The Usurper: .... It's a £1000 fine if you don't register here on the electoral register. I asked a government lackey once why we needed to.. he didn't know. Strange as he worked for the dept responsible.

"It may surprise you to learn that most of the great political debates of our time – at least in the Western world – can be divided into just two viewpoints. All of the rest is fluff. Typically, they focus on whether or not a particular action should be taken; but the real conflict is not about the merits of the action; it is about the principles, the ethical code that justifies or forbids that action. It is a contest between the ethics of collectivism on the one hand and individualism on the other. Those are words that have meaning, and they describe a philosophical chasm that divides the entire Western world."
-- G. Edward Griffin

This quote is taken from a document entitled "The Chasm," first in a 4-part series of related articles called "The Future is Calling." Here it is in pdf format:
http://freedom-force.org/pdf/futurecalling1.pdf


Beginning at the top of Page 9, through Page 21, the differences between Collectivism & Individualism, and what each of the terms actually means, is explained.

Bernice: "your Govt tell you you have to give them part of your wages (if you work), why should you have to.....because that is the rules."

That is very true, it is the rules. The question then is, who made the rules? And the answer to that is, Collectivists in position of political authority made those rules, because they believe the government has a right to take your hard-earned money, even against your will. These rules are enforced by laws, which means they are backed by force. I consent to give up a part of my wages not because I want to or think it is right, but because it isn't wise to argue when a gun is pointed at your head.

But why aren't these rules right? For one thing, in America at least, the laws themselves are strictly illegal, because unconstitutional. We have no moral or legal obligation to pay an income tax, only it is preferable to going to jail. Actually, however, many court cases have been won by citizens refusing to pay the income tax on constitutional grounds. But more often than not, the judges back the illegal system.

It is these "rules," whether in Australia or America, that together comprise the modern police state we live in, where Collectivists rule and Individualists (such as the America Founding Fathers) have been dethroned. And that is really my point.

Czuch: I was making a point....to have to pay $70 is a means of raising money it isnt coercion or any thing else..that is the rules...if the Govt says, it is the rules LOL


here it is

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/Pubs/rn/1995-96/96rn10.pdf

***OOPS....$50, our local Govt. charge $70...sorry for wrong info>

The Usurper: Gawd luv us>

***Why should you have to explain to the government why you exercise your right not to vote?***

because that is the rules.

your Govt tell you you have to give them part of your wages (if you work), why should you have to.....because that is the rules.

Czuch: Here is an article by Ron Paul which demonstrates how the new Republicans are no longer conservative:

"The Dangers of Neo-Conservative Economic Policies"

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul471.html

Czuch: "That is exactly what I dislike about liberals and the socialist left in the US! That is exactly what they stand for, and what they think they want and i dont think most of them understand the consequences of what they are asking for, really."

I agree with you. As a matter of fact, I was an idealist of this class who thought socialism in some form was the best answer. What changed my mind was seeing the End Game of this political process. More specifically, that at the highest levels, it is a game of deceit & treachery, both against our Constitution and against true humanitarianism.

"That is exactly why I vote conservative, the lessor of two evils"

I think you are making the same mistake I was making, from the opposite end, so to speak. The Neo-Cons & the Republican party fully support this Fabian socialist model of one world collectivism in their policies & laws, only they couch it in different terms for mass consumption. The only true conservative in the new Republican party, to my knowledge, is Ron Paul. The rest of them....Newt Gingrich, George Bush, Billy Crystal, Dick Cheney, and on & on....are members of the CFR and are working for world government.

Czuch:Hey, I like that song!   Group hug! 

Bernice: Why should you have to explain to the government why you exercise your right not to vote? What gives the government the right to penalize you for not voting or not explaining? Collectivists say the government has that right. Individualists say the government has no rights, only people do. Collectivists say the "group" is more important than the "individual." Individualists say the word "group" is an abstraction, not a real thing, only individuals are real & only individuals have rights. People make governments to protect those rights, not so that the governments will turn around & dictate what they ought or ought not to do. This is raising money? Sure it is. Another word for it is robbery.

Bernice: I think you are confusing the word collectivism, with the words to collect, as in collecting money, and what he means is a collective idealism where we all hold hand s and sing kumbihya

The Usurper: One of the motives is a humane, but misguided, idealism.

