The monster of atomic war is upon us, again...

[Eanna]

The more we push the world into desperation, the more nature will react against the abusers.

Is that why you promote impending doom then?
Stir us into action?

[Nestor]

Mmm, no, not promoting is involved here. Promoting is like making propaganda of something, this is not my case, I am from the side of the ones to be destroyed, so how could I promote something like that. Getting into action, of course, at least let’s try to make a better world in which to live. Earth is alive, this is true.

[garyb]

Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh? He's a complete mentaller!
Mad as a hatter.. One of the most awkward individuals you'll ever see...

Don't get caught up with the UK Monarchy man.

Between the Queen and the Devil, you have your favourite subjects, don't you?!

of course he's mad. the problem is that they are true land lords. imagine how much influence you would have if you owned 1/6 of the property in your county. now realize that the lady owns a continent and in fact, 1/6 of the Earth's landmass. why do you think that the Canadian airforce is the Royal Canadian Airforce. she also owns the Parliament building. her blood relative OWNS the Hague(and this relative's father talked on and on about how much he loved Hitler, but then again, that's one of the reasons that George had to abdicate in England, for praising Hitler's policies). Royals, including Irish Royals, figured out a long time ago that direct rule is a pain in the ass. there are very few land owners in the world. the proof? taxes. if they can take your land for not paying taxes, it really isn't yours. the Queen does not pay taxes on her land, which she owns even if the title of Queen is removed. mad? yes, of course! we ARE discussing madness! you'd be surprised to hear that he has been very involved in UN population talks, but again, there's no reason to believe me.

he's also an organic farmer that is in charge of the food that the royals eat. they have all nice heirloom varieties, while we eat gene-modded and hybridized versions. they also eat a lot of meat, something that Phil doesn't think that the commoners need to do.

did you say inbred? most trees import my man Phil from the ether, but he comes to Greece through "the father-in-law of Europe" Denmark's Christian IX, the same sire as the Queen's line. yes, these guys are a fun bunch of Fratriciding, Patriciding, Matriciding, sister marryin' clown shows that still own most of the world's real property, along with the folks that married into their line, the folks who OWN all the banking systems(you know that group of wierdos too).

just for clarity, the Devil doesn't exist, at least not in the way that we're used to thinking about him/it. a Satanist would confirm this.

yes, i like talking about them. it's the commoners who matter, though.

anyway the main reason i spoke up was just because while it may or may not be likely that some of these bad things come to pass, just calling them ludicrous without looking at the large amount of real evidence is disingenuous.

[Eanna]

Just to be clear, we haven't had an Irish monarch in Ireland for 900 years or so.

From around 1500, with Henry VIII, the Elizabethan plantations, and onto Cromwell, and we were under the thumb of Great Britain, until coming up on 100 years ago, when, despite our promixity, we were the first country in the British Empire (one-third of the world's landmass at the time) to declare a republic and break from the Empire and the Commonwealth...

Thanks for considering my nationality tho!

Yeah, monarchies, their power, in the UK at least, is nominal nowadays. But the inbreeding in royal families thruout Europe over centuries is nothing short of shocking...

[Nestor]

The present world is going to change so much in the following years that no monarchies will matter anymore, we will come back to the original state of being just sons and doughtier of the earth. Nobody will own anything except himself. Nothing lasts forever and neither does tyranny.

[garyb]

Yeah, monarchies, their power, in the UK at least, is nominal nowadays. But the inbreeding in royal families thruout Europe over centuries is nothing short of shocking...

nope, the power is actually absolute. that power even gets excercised occasionally when the Queen, through a power called Soveriegn or Royal Perogative, shuts down streets in London. make no mistake, there is only ONE true Soveriegn in the UK. everyone else are peasants. well, actually, there are a number of Lords with one Overlord, hehe...

Parliament is at the Soveriegn's consent, whether that consent is through force or otherwise. it's more important to be a land owner than to bother with laws. it's better to let the commoners make their own laws when it comes to keeping the toilets flowing and trade humming.

umm, there are no Royals of English, Scottish, Greek, German, French, Dutch or any other nationality, not for at LEAST 1000 years. the ruling families are their own, they have been divorced from bloodlines of the lands they rule for quite some time. they're kind enough to take a local name wherever the land though, so Saxe-Gothburg becomes Windsor, tidy! it's always been like that. local kings are tribal and countries encompass more than one tribe, even if all the tribes are related.

like i said, i'm just tongue wagging(with my index fingers). again, my main reason for making all this noise was to just point out that the ideas of global collapse are not way-out craziness, but that there ARE official documents that call for and describe such things, starting at least with guys like Darwin, Malthus and Galton. it's not that there should be no debate or disagreement with what is being said, just that it's an easy conclusion to reach when you really check out sustainability and military scenarios as envisioned by current powers.

