What is Democracy?

[flyermay]

Have you ever wondered what does democracy means? According to any encyclopaedia, democracy comes from the Greek word “demokratia”, which supposedly means “popular government”. I guess that everyone would agree that, in theory, democracy sounds great! But how far is the theory from the practice?

I image that as well as me, none of you ever had anything to do with “governing” their nation; though all of us are surely part of its “population”. Well... it is true that we are allowed to choose who will really govern over us around every 4 years, so… is that what “popular government” means: having the right to choose who will govern over us?

Maybe, that's what “popular government” refers to, the right to elect someone from the “population” to govern over the rest -opposed to the idea of something like a birth right, or other unelected leader-, and that it might not mean that the whole “population” will “govern” over themselves. But then, how come the main candidates always belong to the elite (in one way or another), and never represent the average population?

It is a fact that the more it is invested in a political campaign, the more chances of winning the election a candidate has (i.e. Obama’s campaign was the most expensive in history; obviously he won). But, who puts all that money into these people’s campaigns? Not the average public, that’s for sure (at least not directly). Then, if the wealthiest sectors of society fund the candidates, who’s interests will those candidates defend once they are in power?

Which takes me back to the main question again: what does “democracy” really means?

[raptorialis]

Democracy is a manifestation of the intellect. It is an intellectual construct devised to appease the people, at the same time as empowering them to concede power and wealth to those higher up the food chain.

Democracy is a balance of the rich mans desire for disproportionate wealth, power and control on one hand and the maintainence of the status quo within the masses.

Democracy has been placed at risk by the ever burgeoining desire of those entrusted to power and control.

The big questions is - will they remain to repair what they themselves have inevitably ruptured - or will they run for the higher ground when the system eventually runs aground?


Have you ever wondered what does democracy means? According to any encyclopaedia, democracy comes from the Greek word “demokratia”, which supposedly means “popular government”. I guess that everyone would agree that, in theory, democracy sounds great! But how far is the theory from the practice?

I image that as well as me, none of you ever had anything to do with “governing” their nation; though all of us are surely part of its “population”. Well... it is true that we are allowed to choose who will really govern over us around every 4 years, so… is that what “popular government” means: having the right to choose who will govern over us?

Maybe, that's what “popular government” refers to, the right to elect someone from the “population” to govern over the rest -opposed to the idea of something like a birth right, or other unelected leader-, and that it might not mean that the whole “population” will “govern” over themselves. But then, how come the main candidates always belong to the elite (in one way or another), and never represent the average population?

It is a fact that the more it is invested in a political campaign, the more chances of winning the election a candidate has (i.e. Obama’s campaign was the most expensive in history; obviously he won). But, who puts all that money into these people’s campaigns? Not the average public, that’s for sure (at least not directly). Then, if the wealthiest sectors of society fund the candidates, who’s interests will those candidates defend once they are in power?

Which takes me back to the main question again: what does “democracy” really means?

[oiram]

You see there is one Major part you missed!
You have the right to not Vote! ...... for murdering maniacs & control freaks!

The Democracy they present to us is Communisms under cover!

I have known this after I left compulsory school & never ever Voted & never will.

I have been born into a big Prison & I was surrounded by sheep.

[scatlond]

Democracy is how the rich and powerful stay rich and powerful.

[stfd]

Nowdays Democracy is when 51% of the population gets to force their will on the other 49%.
I'd also add that Democracy isnt a form of government , only an ideology.
What we want is Freedom in a Republic hell even Freedom in a Constitutional Monarchy works ... just my thoughts

[flyermay]

It is an intellectual construct devised to appease the people, at the same time as empowering them to concede power and wealth to those higher up the food chain.

Are you saying that democracy is a scam, where "the people", are played to believe they have any power? If so, can so many people be blind about this issue? Or that maybe they already know, and they play along with it?

Democracy is a balance of the rich mans desire for disproportionate wealth, power and control on one hand and the maintainence of the status quo within the masses.

Then, do you mean that democracy means "governing the population", instead of "popular government"?

Democracy has been placed at risk by the ever burgeoining desire of those entrusted to power and control.

Why would they put at risk a system that works for them and at the same time keeps the masses aparently happy?

The big questions is - will they remain to repair what they themselves have inevitably ruptured - or will they run for the higher ground when the system eventually runs aground?

Given their track record, I have no doubt about the answer to that question!!!

[flyermay]

You see there is one Major part you missed!
You have the right to not Vote! ...... for murdering maniacs & control freaks!


I like your suggestion; actually I've been practicing it since I can remember. It is true that it doesn't change anything, but at least we can say that none of these people got our support for any of the atrocities they're involved in.

[raptorialis]

Are you saying that democracy is a scam, where "the people", are played to believe they have any power? If so, can so many people be blind about this issue? Or that maybe they already know, and they play along with it?

Well, its not necessarily a scam. It is true that such systems are devised such that the few govern the many. No one can argue that todays way of life is worse than it was 100 years ago. In that sense, the ordinary man and woman accept what is above and beyond them and make the best of life.


Then, do you mean that democracy means "governing the population", instead of "popular government"?

Yes, it is about governing the population, whilst giving the population a sense that they too could share in the power and prosperity of the ruling classes.

Why would they put at risk a system that works for them and at the same time keeps the masses aparently happy?

What has happened is an age old problem, where the bourgeosie of the day eventually gourge themselves silly on the available resources and then inevitably bring the whole system into disrepute. The same thing happened in Rome, Nazi Germany and many other courts in history.


Are you saying that democracy is a scam, where "the people", are played to believe they have any power? If so, can so many people be blind about this issue? Or that maybe they already know, and they play along with it?

Then, do you mean that democracy means "governing the population", instead of "popular government"?