That is exactly what I dislike about liberals and the socialist left in the US!

That is exactly what they stand for, and what they think they want and i dont think most of them understand the consequences of what they are asking for, really.

That is exactly why I vote conservative, the lessor of two evils

Bernice: Speaking of Freedom Force International, there is a chapter in Sydney, Australia. Here is a report on some of their activities:
http://www.freedom-force.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=AUSYDNEY20060221&refpage=activities

Bernice: "well....we voted LOL....it is compulsory over here...$70 fine if you don't."

Compulsory voting is a sign of Collectivism at work. "Collectivism" means government knows best, and should force people to do what is right. So you pay $70 for choosing not to vote. This is coercion, not liberty...the very opposite of the political philosophy called "Individualism," which means that government is designed, not to force people to do anything, but only to protect the rights of individuals, specifically: Life, Liberty & Property.

The elimination of gun ownership in Australia is another indication that the Collectivists (the New World Order people) have a firm control over your country. This is not only an American issue, but a global one. Which is why confronting & eventually defeating this conspiracy will require an international strategy. Freedom Force International, for example, now has members in 60 countries.

So there...I've complained about another country besides the U.S. lol :o)

1. Here are dozens are articles written by & about Ron Paul. I'm especially interested in his writings. I want to understand better who he is, what he stands for, and how his principles apply to policy-making. What I've read so far I've liked:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/


2. Here is Freedom Force International. The "International" doesn't mean globalism or one world government, but the opposite...that nationalism ought to be promoted globally, and a one world government resisted. I'm busy reading all of the online documents on this webiste, and considering becoming a member. Its mission is to develop an organization & plan to take back control of centers of power from the collectivists, one-by-one....a long-term vision.
http://www.freedom-force.org/freedom.cfm?fuseaction=home

Artful Dodger: That's getting close. To really pin it down, maybe a couple more adjectives could be thrown in. lol

The Usurper: I'll be a conservative Constitarianlibertarionalist.

hmmmm Conservative Constitutional Libertarian.  That's it!

Czuch: "What would be the great conquest of making the US part of a new world order? How do I benefit by joining a secret conspiracy to dupe the american public into opting into some new world government?"

There are different motives. One of the motives is a humane, but misguided, idealism. For example, H.G. Wells wrote The Open Conspiracy/New World Order over a hundred years ago. He argued that we had to abolish national governments and create a world government in order to stop wars and to feed people. It had to be socialism so that wise people at the top could control things for the stupid people at the bottom, for their own good. You see? So people like H.G. Wells aren't on a mission to enslave people and take away their rights & rule them with an iron fist PER SE...they just think it is a necessary means to a good end. You may think of H.G. Wells just as a fiction writer. But he was very political, and one of the founding members of the Fabian society.

The people who think this way are Fabian socialists, and they created institutions like the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and even the United Nations, to bring this future utopia about. Most of our presidents since WWII and high level people in every branch of government, the media, finance & industry, think tanks & non-profit organizations are/have been members of the CFR.

Even though these people are idealistic and supposedly humanitarian, they recognize the necessity of breaking apart what exists now in order to create something better in its place. So the aim is "to smash the world to bits, and remold it to the heart's desire." Thus the wars, the economic chaos, etc.

I think the inner circle of this conspiracy does not pretend to be humanitarian, but has a clearer picture of what world government really entails, and a different motive. How would this benefit them? It would create a relatively stable world with no opposition in which they can rule & live the good life at the expense of others. Nothing is very surprising about this. It's about consolidation of power & control over human beings. Not everyone is like you and I, Czuch...content more or less to be left alone. Which is why restrictions on power in a government, such as the Constitution with its Bill of Rights, are so necessary.

(V):Related, but not relevant. 

In 1935 there was proposed legislation to criminalize lynching in the US and Roosevelt refused to give his approval to the bill even after a young man, Rubin Stacy, was lynched.  Even as recently as 1981, Michael Donald was lynched in Alabama.  He was lynched for allegedly murdering a policeman (he had been aquitted).  Turns out he was innocent. But even then, some whites hated blacks so much that even an accusation against a black was deserving of death.  Sad.  The Michael Donald case hasd an interesting twist.  Donald's mother sued the KKK for their complicity in her son's hanging.  An all white jury found the KKK responsible and they were ordered to pay 7 million dollars.  Sweet justice too as they had to hand over all their assets including their national headquarters in Tuscaloosa. 

