Funny how when someone refutes your assessment, you label them uneducated. You're proposing to change humanity's behavior, even though our environment which dictates it doesn't change, and the changes you "propose" are nothing new, they're simply repackaged variations of Marxism. You assail property rights with the wholly misplaced notion that we are possessed of infinite resources with which to satisfy our needs, and that people should therefore not be "allowed" to hoard resources.

You tell us what you "propose" has never been done, but if you understood Marxism, you'd also know that Marxism has never been "done" before either. The only thing humanity has managed to pull from Marxism is state-socialism. Honestly, your writings sound as if you were unfortunate enough to have sat through a viewing of Future by Design covering the Venus Project and were sold on its myopic claims. Some resources are replenished via natural (or even man-made) processes, but others will see no such replenishment; only our attempts to replace them with other (often less efficient) resources.

You are also obviously misinformed as to which flags are responsible for more death, but I suggest you start with these:







...because while US policies may be inadvertent contributors to death in your opinion, they are a far cry from the death visited upon humanity in the name of "equality" by the aforementioned. Your entire premise hinges on the concept that the needs of the collective is in all ways more important than those of the individual, a premise I will disagree with to my last day. The flag I proudly present represents that concept in a system initially set up to protect the individual from the masses, though it can certainly (imo) use a makeover closer to its original principles.



Oooohhhh! Naval intelligence. (Oxymoron, anyone?) Listen here twidget: you're not the only one here to serve in the USN, and unlike most of the children posing as adults to populate this forum, I am not a child, and quite possibly your senior. Son.

Things are born, grow, decay over time, produce other forms of matter. Maybe better to ask, "Is it possible for a variable number atoms that are in demand, or required to sustain life, to be consumed to a point that life may no longer be sustained"

-Owned.

Well of course you sound uneducated because you haven't refuted anything. Let me say once again, and for the final time, there is a HUGE difference between what you know, what you remember, what you were taught, and what you think I am "proposing" (which by the way I am not proposing anything you either do it or you don't and honestly I don't give a shit if you sink or swim, I am in the ending years of my life, what you want for the earth is entirely up to you, or not) The difference between Marxism, socialism or whatever stone you want to toss, is technology. That's the difference. But again, you fall back to what you know, to what you've learned, to what you have been criminally indoctrinated into, to what you stand so proudly by because your ego is the size of texas, you'll forgo anything that sounds like someone just might have an idea that might make some sense. You are right though I have watched looked at the venus project, and the zeitgeist movement, but I draw my own conclusions. I've concluded that resources are poorly managed, they are done so to sustain a very delicate system with a few very corrupt people at the top of the food chain, who have in their bloodlines through history have always benefitted off human suffering. And the flags that you suggest I look at? Who do you think funded these people to be in power? You think they just magically got all this technology and all this funding and all this control over the earths resources themselves? Have you not followed the resources trail? Have you not followed the same handful of families that have dominated the earths resources and plundered nations over the past 400 years? United States, it is an illusion. It's concept , the founding fathers, the declaration of independence, the constitution, the articles of confederation, its irrelevant, because PAPER DOES NOT BUY FREEDOM. You have no rights as far as Im concerned, if they can be take away or amended. But this is true for any nation. It is simply man, against man. But the single question will always remain. How does a man come to such great power that he can become a threat to another man or nation, to manipulate a government? Here is what I am suggesting to you. Answer that question, how does a man become powerful, and you solve for it, then you have an insight to what I am talking about. However if you choose to repeatedly fall back to the same social disorders and piss poor behaviors, that old school train of thought, and the indoctrinated mind locked attitude of an ego on steroids, you will get what you've always had. Understand,.. son?

And to give you an idea of how old I am, I graduated in 1984. Still my senior son? I didn't think so.

He does have a point in the fact that Rockefeller sold oil to germany during ww2 and the fact that the family also is the founders of the American monetary system today the FED

not saying this proves his facts as i do not have enough knowledge or research into the subject but i do believe in the fact that America is responsible for allot more human suffering then most people think

Thank you. I didn't want to open that can of worns, lest it be shot down by the almighty one word topic killer, dun dun duuuun "CONSPIRACY"
However, it is so blatantly obvious if you follow the money trail, that war is the most lucrative/profitable business by far than any other business. And how does it get funded? Off the backs of laborers, laborers just like the guys in this thread (if they labor, if not they soon will) who will carry on their senseless discussion with terms of nationalism, hero, bravery and such utter bullshit it makes me sick. We labor, they profit, they lend the government money for a war they create, they profit, they sell arms and supplies to both sides of the conflict, they profit, and this has been going on for 100's of years. And yet, I'm the one they point at to be abused by their archaic lines of thinking, to be shot down as conspiracy , after years of research, by just a mere word. But I digress, this is man.