Why would they put at risk a system that works for them and at the same time keeps the masses aparently happy?

Given their track record, I have no doubt about the answer to that question!!!

[infinite tea]

Have you ever wondered what does democracy means? According to any encyclopaedia, democracy comes from the Greek word “demokratia”, which supposedly means “popular government”. I guess that everyone would agree that, in theory, democracy sounds great! But how far is the theory from the practice?

I image that as well as me, none of you ever had anything to do with “governing” their nation; though all of us are surely part of its “population”. Well... it is true that we are allowed to choose who will really govern over us around every 4 years, so… is that what “popular government” means: having the right to choose who will govern over us?

Maybe, that's what “popular government” refers to, the right to elect someone from the “population” to govern over the rest -opposed to the idea of something like a birth right, or other unelected leader-, and that it might not mean that the whole “population” will “govern” over themselves. But then, how come the main candidates always belong to the elite (in one way or another), and never represent the average population?

It is a fact that the more it is invested in a political campaign, the more chances of winning the election a candidate has (i.e. Obama’s campaign was the most expensive in history; obviously he won). But, who puts all that money into these people’s campaigns? Not the average public, that’s for sure (at least not directly). Then, if the wealthiest sectors of society fund the candidates, who’s interests will those candidates defend once they are in power?

Which takes me back to the main question again: what does “democracy” really means?

Democracy means you get to vote for a prick you don't like rather than a cunt you hate every four years. Happy days :-)

[guybrush]

Democracy is a form of government in which power is held directly or indirectly by citizens under a free electoral system. It is derived from the Greek δημοκρατία (dēmokratía (info)), "popular government", which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos), "people" and κράτος (krátos), "rule, strength" in the middle of the 5th-4th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens following a popular uprising in 508 BC.
In political theory, democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. Even though there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy', there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes. The first principle is that all members of the society (citizens) have equal access to power and the second that all members (citizens) enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties.
There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others.However, if any democracy is not carefully legislated to avoid an uneven distribution of political power with balances, such as the separation of powers, then a branch of the system of rule could accumulate power and become harmful to the democracy itself. The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government it is possible for the rights of a minority to be abused by the "tyranny of the majority". An essential process in representative democracies are competitive elections, that are fair both substantively and procedurally. Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential so that citizens are informed and able to vote in their personal interests.
Popular sovereignty is common but not a universal motivating philosophy for establishing a democracy. In some countries, democracy is based on the philosophical principle of equal rights. Many people use the term "democracy" as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include additional elements such as political pluralism, equality before the law, the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances, due process, civil liberties, human rights, and elements of civil society outside the government. In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a supporting attribute, but in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the dominant philosophy is parliamentary sovereignty (though in practice judicial independence is generally maintained). In other cases, "democracy" is used to mean direct democracy. Though the term "democracy" is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles are also applicable to private organizations and other groups.


Democracy has its origins in Ancient Greece. However other cultures have significantly contributed to the evolution of democracy such as Ancient India, Ancient Rome, Europe, and North and South America. Democracy has been called the "last form of government" and has spread considerably across the globe. Suffrage has been expanded in many jurisdictions over time from relatively narrow groups (such as wealthy men of a particular ethnic group), but still remains a controversial issue with regard to disputed territories, areas with significant immigration, and countries that exclude certain demographic groups.

More at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

[flyermay]

Well, its not necessarily a scam. It is true that such systems are devised such that the few govern the many. No one can argue that todays way of life is worse than it was 100 years ago. In that sense, the ordinary man and woman accept what is above and beyond them and make the best of life.

Yes, it is about governing the population, whilst giving the population a sense that they too could share in the power and prosperity of the ruling classes.

What has happened is an age old problem, where the bourgeosie of the day eventually gourge themselves silly on the available resources and then inevitably bring the whole system into disrepute. The same thing happened in Rome, Nazi Germany and many other courts in history.

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my questions. However, I have to admit that I’m quite disappointed with your answers -not because I don’t agree with them; at the contrary. It's just that I see that the system has been better engineered than I previously thought.

But I’m not clear on a couple of points. Did you meant that the current system is nothing more than a balance between how far the population can be exploited by the elite, and how much exploitation they can take without revelling?

Are you also saying that to avoid the masses refusing this unfair system, they offer them the hope of being able to prosper, become one of them, and start exploiting other on their behalf?

I also don't get why you say that it is not a huge scam! I see it like a pyramidal business, where you can only recover what you have been scammed by scamming other; and the more you scam the higher you will climb in the pyramid.

You also say that: “they give the population a sense that they could share in the power and prosperity”, but that doesn’t seem to me like having anything to do with the meaning of “democracy”. And if the word has been chosen on purpose to trick the public, isn’t it another proof of a scam?

[flyermay]

Thanks Guybrush, I read that quote on the wikipedia time ago, but it actually posses more questions than answers.

For example:
Democracy is a form of government in which power is held directly or indirectly by citizens under a free electoral system.
Pardon me if I'm wrong, but the only power any average citizen will ever see is a very limited choice of candidates (all with the same ambitions and similar agendas) around every 4 years. Oh, yes, it's under a free electoral system.

It is derived from the Greek δημοκρατία (dēmokratía (info)), "popular government", which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos), "people" and κράτος (krátos), "rule, strength" in the middle of the 5th-4th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens following a popular uprising in 508 BC.
I think that the uprising was over long ago, because I don't see any "popular government" around. Only the elite ever gets to govern, and they are all actually quite unpopular these days.

In political theory, democracy describes a small number of related forms of government and also a political philosophy. Even though there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy', there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes. The first principle is that all members of the society (citizens) have equal access to power and the second that all members (citizens) enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties.
I do have to agree that we all have equal access to power, the problem is that some of us are more "equal" than other, therefore always filling any void in power. In terms of the second principle, can anyone list the freedoms and liberties (please be quick, the list gets shorter every minute).