Artful Dodger: "hmmmm, maybe I'll be a Constitarian. Or Libertarionalist."

I'm in the same boat, Art. I don't know what you call it...but I think that's where I'm headed.

Artful Dodger: It was related. It was about women being in power. Which is becoming a more common thing. Gone are the days of women not having souls, and women not having a vote, or unequal pay (wellll.. that one is still problematic).. but still... that one will come in time.

And it's more then a generation later Obama came into power since African Americans were hung from trees I hope. That was barbaric that people within a democracy could do such a thing to it's own citizens.

(V):
  You're the one of the few people I know that can take a simple statement like this:  "OH....a woman became premier....the first woman to be voted in in her own right....so history was made I guess ROFLMBO" and turn it into a discussion that isn't even related to the statement made!   

But then I don't know  much about your's and Bernice's government systems but I suspect most politicans are puppets to some degree (there's always a string attached yes?)

I remember when it was said that Obama was the first black president of the US someone replied that he wasn't fully black.  This of course is true but does it negate the historical significance of such a thing?  Especially since in my lifetime, blacks were hung from trees in some parts of this country, now a generation later we have a man with dark skin in the White House.  A step toward a woman president and perhaps beyond.  Something just to take note of, like a woman in the UK becoming premier. ;)

Bernice: Nahhh.... being a puppet is quite usual. Taking orders from the party is quite usual..... you should check up on the UK system. On certain votes, the parties use what is known as the "whip" to make MP's vote for the policy they want to pass through Parliament. Same to a degree in local government, but at that level there is more chance of independents and alliances.

(V): ultimately she is Labour and Kevin07 is the chief....and yes she is a puppet....she takes orders from the party....you need to read more of our systems me thinks

Bernice: Not really... She is in charge of Queensland isn't she? She's not a puppet??

Artful Dodger: I know... as nations we don't respect people's rights so we are not ready. I just hope we have to have a 'Titanic' to change that attitude.

Vikings:hmmmm, maybe I'll be a Constitarian. Or Libertarionalist.  ;)

Artful Dodger: I would call Ron Paul more of a constitutionalists

Bwild: The Labour party used to be for the working man, by the working man, but the mighty dollar took over and now they are the same as all other parties. Only interested in feathering theirown nests. It was a very different world in the past for Labour but it is now full of Lawyers/ Doctors and moneyed people

We also have LNP = Liberal National Party (Coalition)
Greens = self explanatory
Independants = people who run on their own cognizance, and I might add are fairly successful in their own right.
and numerous other "strange" groups

Bwild: your are correct I meant Queensland....and also she is Premier, not prime minister....big difference HAHAHAHAHA

I think I'm becoming a Republitarian.  1/2 Republican and 1/2 Libertarian.  Is there such an animal?  And where exactly within the Republican continuum does Ron Paul fall?

(V):If a world government happens, the people's rights will not be part of the package.  People will have responsibilities, not rights. Any rights will be severely limited.

Bernice: This seems to be a reoccurring theme with politicians.  Make promises you can't pay for.  Then borrow and get the country into a financial fix for years to come.  Then blame someone else. 

Czuch: A world government is many decades away. The idea and work to guarantee that peoples rights are still respected in a country as part of a 'world' government are very much a not sorted item. How do I know this... from the EU. If they can't get it right (as they don't alot) then there is no way I could see a world government happening.

For now... we best stick to the UN and conventions like the Geneva.

i mean.... the only people I know interested in the US to be part of some big world collective are people who resent the US, mostly non Americans, and a few misguided social left wing idealogs, but mostly its meant to put reins on us, and is not meant to benefit the US?

Bwild: Probably.... But as I said, she ain't the first women as a leader of a area or country. But it is nice that women are getting more in places of leadership.

The Usurper: while its point about the possibility of using fear to drive Americans into world government may be clear,



I still havent heard the why part yet? What would be the great conquest of making the US part of a new world order? How do I benefit by joining a secret conspiracy to dupe the american public into opting into some new world government? That doesnt make any sense

(V):I'm under the impression she meant for Queensland.

Bernice: what is wrong with the Labour Party in your opinion?   what other parties do you have?