This post was edited by anonplanz on Nov 24 2011 01:52am

The idea of solving a problem, a reward for solution society, is absolutely sick. If I find a problem, I don't want to permanently solve for it, else I will be out of business. So don't you think it's possible that some folks capitalize on certain social dysfunctions and misfortunes? Have both the problem in one hand and the solution in the other, I mean its the oldest strategy in trading systems. Many will deny it exists, because of flawed reasoning. I will say that in my career, Ive worked very closely with high profile virus vendors. I can tell you for absolute 100 percent certainty, that these vendors created their own virus' let them out into the public, then offered the cure through a subscription. It's brilliant, and it happens ALL The time in so many businesses. The medical industry is another one to look at for both , problem/cure design. Do you think its not possible that certain high profile people don't develop strains and then cures? I can point you directly to the law that gives the government clandestine legal authority to use the public as punching bags, and test chemical agents on them without their knowledge or consent. yeah yeah the chem trail conspiracy. Well, if I can show you the actual law, it isn't a conspiracy, its open to the public to read any time they choose to. Too bad they are too inundated with a life of labor, war or prison to have the TIIIIIMMMMME to study a law, or 10's upon 1000's of laws. They don't. Those that make the laws know this, and will in turn say, "ignorance of the law is no excuse" Look it up for yourselves. So problem in one had, solution in the other. the WHO (world health org) openly admitted , and it is on record if you look for it you will find it, that the H1N1 was a hoax, yet the medical industry made billions from it. It goes on, and on, and on, and on, and on. Not a conspiracy, just day to day, normal routine of running man, the wrong way.

And so back to the original premise. It isn't about GREED at all. It's about POWER. Domination over man. When you have more than you can ever use, more than you can ever want, more than the next 1000 generations of your bloodline can ever use in their lifetimes, it isn't about getting more stuff. There is something way more sinister behind it than just the term greed. And how are you people so comfortable with yourselves, allowing a man to own 9000 acres of land and does absolutely nothing with it, while you go to work for mc'donalds during the day for minimum wage, then to burger king for your second job, come home after that dead tired,but no your life don't stop there, time to pick the kids of from the government sponsored after/before school programs and teenage pot smoking horny baby sitters, getting b'j's in front of your 10 year old, while you out trying to put food on the table. Oh yeah, blame loss of values on the parents while your at it, just to add insult to injury. Make groups like christians and catholics and the tea party and other nonsense and pretend everything is going to be A-OK. Meanwhile you missed your god given opportunity to recognize man's downfall in a nutshell. YOU ALLOWED A MAN TO OWN MORE THAN HE CAN USE. He hoards, it, he wastes it, he becomes powerful enough to control people, and becomes very VERY wealthy, while never doing any real labor of his own, other than sicking his henchmen on the population to do as their told. That's just plain friggin' dumb in my book And any person that normalizes that behavior, or makes up some one liner excuse for it to keep on existing, is also equally as dumb. You have the opportunity to think about your own personal problems you face in your own life. And when you relate it back to a man owning more than he can use in his life, you WILL begin to connect all things in your life back to that single premise. I guarantee it.

Ive lost many friends through drug trades. Either they were dealers or users or caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, either way they are dead. And I suffered a loss, and so did their families. So when I think of a trade like heroin, I research where it can be possibly manufactured, what are the raw materials involved, who has the power to develop it en mass, and who has the power to import it export it. What I discovered is that lo and behold it is Afghanistan that is the heroin trade center of the world, gee I wonder. Ok fine. In their history, haven't they tried to shut down the growing and cultivation of the poppy plant, oh gee, why yes they have.. well what year was that? Hmmm seems to be the same year the United States went down there to straighten some shit out. Funny though the US could NEVER be involved in drug trades, especially heroin. Nooooo not possible. No way. I don't believe it. Well then again.. US troops are STILL down there, and who has the power to bring in a million kilos a year into the US unseen. What with US being the top technological giant on the planet, with the ability to see a gnat's ass on neptune, you'd think they could catch a bag of heroin coming through their borders. Hmmmmm... So I have to ask, is there lots of money involved in the drug trades? Is this money, laundered, what could it be used for, this much money? Who the hell can hold this amount of money, and keep it such a secret anyway? You start answering some of these questions on your own, you will find the culprits. So then it goes back to this, this "money" thing. What is money anyway? A conduit installed by sick people as a so called trading (slavery) system, so you can get food and water, the basics of life etc.
But doesn't the food and water belong to the people of earth, not just some company? Well you would think that is the case, and many would tell you that the "people" just don't know how to manage it properly, so they allow a few really smart folks to manage it for you. Because you are too busy , working 12-16 hours a day, raising your kids, trying to breath clean air, that you can't pay attention to what the hell is going on around you. The earth's resources belong to the earth's people, not a corporation, but your indoctrinated into believing that you owe someone your life in labor, for some scraps you put on the table. WTFU.

