dully ignorant sheeple, easily manipulated---just the kind of "useful idiots" the Banksters and their devilish contingent love and promote.
Thanks for the welcome back, ariel; i do not intend to engage anyone personally any longer, nor answer their questions, nor reply to insults or demeaning or belittling or derogatory commentary. Like teaching a pig to sing, it's worth neither the time nor the effort---and it annoys the pig.
With goodwill to all the People-
"History records that the moneychangers have used every form of abuse, deceit, intrigue, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it's issuance."
-- James Madison(1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President
|3 years ago :: Mar 08, 2012 - 12:17PM #102|
Will the Iranians cave in? I don't think so for reasons previously mentioned. Yes, I think they'll continue the cat-and-mouse game, but these ruling imams are not moderates that are likely to compromise-- they're on a mission. Again, either way they win. However, for the sake for much of the M.E. and not just Israel, there may be no alternative but to attack the bunkered installations.
I'm no war-monger by any stretch of the imagination, but unless they back off, I don't see much of an alternative. A fully nuclear M.E. would be far more terrifying even that what we see now.