There are several varieties of democracy, some of which provide better representation and more freedoms for their citizens than others.However, if any democracy is not carefully legislated to avoid an uneven distribution of political power with balances, such as the separation of powers, then a branch of the system of rule could accumulate power and become harmful to the democracy itself.
This one gets even better, has anyone thought about the case where someone/s owns and/or controls all branches? Well, I don't think it is such a weird idea; especially when all branches seem to be covering one another.

The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government it is possible for the rights of a minority to be abused by the "tyranny of the majority".
This one is just ludicrous; I think that the government has a far bigger task being responsible for the minority elite constantly abusing the majority of the population.

Wow, this is far too long to continue. I guess that another peculiarity of democracies is making sure that the public is convinced that they have the power (even if it’s not true). I think this is called “propaganda”.

[flyermay]

Democracy means you get to vote for a prick you don't like rather than a cunt you hate every four years. Happy days :-)

Thank you, that's one of the best description I ever heard. However, my question is about finding the relation between those facts you describe and the ironic term "democracy".

[jayelowell]

Democracy Rules Everything Around Me, D.R.E.A.M.. Another Fucking Acronym, Just What I Need ....

[shane]

Democracy = Elected dictatorship


Once you've voted them in they do what they want, no matter what you think about it.

[raptorialis]

But I’m not clear on a couple of points. Did you meant that the current system is nothing more than a balance between how far the population can be exploited by the elite, and how much exploitation they can take without revelling?

yes, this is true. A balance has to be drawn.


Are you also saying that to avoid the masses refusing this unfair system, they offer them the hope of being able to prosper, become one of them, and start exploiting other on their behalf?


Yes, there is always an invitation for every citizen to attempt to rise to the levels of the very greatest in the land. But this is in actual fact unattainable to anyone other than the ruling classes. It is a motivational device and one that engenders a work ethic that very few other motivators could inspire.


I also don't get why you say that it is not a huge scam! I see it like a pyramidal business, where you can only recover what you have been scammed by scamming other; and the more you scam the higher you will climb in the pyramid.

Democracy is riddled with scams and pyramidical type subversive relationships. But i do not see "democracy per se" as a scam.
For it to be a scam, there would have to be a scammer and that scammer would have to gain significantly from their plan. And in turn those who were scammed would have to lose significantly.

It is clear to me at least that for past 100 years the mortality rates have increased significantly, disease is significantly reduced and relatively speaking (overall) people (at least in most democracies) are far better off than they ever could have been 100 years ago and before.

So it doesn't sound and feel like a scam to me.

Having said that what was meant with better intentions at the birth of democracy - is now not so well respected by the new generation of leaders.

There is a thing called honour & justice that was meant to underpin Democracy. I see very little of that around today.


You also say that: “they give the population a sense that they could share in the power and prosperity”, but that doesn’t seem to me like having anything to do with the meaning of “democracy”. And if the word has been chosen on purpose to trick the public, isn’t it another proof of a scam?

Well democracy is meant to be inspire freedom of expression. Therefore any fair and democratic system must afford all players on the field the same opportunity - whether they be rich or poor.

At least thats the theory anyway.





Thanks for taking the time to reply to my questions. However, I have to admit that I’m quite disappointed with your answers -not because I don’t agree with them; at the contrary. It's just that I see that the system has been better engineered than I previously thought.

But I’m not clear on a couple of points. Did you meant that the current system is nothing more than a balance between how far the population can be exploited by the elite, and how much exploitation they can take without revelling?

Are you also saying that to avoid the masses refusing this unfair system, they offer them the hope of being able to prosper, become one of them, and start exploiting other on their behalf?

I also don't get why you say that it is not a huge scam! I see it like a pyramidal business, where you can only recover what you have been scammed by scamming other; and the more you scam the higher you will climb in the pyramid.

You also say that: “they give the population a sense that they could share in the power and prosperity”, but that doesn’t seem to me like having anything to do with the meaning of “democracy”. And if the word has been chosen on purpose to trick the public, isn’t it another proof of a scam?

[somethinganonymous]

If the State is an artificial man, a corporation whose leadership is voted in every four years in an "(s)election", do you not, being a REAL man, have the right not to vote, and more importantly, the right not to be represented...(?)

...freeman-on-the-land... Why play the games of these warmongering reptilian psycopaths...(?)

[oiram]

Are you saying that democracy is a scam, where "the people", are played to believe they have any power? If so, can so many people be blind about this issue? Or that maybe they already know, and they play along with it?

Yes it is & always was a absolute scam in my book & yes the once Voting for them & all others; are totally blinded by propaganda & faulty indoctrinated believe & trust system = "Dumb illogical Sheep following there master blasters murdering in you're Names"

[flyermay]

Sorry for keeping on asking, but I'm finding your reasoning quite interesting.

... the current system is nothing more than a balance between how far the population can be exploited by the elite, and how much exploitation they can take without revelling? yes, this is true. A balance has to be drawn.

Do you think that that balance always existed, since the birth of democracy, or it is something that governments learnt along the way until these days? I mean, was it always meant to balance exploitation and rebellion?

Yes, there is always an invitation for every citizen to attempt to rise to the levels of the very greatest in the land. But this is in actual fact unattainable to anyone other than the ruling classes. It is a motivational device and one that engenders a work ethic that very few other motivators could inspire.

How do they convince the masses that they have a chance, can't the people see that there are always the same ones who rule over them? Or is it that they are fine aspiring to intermediate positions, and with it perpetuate the lie.

For it to be a scam, there would have to be a scammer and that scammer would have to gain significantly from their plan. And in turn those who were scammed would have to lose significantly.