[garyb]

as they say "the Devil is in the details".

just to give an example of how something that looks so much like it's for people's benefit may not be.

the UN universal declaration of human rights goes on and on about all the good things humans have a right to. then it ends like this
"These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations"

so, if the UN has made the law and we are subject to law, we have NO rights, if the UN finds it to be inconvienient.

[dawman]

You mean like the way we killed for Human Rights in Libya, but in Syria, well they aren't really into Light Crude as much as the Libyans are......

You can find some interesting polulation targets duscussed by the Rosicrucians, and it's mentioned in many ancient languages on the slabs of the Georgia Stones.
It seems that 500-550 million people is mentioned in more than a few places, even in Rockefellars autobiography.
It's obviously been discussed long before we had even 1 billion people.

Barclays top executive seems to be part of a pre arranged marriage, I call them mergers.
That family seems to be involved in every major bank and corporation, and owns politicians in every Government as well.

One of their American relatives, a rather attractive older woman, had no qualms about her exitement and lust for Sarah Palin. She does have some serious Hams, and hunts Moose.
I can understand where an educated, astute elite would find that exitingly feministic....

[hubird]

Earth is alive, this is true.

Who the f*ck said Earth is dead?

[hubird]

as they say "the Devil is in the details".

just to give an example of how something that looks so much like it's for people's benefit may not be.

the UN universal declaration of human rights goes on and on about all the good things humans have a right to. then it ends like this
"These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations"

so, if the UN has made the law and we are subject to law, we have NO rights, if the UN finds it to be inconvienient.

I'm glad we have the UN, at least.

[garyb]

yes, "at least".

god forbid we ever figure out how to behave and take care of or own business.

actually, i'm ok with an organization, even the UN. it helps avoid a mess because it offers a way to avoid doing things in a helter skelter, confused way. the problem happens when those entrusted with so many lives do not respect those lives. the UN is supposed to broker peace. "peace", in the average person's mind does not mean everything is silent because the people are gone. it only means that there is no warfare, or at least no warfare that doesn't involve 100% willing combatants, like a basketball game, not an army.

my biggest question is asren't the UN members and representitives the same people that are the governments themselves? what would the difference of no UN be? the same people would be negotiating, posing, shaking hands. making deals, posturing, finding reasons for warfare, err, police actions upon civilian populations, spreading diseases while offering medicine, etc. i don't think much would change because people are ok with this right now, strangely enough. they foolishly follow such leaders. what leaders? the ones that have punked everyone else, economically, physically, spiritualy, mentally, or in whatever effective combination or style of punking.

i can see that any group should have an army, just to keep bullies honest. but, an army isn't an excuse to be a bully in a peaceful world, we all know this. bullies deserve a hail of stones until they repent. this is also easy to understand.

the problem is that the people who run things don't mind killing off population. they keep doing it, over and over, in historical event after historical event. i'm sorry to say, or not that sorry to say, that this is not appropriate. some aspects of humanity ARE disgusting, but human beings have as much right to live as any other creature, in fact, since i am one, i can say that humans have MORE right to live. i can say this because of the right to self defense that i was born with.

[Eanna]

Good response garyb.
Don't necessarily agree 100%, but your position is understandable and not overstated this time.

It's positively philosophical too, one might add...

For me, as animals, we need some kind of master, to follow as the alpha male or our 'owner' directs us.

In social constructions, first we had the village chief, then then town mayor, then the county manager, then the state government / monarchy / autocracy / democracy / 'xyz'cracy. Before WWI, it stopped there. The League of Nations created after WWI was self-mandated to extract revenge on those that lost that war. It then became weak and unnecessary on the run up to WWII, wading back on the draconian extortionate demands placed by that same organisation on the German people, thru Appeasement in the 30's. The German discontent was seeded in the 1920's due to the enforcement of reparation costs imposed and sense of unfairness, resulting in paranoia, resentment, and a strong urge to countermove. This groundswell created Nazism.

The UN was formed in response to WWII and the evident failures of the League of Nations. It's the best they could come up with. As the 'highest' law-making organisation on the planet, it necessarily doesn't have a 'master'.
One thing that humans are particularly poor at is self-regulation. But the UN must be, by definition.

Yes, it's good we have it - vital in the modern 'global community', where politics, and wars, and the long-term requirements of the community are indeed global matters.