Bernice: You forgot about Maggie Thatcher, plus many other women who've been in a position of leader of their countries.

Here's a great commentary by Republican Congressman Ron Paul, entitled:

"Commentary: GOP should ask why U.S. is on the wrong track"

In his commentary he discusses the reasons for the demise of Republican political power and the inherent folly of the Democratic power that has replaced it....and recommends the way back. One of his closing statements is:

"To ignore the political struggle and only 'hope for the best' is pure folly. The march toward a dictatorial powerful state is now in double time."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/11/paul.republican/index.html

Artful Dodger: well....we voted LOL....it is compulsory over here...$70 fine if you don't.

But you do have the option of a donkey vote.

Labour went back it was a case of better the devil you know than the devil you don't I think.

There is no money left in the coffers so how the promises are going to be fulfilled beats me.

Another 3-4 years before Qld has another so we have to put up with the ones we got LOL

OH....a woman became premier....the first woman to be voted in in her own right....so history was made I guess ROFLMBO

Czuch: "I can agree with you on this point for sure"

All agreements between you and I are hard-earned, so I appreciate your post.

Ok now, back to reading "Who's Who of the Elite: Members of the Bilderbergs, Council on Foreign Relations & Trilateral Commission," by Robert Gaylon Ross, Sr.

They don't call me "the little engine that could" for nothing. lol

Artful Dodger: It's true, many explanations are possible, and there is no getting around deeper research to weigh the relative merits & demerits of any possibility.

An interesting point about the Bilderberg meetings is that major news media are always present & well represented. Not only so, but the owners of the various news media also attend. So while it may be true that there is a fear of "common reporters" (and this I believe is true), it also seems likely that the leaders of the "Fourth Estate" are bedfellows with leaders of the other three Estates...not a very healthy arrangement, I would think. And it tends to support the conspiracy model.

The Usurper:As I understand it, the Bilderberg group started in the early 50's and did so to counter the anti-American sentiment in Europe.  As for secretive, that's true.  They do meet in secret.  But could it be that they don't want what they do say to be misconstrued (as the press does so well) and they don't want things taken out of context.  Also, since what is said in there could have international political ramifications, it's not surprising that they want to protect the need to speak freely without the fear that some reporter with a desire to break a big story will take their words and create an international crisis.

I'm just saying that there are several reasonable explanations for most situations.  Conspiracy is just one.  You may be right in your analysis.  But it's not an obvious conclusion. 

Artful Dodger: I see your point. It is possible that Kissinger is simply arguing that Americans are vulnerable to an elite conspiracy, without himself being a member of it. In order to make the further point, that there IS a conspiracy, and that he is a part of it, context is required.

The fact that he would SAY this, is significant, considering who Kissinger is, and his political power. He is speaking to the Bilderberg group, a secretive organization of world leaders. I say secretive because they meet privately & do not reveal their agenda publicly. To understand how he is speaking to co-conspirators, therefore, would require some knowledge of the Bilderberg group, for which there are some good books out there.

Everything requires context. And every argument assumes some level of common understanding as a foundation. It is possible that someone has never heard of either Kissinger or the Bilderberg group...in which case the quote, while its point about the possibility of using fear to drive Americans into world government may be clear, nevertheless may not drive home the point that such a scenario is a real plan in the making.

The Usurper:It's not obvious just by looking at the quote.  I've seen similar quotes regarding the nature of people and their attitudes toward freedom.  What's missing is a context to put things with and a bit of an explanation as to how you conclude these are his fellow conspirators.  I see nothing in that quote to indicate that. 

Czuch:So are you going to watch the 9/11 video?  If you do, I will and then we can compare notes. 

Artful Dodger: "How exactly does it reveal that?"

Kissinger is predicting the future to his fellow co-conspirators, is he not? He is saying Americans in the future will willingly abandon individual rights, and will accept world government, through the mechanism of fear. I'm not sure how much more obvious it could be.

Artful Dodger:

Czuch:  So do I.  But you need controlling Czuch   j/k

The Usurper: I'm not much interested in a controlled board, except the basic need to not use profanity & to keep discussion more or less civil. Nor will I consent to allow my debating opponent to use his authority as a moderator to "guide the debate."


I can agree with you on this point for sure