I don't understand this comment. I can clearly see the scammer, the "elite", and the scammed, the "people".

It is clear to me at least that for past 100 years the mortality rates have increased significantly, disease is significantly reduced and relatively speaking (overall) people (at least in most democracies) are far better off than they ever could have been 100 years ago and before.

But that also happened in other countries without democracy: communists (USSR, China, and Cuba), fascists (Germany, Italy, Spain), etc. Actually it has been happening for hundreds of years all around the world. General knowledge and Technology makes our way of life easier and increases lifespan. But in my opinion, that cannot be attributed to democracy, or to any system.

There are also two important issues between now and previous times: freedom and taxes. I know for sure that the taxes in many countries during the Middle Ages were a 10% of what was produced (called "decimus" in Latin). Just from the top of my head I can see that any average worker will now pay a minimum of 22% of his imcome plus 17.5% of all his purchases (plus other taxes: council tax, etc). And for someone fairly paid it is 40% + 17.5% (plus other taxes). Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the average total taxation in democratic coutries is around 50% of the income.

About freedom, I think that is obvious, they might not had the liberty to say what they thought in front of the authorities, but at least those authorities didn't get into their lives as much as they do now a days (we live in a police state as never before: cameras, satellites, telecommunications, ID systems, etc). We now live in block cells, and we take care every night that our block cells are well closed. The only thing we can do with our lives is work inside the system until we're old.

Having said that what was meant with better intentions at the birth of democracy - is now not so well respected by the new generation of leaders.

What were those intentions meant to be? Wasn't democracy well thought and planned since the beginning, to make the population think they have any real power?

There is a thing called honour & justice that was meant to underpin Democracy. I see very little of that around today.[/B]

I agree with you completely on this one, though I'm not sure of the relation between honour and justice with democracy in practice. If we agreed that democracy is meant to deceive the public by the elite to maintain power, how can it be mixed with honour and justice?

Well democracy is meant to be inspire freedom of expression. Therefore any fair and democratic system must afford all players on the field the same opportunity - whether they be rich or poor. At least thats the theory anyway.

But that's the whole point, democracy sounds well in theory, but the practice is a whole different game. So I'm still wondering if democracy was created to deceive the public on purpose, or if it really was a fair system that turned a nightmare. In my humble opinion, I think that the main function of democracy was pacifying the masses, giving them a false sense of power (and everyone bought it).

[raptorialis]

Do you think that that balance always existed, since the birth of democracy, or it is something that governments learnt along the way until these days? I mean, was it always meant to balance exploitation and rebellion?

Yes, they learnt how to balance exploitation and rebellion along the way. But whatever system humanity has applied before, whatever social system, there has always been this balance and always will be.

How do they convince the masses that they have a chance, can't the people see that there are always the same ones who rule over them? Or is it that they are fine aspiring to intermediate positions, and with it perpetuate the lie.

As a new generation is born and the old generation dies off, this knowledge is swept away.


For it to be a scam, there would have to be a scammer and that scammer would have to gain significantly from their plan. And in turn those who were scammed would have to lose significantly.
I don't understand this comment. I can clearly see the scammer, the "elite", and the scammed, the "people".

There is nothing to gain personally from any of this interplay. The predator and victim are one of the same. Whether rich or poor, the ants will eventually get to eat your eyes. So, just who are the scammers. The scammer or the scammed?


-----------------------
The meta architecture of democracy is far from perfect and life is far from perfect. But we must also ask ourselves.........How much worse could it be? We could have lawless gangs roaming the streets. Warlords murdering and raping. Mass starvation and disease. I'd say, be careful not to wish for too much change. Not more than 100+ years ago America was infested with gun slingers and gangs who caused civil strife. The truth is - whether it be the elite or the ordinary man - we are all capable of bringing this world into disrepute. There is a tyrannt on every corner.

_______________________

What were those intentions meant to be? Wasn't democracy well thought and planned since the beginning, to make the population think they have any real power?


I believe that democrocy was founded on honourable intentions to create a world free from slavery, poverty and barbarism and was a sincere attempt at delivering prosperity to those nations who would were party to it. unfortunately this did not extend to the nations in the so called "third world".


I agree with you completely on this one, though I'm not sure of the relation between honour and justice with democracy in practice. If we agreed that democracy is meant to deceive the public by the elite to maintain power, how can it be mixed with honour and justice?

There has always got to be "an elite". People have always been lead by someone. Where no man leads there is no order and unfortunately such is the nature of human kind that this leads to gangs and warlords. If you extract honourable behaviour and strong justice from democracy, you end up with only the theory of democracy. Democracy must be backed up by honourable men who respect juctice.


But that's the whole point, democracy sounds well in theory, but the practice is a whole different game. So I'm still wondering if democracy was created to deceive the public on purpose, or if it really was a fair system that turned a nightmare. In my humble opinion, I think that the main function of democracy was pacifying the masses, giving them a false sense of power (and everyone bought it).

Think of democracy and communism and all those kinds of system as ways to appease the people. Once you appease the people, you then have some basis for creating positive order. This is matrix management at work. I would say to those against democracy and communism and all those other regimes that maintain a high degree of stability, to come up with a better system, rather than calling for the downfall of the current ones. Otherwise the whole thing could descend into anarchy.

[flyermay]

I'm quite shocked by your latest answers, you sound like there is no way out of being exploited, having an elite and being lied to! I find it quite pessimistic to think that the only way out of it is total chaos. I’m sure that the solutions are not that drastic, and that there is a medium term.

Yes, they learnt how to balance exploitation and rebellion along the way. But whatever system humanity has applied before, whatever social system, there has always been this balance and always will be.