For me, if the UN believes that the human race would be better served in the longer term with a smaller population, they have every right to make that point. I'd make the same point myself, without fear of being accused of genocidal tendencies. Extrapolate by exaggeration - could the earth accomodate one -trillion- people? No, it could not. So, at what point in the current scheme of distribution of resources does the population reach critical mass such that it is not sustainable? Competition for resources is certainly a real thing - it always has been - evolution has shaped us to crave and abuse it: as outlandish as the first Mad Max movie was, it strikes a chord today.

But, right now, I don't believe that the UN would be formulating a strategy to reduce population by force or murder. My goodness, that would be big news!
I would require evidence, but unfortunately haven't had the time to trawl thru the extensive documentation available on the UN website - like searching for a needle (and probably a well-hidden one!) in a haystack. So if someone can point me at this, I would be most appreciative!

And human nature will ensure that there is not and will never be equality - there are pawns, knights, bishops, castles, and the queen and king, in this game. At the end of a game of chess, you'll expect to have lost most of your pawns, and some of the other board pieces, but once the King has lost its power of mobility, the game's up.

Cheers.

[Nestor]

In very ancient times, the Mayas, the Incas, the Egyptians, and many, many other wonderful civilizations (in the first and middle periods of their existence), lived for thousands and thousands of years in a relative peace and without destroying the earth. In our modern civilization, in only two hundred years we managed to create the most barbaric wars in history, because of the advanced weapons and chemicals, and also managed to destroy and pollute the earth like no one did ever in history.

To believe that the ancients were less advanced than what we are today it is a foolish thought I think, those ancient civilizations had an amazing structure and worked perfectly well as a society. Go and interest yourself to study the Incas, you will be shocked when learning about the extraordinary level of respect and humanity they had, before their degeneration of course which was driven in their last few hundred of years of existence, in most cases, because of the Spanish invation. Life was really worth living, they build a functional, happy civilization like it had never existed in our modern times.

Which is the real situation of the earth in terms of pollution today? Enormous! I have interested myself in studying this situation first hand, and I can tell you we are in serious trouble, the earth is ill.

Which is the psychological and spiritual situation of mankind today? Stress, anger, degeneration! When something goes wrong, we create a law trying to solve it, then another law is needed to cover the first one because it created another problem, then another one to cover the second one because it created yet another problem, and then we finish covered up by thousands of laws that contradict each other, some created deliberately to control your finances, others to control your life, others to control your mind. Why do we need so many laws, well, unfortunately because "we are not responsible beings" in the first place. We need police forces, guards, surveillances departments, the military, lawyers, and who knows how many more security implementations to defend us from each other, yes, this is the sad thing, we need to defend from each other... Why do we need to close our doors every night? Because if you don’t someone may come and kill you to steal from you a miserable $30 mobile phone…

We concentrate constantly in trying to understand the picture which is “outside” ourselves, the problems of the world, politics, etc., but we are forgetting about the real problem the person itself, us. For me it is more than clear that mankind is degenerating, and this is the very reason, the bottom line of all our problems. It doesn’t matter how many more laws you could implement, they will fail, because the problem is not in the system, but in people.

[garyb]

well Nestor, i don't think it would have been fun under those regimes....forced labor and blood sacrifice, at least those things aren't so overt in the present time. i don't see those systems as anything but analogs for the present system.


actually, a good point could be made, that on of the main reasons for the financial world(led by Lord Rothschild who funded both sides)to support the big wars was to establish the world order.

again, the people that are the UN would be the SAME people representing their countries without the UN. since the UN's founding, it has been involved in every major war. i don't see how it has helped, not in any way. the IMF and WHO have invited disaster at every turn. the leaders are the same leaders and they do the same thing, UN or no UN.

[hubird]

To believe that the ancients were less advanced than what we are today it is a foolish thought I think, those ancient civilizations had an amazing structure and worked perfectly well as a society.

Are you so naïve?
Never heard of the by Garyb mentioned sacrifying rituals of some mid-American ancient sivilisations?
They used to skin their anemies alive, then pulled out the heart out of the openened breast.
All this in public official ritual settings, so not by accidental sick individuals.

Getting skinned alive is extremely painfull.
Ever pulled off a tendon from a chicken bone? Imagine...

[garyb]

yeah, the Europeans did stuff like that too, back in the day...

[hubird]

more than true.
you need inter-tribal organisations, to make agreements.

[Nestor]

forced labor and blood sacrifice, at least those things aren't so overt in the present time. i don't see those systems as anything but analogs for the present system.

This is the problem Gary, most people have been falsely informed about those ancient civilizations. Do you think I would be saying it was wonderful including human sacrifices? Of course not, that is bestiality!