Well there are a few problems with what you claim, even though I agree with the idea of people growing atleast some of their own food.

Is energy self-sustainable if given the proper tools? Yes, to a point. If you use nuclear energy, there is enough for a large enough amount of time that if it were not affected by any other energy need it would be a non issue. Unfortunately the machines used to get the elements out of the ground, process them, transport them, and maintain them use petroleum. As much experience you have in the world I am sure you are well aware that relatively soon (15-20years) that the worlds oil wells will run dry.

What about solar power? Well to harness solar power directly via solar panels, it faces more problems than nuclear energy. Not only is the gather, manufacturing,and transporting a problem, there is the problem that solar panels eventually wear out. This is when it gets problematic. At the time being a solar panel setup+ batteries to run a 1,500 square foot house at current energy consumption standards would cost you around 30-35 thousand dollars. The batteries would need to be periodically replaced, as would the solar panels. So at that point there are two options, and neither would be particularly valid. You could recycle part of the panels (you would still have to mine more of the minerals for increasing demand due to population increase)
but doing that would use massive amount of energy when used to replace all of the solar panels in the world. Also , if you were using hydroponics you would need many more solar panels per house than the average, driving the initial cost up by at-least 40%, as-well as the replacement cost's up by the same amount. All in all, it would be a relatively short term small scale fix, that would not be sustainable indefinatly.

What about coal? Well I am not sure of global coal supplies, but as far as the mines in West Virginia and surrounding areas go, they will have enough for 40-50 more years factoring in exponential growth of coal consumption.

What about wind turbines? once again, small scale short term fix. There are not enough "windy" for lack of a better term, areas (in the US atleast) to power the entire country.Yes it can be used to power individual houses , and even small-medium sized cities in some areas. These are more renewable material wise than most of the other options, but they require alot of energy to produce them. Not to mention the affect on local wildlife, particularly birds.As population rises in areas where it could be applied, you need more and more energy, more and more wind turbines.

Hydro electric power? Well this is one that has its ups and downs. One decent sized electric dam can generate a large amount of electricity easily, and once it is in place the maintenance costs are comparatively low. Where wildlife conservation not a problem, these could help ease the strain on other resources for quite some time (they can last hundreds of years). However they come with their own problems. They are labor intensive to construct, they require a large amount of water behind them to be able to function well, they can be easily put out of commission by droughts, and once again cause problems with wildlife.

Not sure about natural gas but I doubt it is our savior.

As far as farming all the food people need in basements, I have to flat out say your a fool if you meant that litteraly. The most obvious reason is that most people do not have basements, but aside from that, it would require a much larger space to provide a consistent amount of food for one person, let alone a family of 3-5. How exactly are people who live in cities supposed to do this I wonder? Not to mention the fact that most people who do have the land to do this either A. already do this on a small scale and do not find it worth doing for the mass majority of their food, or b. do not have the ability to farm the large amounts of land that they own, with their free time.

No matter how much land people could have, in todays lifestyle, farming our own food is not an option for most people. If they spent most of their time growing their food, the economy would greatly diminish. What are you going to do when you need a Dr when your appendix ruptures, and hes tending to his tomatoes on his farm 75 miles away, and you have 30 mins to live without a surgury? Does he need to buy his food because his lifestyle does not allot him to grow his own ? If so then it is essentially the way the world is now.


I understand that you were supposedly in the Navy. Well you may have been, and if so I thank you for your service. Yes, you are my senior by a number of years. However neither of those facts change the problems with what you have stated. Yes we need to learn to manage food and energy more efficiently, but what is more important if our sole worry is energy and food consumption, is that we LOWER our global population. With lower populations less food and energy would be required, and we could go for much longer periods of time with the resources we have at our disposal. Energy companies and food companies need a new slogan "save power/food in the future by using our condoms"