So, do you think that this "democracy" is the best we can do? I mean, don't you believe that we can get to govern ourselves without being lied to and abused?

There is nothing to gain personally from any of this interplay. The predator and victim are one of the same. Whether rich or poor, the ants will eventually get to eat your eyes. So, just who are the scammers. The scammer or the scammed?

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “there is nothing to gain personally from any of this interplay”. But it is a fact that there are billions of people who spend their lives trying to play a game that they have lost from the beginning. And what they lose is their personal freedom, the right to drive their lives how they see fit without being brainwashed and having the chance to fully develop at a personal level. Instead, they are forced (one way or another) to obtain their oppressors’ approval and to work all their lives for someone else's benefit. I think that it is a lot to lose at a personal level (and I had experienced it for myself during many years).

The meta architecture of democracy is far from perfect and life is far from perfect. But we must also ask ourselves.........How much worse could it be? We could have lawless gangs roaming the streets. Warlords murdering and raping. Mass starvation and disease. I'd say, be careful not to wish for too much change. Not more than 100+ years ago America was infested with gun slingers and gangs who caused civil strife. The truth is - whether it be the elite or the ordinary man - we are all capable of bringing this world into disrepute. There is a tyrannt on every corner.

I think it is also fair to ask ourselves: how much better could it be? About the gangs, warlords, murdering, raping, mass starvation and disease, we also have many of those under the umbrella of democracy, more than we would like to admit. And it is fact that most of those crimes are a direct consequence of the decision that elected leaders took in democratic countries; by the way, funded by our taxes, which I guess makes us part of it (like it or not).

I agree that there is a tyrant in every corner, but if you go to any parliament, congress or world summit around the world, you will surely find the highest percentage of tyrants per square metre anywhere in the entire globe.

I believe that democracy was founded on honourable intentions to create a world free from slavery, poverty and barbarism and was a sincere attempt at delivering prosperity to those nations who would were party to it. Unfortunately this did not extend to the nations in the so called "third world".

But shouldn’t we also take into account that those “third world” countries were perfectly balanced before we arrived? And that they lived happier lives, also in perfect harmony with nature before they even heard the term “democracy”? This makes me think that there might be better solutions than the ones we are using, and that there might be an alternative way without ending up in total chaos.

There has always got to be "an elite". People have always been lead by someone. Where no man leads there is no order and unfortunately such is the nature of human kind that this leads to gangs and warlords.

I also don’t agree with this statement. It is true that people tent to elect and follow leaders (I have been observing this behaviour since primary school), even the animals that live in hoards do. But that doesn’t justify the huge differences between the elite and the average man. In my opinion, being a leader doesn’t imply a semi-god status, but rather a practical function within the group. The birth right is also a man-made concept, as it doesn’t exist in nature, so I don’t see the need to perpetuate the same bloodlines in power (as our elites do). And that seems to be pretty important for them; knowing that power will stay in the family. Probably there would be no elite without this obsession for bloodlines, which might also help me proving that having an “elite” is not essential for any system to work.

Think of democracy and communism and all those kinds of system as ways to appease the people. Once you appease the people, you then have some basis for creating positive order.

It is well known from antiquity that the masses need very little to be appeased. You probably heard the Roman motto “bread and circus”, which proved that if you gave your people enough food and enough entertainment, they wouldn’t worry about anything else (more or less like our fast food and TV). The problem is that, as Ernesto “Che” Guevara said: “the people who do not know how to write and read are easily tricked”, and fortunately each time more of us know how to read and write. So, I’m starting to think that one day “bread and circus” will not be enough to appease the masses.

I would say to those against democracy and communism and all those other regimes that maintain a high degree of stability, to come up with a better system, rather than calling for the downfall of the current ones. Otherwise the whole thing could descend into anarchy.

What would you think about having a real “democracy”? I mean, a system where the population governs themselves? It wouldn’t need many changes, just take the power out of the hands of the elite; no anarchy, no chaos, no lies, no hidden agendas, no occult secrets, and no exploitation. Do you think that would work?

[raptorialis]

So, do you think that this "democracy" is the best we can do? I mean, don't you believe that we can get to govern ourselves without being lied to and abused?

No. Democracy is not the best we can do - but we must build on Democracy, rather than cast it away in favour of something new. The danger is that we could easily be propelled back into the even darker times - when our forefathers really did go through significantly harder times. There is no quick fix.

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “there is nothing to gain personally from any of this interplay”. But it is a fact that there are billions of people who spend their lives trying to play a game that they have lost from the beginning. And what they lose is their personal freedom, the right to drive their lives how they see fit without being brainwashed and having the chance to fully develop at a personal level. Instead, they are forced (one way or another) to obtain their oppressors’ approval and to work all their lives for someone else's benefit. I think that it is a lot to lose at a personal level (and I had experienced it for myself during many years).

I understand what you mean. I have also been there, but once i got used to it i realised that it was all my fault. If i want to live my life as a free man i can. Independence is a state of mind that can be developed by the individual - or not as the case might be.

I think it is also fair to ask ourselves: how much better could it be? About the gangs, warlords, murdering, raping, mass starvation and disease, we also have many of those under the umbrella of democracy, more than we would like to admit. And it is fact that most of those crimes are a direct consequence of the decision that elected leaders took in democratic countries; by the way, funded by our taxes, which I guess makes us part of it (like it or not). I agree that there is a tyrant in every corner, but if you go to any parliament, congress or world summit around the world, you will surely find the highest percentage of tyrants per square metre anywhere in the entire globe.

yes, it is a big shame that things are not the way they should be, but a New World Order looms and by more closely integrating nations and their peoples we should fix a lot of these kinds of problems.