Watch out, the science we call “Anthropology” has become a cluttered confusion, it is more and less a subjective concoction of opinions fighting each other without a clear definition. If Anthropology is still taught the way they used to teach it 50 years ago, it is because it is way too complicated to clear the mess. Today more than ever before, official anthropology is in contradiction about our origins and this because of the new fields in science like biology and particularly, quantum physics. There is great controversy about the most basic statements, even about evolution itself, some scientists are talking about archetypes of nature instate.

The Incas had nothing to do with blood sacrifices or anything like that. This started to happen at the end of their civilization. Every civilization has a period of grandeur, and slowly comes down, degenerates and disappears. All we are taught about the Incas in schools and universities is related to their final years, but not to the zenith of their civilization. For thousands of years they lived in an ideal civilization of unmatched harmony. The systems of the Incas were copied by other civilizations because of their greatness and some of their principles are still used today.

Unfortunately, the racial mixture with the Spanish and other European civilizations led us to believe that everything that came from the Incas was torture, slaves, wars and sacrifices, because this is what these European writers said, but what they saw was only a tinny moment in history, a flash of time I would say, of what the Incas were.

Most written history is lead by interest of power anyway, religion is yet another big distortion path for history. Just to name an example: when Pedro de Valdivia was in Chile, he would write to the Spain Crown saying that everything in Chile was wonderful, that it was the land of all opportunities, that fruits and animals were delicious, he described a perfect land of peace, but they were dying and having fights between their own divisions for power and gold. Writing this lies, what he wanted was people at his service, and that was all. How different was the real picture in Chile? It was the opposite of what he said, but historians took as the truth for a few centuries, until other testimonies could be gathered to clear the real picture.

I’m afraid that what we have learned in schools in terms of “history” is very much distorted compared with reality. The only thing you can more an less recue, are dates and names, but “what happened”, is another matter…

You should study what Mario Roso de Luna said about the Incas as well as the accounts of Garcilaso de la Vega to understand that the Incas were one of the most beautiful, peaceful and perfect civilizations that have ever existed on planet earth.

[hubird]

To stay on topic [humor mode off] I saw a reliable war commenter in a news show tonight about a possible attack by Israel. 1.6 million viewers 5 days a week.

This is the situation:
The option of sending specialized troops can be skipped.
For an air force action you need a total of 70 planes, some with the bombs, some for defense, and some for refueling, over 3500 km or 2175 miles.
Refueling happens while turning circles during 2 hours, all of them, back and forth once each.
Whole operation would take 8 or 9 hours.
There are several locations to hit, one of them underground.
Therefor 70, with a minimum of 40.

Btw, for me and for most of us this is old news for at least half a year, also from regular newsshows.
No need to put it through our throats all the time, Planetz people know what's going on...

To destroy the nuclear installation underground you need one of the 20 available special missiles of America, which can only fly by American airplanes.
You know the position Obama takes now, so don't expect anything before he's re-elected.

Most probable route: over Turkey, for several reasons and after skipping two alternative routes, with good arguments.

Air force of Iran is old and meager, but the radar works. Turkish route is therefor much better for low-flying approach.

His end conclusion: 49% chance of an attack next halve year, so his doubt balance is precarious.
And given continuing circumstances of course.
Iran will try to delay processes at some point.
Also it will take some time after enough enriched uranium has been made to make a bomb. You need huge installations for that, what can't be done hidden.
Arguments to delay action.
Etc.

I myself don't have special date preferences, if it only isn't on or around 21 December 2012.
I would feel sorry for the - probably - peaceful Maya then.

[Eanna]

49% chance - haha! Where did the 1% go to make it a 50-50 coin-toss guess?
And did he pull any other percentages out of his ass to describe his best guess if such an action was taking by the US? No - that's more the realm of the UK's MoD, to guess the cost of future...

Life's too short to be taking the media seriously! Like I said some days ago, I don't have the time nor the energy to expend on being fed "today's breaking news". I won't let some commercial entity's agenda to think for me or insidiuously plant prejudices or expectations in me.

I enjoy switching off the radio, and I've pretty much banned the news channels at home. Life goes on around me, family, work, car, shops, meeting friends and neighbours, getting a track together... I return to news programming every so often, and I always remark to myself - "So what's changed guys? Anything 'new' in your 'news'?. Oh? Nothing?!". Always seems that way...

I expect a tirade of 'You're blinding yourself by opting out', and 'So what you doing on this thread if you don't keep up with what's current'. It's my decision to opt out of media frenzies and sensationalism and agenda and propaganda. Gives me headspace to do the things I wanna do, the things I can do something about, the things I'm good at, and the things I'm pretty crap at too... And posting on this thread!
(Learning here to defend my position before the attacks!)

Few proverbs spring to mind...
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
And Nestor, on the Inca's and perfect societies from a distant past - the grass is green on the other side, and familiarity breeds contempt.