But shouldn't we also take into account that those "third world" countries were perfectly balanced before we arrived? And that they lived happier lives, also in perfect harmony with nature before they even heard the term "democracy"? This makes me think that there might be better solutions than the ones we are using, and that there might be an alternative way without ending up in total chaos.

yes, i totally see what you mean. The Spirit of Democracy has ruined many nations and their cultures. I have always been aware of that and of course there is no putting back 10's of thousands of years of civilisation. All we can do is try to repair what Democracy has spoilt.

I also don't agree with this statement. It is true that people tent to elect and follow leaders (I have been observing this behaviour since primary school), even the animals that live in hoards do. But that doesn't justify the huge differences between the elite and the average man. In my opinion, being a leader doesn't imply a semi-god status, but rather a practical function within the group. The birth right is also a man-made concept, as it doesn't exist in the natural world, so I don't see the need to perpetuate the same bloodlines in power (as our elites do). And that seems to be pretty important for them; knowing that power will stay in the family. Probably there would be no elite without this obsession for bloodlines, which might also help me proving that having an "elite" is not essential for any system to work.

Stability is what mankind seeks in its quest for peace and harmony. When the leadership fragments and disharmony reins within the head family, this has a direct impact on the general public who rely on the head family to reflect the right way to live. What we have seen over the past 10-20 years is the gradual undermining of the elite (by themselves and those outside) and this has had a detrimental affect on how the people conduct their own lives. I would say, forget the personailities and their grotesque greediness and arrogance and ask whether our society would be better off with any other form of leadership.

It is well known from antiquity that the masses need very little to be appeased. You probably heard the Roman motto "break and circus", which proved that if you gave your people enough food and enough entertainment, they wouldn't worry about anything else (more or less like our fast food and TV). The problem is that, as Ernesto "Che" Guevara said: "the people who do not know how to write and read are easily tricked", and fortunately each time more of us know how to read and write. So, I'm starting to think that one day "bread and circus" will not be enough to appease the masses.

yes, appeasement of the people is the easy bit. The most difficult part will be to ensure that wars become a thing of the past and the eradication of poverty and disease. It is time that all children in our world were afforded the same opportunity. Unfortunately this requires appeasement of rogue nation states before this can happen. Hence the need to bring into line Iraq, Afhganistan, Iran, Israel, Palestine, China etc

What would you think about having a real "democracy"? I mean, a system where the population governs themselves? It wouldn't need many changes, just take the power out of the hands of the elite; no anarchy, no chaos, no lies, no hidden agendas, no occult secrets, and no exploitation. Do you think that would work?

People are people. You take power out of the hands of one blood line and give it to half a dozen others - how much better off would we be? Truth is, people are people and whatever leadership we put in place will always spawn some form of corruption. We have had great leaders in history who have ruled justly with an iron grip and then when they passed away were replaced by rampant corrupt phonies. Nothing is nailed down. Nothing is perfect and neither was it designed to be. Secret societies exist at all levels of society. Whether it be the so called illuminati or the freemasons, old boys network, the mafia, the elitist golf club, the close knit family unit who treat outsiders as second class members etc etc... We are One as they say.

Just when looked at individually, some parts seem more hopeless than other parts. But we are all essentially capable of the same.

[flyermay]

Your keep on surprising me with your comments; yet they get more interesting on each post!

No. Democracy is not the best we can do - but we must build on Democracy, rather than cast it away in favour of something new. The danger is that we could easily be propelled back into the even darker times - when our forefathers really did go through significantly harder times. There is no quick fix.

Why do you think that we must build on democracy: Because it is the current system, because it is near an ideal system, or because you see all other systems potentially dangerous?

I understand what you mean. I have also been there, but once i got used to it i realised that it was all my fault. If i want to live my life as a free man i can. Independence is a state of mind that can be developed by the individual - or not as the case might be.

Don’t you think it would be worth it having both: mental and physical freedom? I’ll explain: I heard this story about a prisoner of the Nazi concentration camps that reached a state of mind where he felt far more freedom than his guards. However, that doesn’t changes the fact that his physical freedom was limited by the prison itself. What I’m trying to say is that why should we conform to only freeing our minds, when our bodies are also meant to be free by nature?

yes, it is a big shame that things are not the way they should be, but a New World Order looms and by more closely integrating nations and their peoples we should fix a lot of these kinds of problems.

I’m not sure if you are joking on this one, but anyway: Don’t you think that the architects of the new world order are the ones responsible for many of these atrocities (funded with our taxes, and acting against our will)? What kind of new world will they deliver if they build it using those methods? What makes you think they will change their forms once they are in power?

yes, i totally see what you mean. The Spirit of Democracy has ruined many nations and their cultures. I have always been aware of that and of course there is no putting back 10's of thousands of years of civilisation. All we can do is try to repair what Democracy has spoilt.

But developed nations keep on pushing their “democracy”, which you agree it is ruined and corrupt, into other countries that do not want it. What’s the point of imposing a system that is completely corrupt and that many nations don’t want?

Stability is what mankind seeks in its quest for peace and harmony. When the leadership fragments and disharmony reins within the head family, this has a direct impact on the general public who rely on the head family to reflect the right way to live. What we have seen over the past 10-20 years is the gradual undermining of the elite (by themselves and those outside) and this has had a detrimental affect on how the people conduct their own lives. I would say, forget the personailities and their grotesque greediness and arrogance and ask whether our society would be better off with any other form of leadership.

Well… that would depend on the new form of leadership. What is a fact is that the current model doesn’t work. Even the most adept voter in any democratic country would agree that politicians would go to great lengths to progress their careers and agendas. How worst can it be? (I’m not taking about the ideology or the political system, just about the current model of leaders)

yes, appeasement of the people is the easy bit. The most difficult part will be to ensure that wars become a thing of the past and the eradication of poverty and disease. It is time that all children in our world were afforded the same opportunity. Unfortunately this requires appeasement of rogue nation states before this can happen. Hence the need to bring into line Iraq, Afhganistan, Iran, Israel, Palestine, China etc

Don’t you think that the current so called democratic “first world” benefits enormously from war, poverty and diseases in other nations; and therefore take many precautions to avoid putting an end to them? Wouldn’t you agree that ending wars with even more wars is just not practical? I mean, it is quite easy to jump to the conclusion that war brings peace (in one way or another) but it also creates hate and anger, which turns in violence sooner or later, which turns into more killings and even another war; perpetuation the cycle.

Another issue is the right of each sovereign nation to govern themselves as they like. Who are we to go and tell Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, Palestine and China how they should behave. Accept it would also be accepting them (or anyone else) to come and tell us how we should live and govern our countries.

People are people. You take power out of the hands of one blood line and give it to half a dozen others - how much better off would we be? Truth is, people are people and whatever leadership we put in place will always spawn some form of corruption. We have had great leaders in history who have ruled justly with an iron grip and then when they passed away were replaced by rampant corrupt phonies. Nothing is nailed down. Nothing is perfect and neither was it designed to be. Secret societies exist at all levels of society. Whether it be the so called illuminati or the freemasons, old boys network, the mafia, the elitist golf club, the close knit family unit who treat outsiders as second class members etc etc... We are One as they say.

In my opinion, what we would gain from taking the power out of the hands of the elite and giving it to someone else would be breaking with the corruption that power provokes with time. I mean, it is a fact that power corrupts, and the more time you have it, the more corrupt you’ll get. That’s why, in my opinion, the system is breaking down (because it has been in the same hands for too long). Again, in my opinion, the elite found the way to perpetuate power in their hands, creating a very real but invisible unelected government.

It is true that putting the power in completely fresh hands would lack experience, but would also lack the desire and urge to become corrupt. And at the end of the day, that’s why we change our leader every few years, but we don’t change the rest of the position of power (whether they are in front and behind the scenes).

Just when looked at individually, some parts seem more hopeless than other parts. But we are all essentially capable of the same.

I totally agree with this thought, reason why supposedly anyone would do as well as any of the leaders that belong to the elite. And ever better, as power hasn’t corrupted them yet.

[noesis]

Democracy is the illusion of freedom. As the late great Bill Hicks said "you are free to do as we tell you ..."

[flyermay]

Democracy is the illusion of freedom.

That's exactly what it looks like to me: a false sense of power and freedom. The elite keeps on controling us all -as they always did- and we are free to do as they say. And guess what: we fund them!!!

[raptorialis]

Why do you think that we must build on democracy: Because it is the current system, because it is near an ideal system, or because you see all other systems potentially dangerous?

We must build on the democratic system because it has taken generations to build. It might be possible to go back to the land and start again for a small number of people, but there are near 7 billion people on this planet and that many people need a lot of careful management.

Don't you think it would be worth it having both: mental and physical freedom? I'll explain: I heard this story about a prisoner of the Nazi concentration camps that reached a state of mind where he felt far more freedom than his guards. However, that doesn't changes the fact that his physical freedom was limited by the prison itself. What I'm trying to say is that why should we conform to only freeing our minds, when our bodies are also meant to be free by nature?

Yes, i think you are talking about the imminent neurologist and psychiatrist (the late) Victor Frankl and his time spent in a Nazi concentration camp. His is probably the best example of how the spirit can be detached from the meta-physical and be lifted up beyond all worldly things. With globalisation has come greater freedom of movement than ever before. I hope this continues to be the case and that people who have not yet had this advantage do so in the future.

I'm not sure if you are joking on this one, but anyway: Don't you think that the architects of the new world order are the ones responsible for many of these atrocities (funded with our taxes, and acting against our will)? What kind of new world will they deliver if they build it using those methods? What makes you think they will change their forms once they are in power?

Many people have misunderstood the meaning of The New World Order or NWO. The NWO is more often than not characterised as the devils movement, when it is just as possible to think that it is a movement towards a more Godly world. A World where the ONE is better reflected through greater unity. Why should a move to integrate the world more closely be seen as the domain of evil intent? Who created that assumption and why?

But developed nations keep on pushing their "democracy", which you agree it is ruined and corrupt, into other countries that do not want it. What's the point of imposing a system that is completely corrupt and that many nations don't want?

People are corrupt. The system is not necessarily so. Those who are leaders must change for the better or be changed.

Well… that would depend on the new form of leadership. What is a fact is that the current model doesn't work. Even the most adept voter in any democratic country would agree that politicians would go to great lengths to progress their careers and agendas. How worst can it be? (I'm not taking about the ideology or the political system, just about the current model of leaders)

yes, this is because of the erosion of honour and integrity amongst many of our leaders. Democracy needs strong leadership underpinned by a fair justice system.

Don't you think that the current so called democratic "first world" benefits enormously from war, poverty and diseases in other nations; and therefore take many precautions to avoid putting an end to them? Wouldn't you agree that ending wars with even more wars is just not practical? I mean, it is quite easy to jump to the conclusion that war brings peace (in one way or another) but it also creates hate and anger, which turns in violence sooner or later, which turns into more killings and even another war; perpetuation the cycle.
Another issue is the right of each sovereign nation to govern themselves as they like. Who are we to go and tell Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, Palestine and China how they should behave. Accept it would also be accepting them (or anyone else) to come and tell us how we should live and govern our countries.

The future of the planet depends on co-operation amongst all nations. Science and technology have created the potential for a single rogue nation to have a devastating effect on much of the world. We cannot allow for this to happen.

In my opinion, what we would gain from taking the power out of the hands of the elite and giving it to someone else would be breaking with the corruption that power provokes with time. I mean, it is a fact that power corrupts, and the more time you have it, the more corrupt you'll get. That's why, in my opinion, the system is breaking down (because it has been in the same hands for too long). Again, in my opinion, the elite found the way to perpetuate power in their hands, creating a very real but invisible unelected government.

It is true that putting the power in completely fresh hands would lack experience, but would also lack the desire and urge to become corrupt. And at the end of the day, that's why we change our leader every few years, but we don't change the rest of the position of power (whether they are in front and behind the scenes).

It will not be possible to alter the basis of power in any peaceful way and meddling is only going to allow even worse influences a chance to undermine democracy still future. I say, give our leaders time and seek to support only the good and the great. Accept life as it is - unless you have the ability and opportunity to change it.

Mankind is rapidly outgrowing this planet. Science and technology have introduced so many significant new risks and now our leaders have become extremely nervous. There is a great deal of fear that the end of the world is nigh and this of course serves to proliferate the sense of urgency to live life to the full whilst the world still exists as it is. There is also a sense that we are not alone anymore and that the time will soon come when humanity will not be the only intelligence inhabiting this planet. For all these reasons and the ones mentioned above we must tread very carefully, whilst still looking forward to the day when there will be peace and harmony for all.

[raptorialis]

freedom is all in the mind. Don't BE in the mind.

[flyermay]

We must build on the democratic system because it has taken generations to build. It might be possible to go back to the land and start again for a small number of people, but there are near 7 billion people on this planet and that many people need a lot of careful management.

I don’t really understand what makes that argument valid. All ideologies take years to be built, and history has proven that a whole nation can change its ideology completely in just a few years; most of the times without even a bloodshed; all that’s needed is the appropriate propaganda and the ball will roll by itself. As an example you could think about 20th century Spain, which went through 3 opposite ideologies in just one generation: from a monarchy to a republic, from a republic to fascism, and from fascism to democracy. As I said, all in just one generation (I know people who lived during all those governments and were fine with all of them, and only saw blood being spelt by the fascists). But there are many other examples (i.e. fascist Germany).

By that rule, you would supposedly accept any ideology, as long as it is the most common system of power around the world. What if fascism was widespread around the world? Would you build on it (it would probably also bring world peace once everyone submitted to it)?

With globalisation has come greater freedom of movement than ever before. I hope this continues to be the case and that people who have not yet had this advantage do so in the future.

In my opinion, I don’t think that is the case. It is true that Globalisation facilitates international travel, communications and commerce, but that has nothing to do with personal freedoms. In fact Globalisation has closed (and continues to close) many doors at a personal level; as control systems and regulations are far more advance and tight all around the world than ever before. I think that Globalisation gives a false sense of freedom, due to the huge amount of propaganda, and that it only benefits the wealthiest and further slaves the poorest through debt; as always!!!

Many people have misunderstood the meaning of The New World Order or NWO. The NWO is more often than not characterised as the devils movement, when it is just as possible to think that it is a movement towards a more Godly world. A World where the ONE is better reflected through greater unity. Why should a move to integrate the world more closely be seen as the domain of evil intent? Who created that assumption and why?

I don’t think there is any misunderstanding, those assumption have been created by on their own and the actions of the NWO promoters. I don’t think that there will never be any justification for the brutal killing, kidnapping and torture of innocent men, women and children; whatever the final goal is, and much less in name of a totalitarian ideology. And I ask you again, if these are the methods used to construct this “new world order”, what kind of world are you looking forward to?

People are corrupt. The system is not necessarily so. Those who are leaders must change for the better or be changed.

I agree: they must change, but they don’t. Then, what’s the difference if the system is fair but the people who run it are corrupt? The result is the same.

How can you hold on the hope that democratic leaders will ever change, and what makes you think they ever will?

In my opinion these people play a lot with everyone’s hopes, and more often that not they hold on them, as it’s all they have left.

Yes, this is because of the erosion of honour and integrity amongst many of our leaders. Democracy needs strong leadership underpinned by a fair justice system.

Again, what makes you think that from a corrupt, dishonourable, system that lacks any integrity, an honourable, fair and strong leadership will ever emerge? Isn’t that relaying too much on hope and being unrealistic?

The future of the planet depends on co-operation amongst all nations. Science and technology have created the potential for a single rogue nation to have a devastating effect on much of the world. We cannot allow for this to happen.

I think you are absolutely right, the United States has far too much power in their hands, and they are using it to impose their corrupt "democratic" system all around the world. A system that it is based on the Anglo-Saxon stile of life, that benefits the Anglo-Saxon nations first, and that smashes any opposition in one way or another; whether it is by sending an political/economic advisor, a CIA jackal or the cavalry (with or without the consent of united nations). God knows what would happen next if the 3rd stage, the cavalry, ever fails. Well... we have Japan as a reference: the USA were the only ones so far that used nuclear weapons over the population of a foreign nation (I guess this point is worth taking into account when judging other nations).

It will not be possible to alter the basis of power in any peaceful way and meddling is only going to allow even worse influences a chance to undermine democracy still future. I say, give our leaders time and seek to support only the good and the great. Accept life as it is - unless you have the ability and opportunity to change it.

I agree completely, reason why the NWO needs to use the force against everyone that opposes their ideology. I would love to allow time and support a trustworthy, good and great world leader: do you currently know any world leader with those characteristic?

In my humble opinion, it is not about a personal quest to change the world and go around telling averyone how they should live their lives; it is about giving everyone the chance of realising that live in a lie; an unreal world where everyone ignores they are being exploited and slaves to a corrupt and unfair system. Remember the Roman motto “bread and circus”: everyone needs to turn off the TV, wake up, open their eyes, and take hold of their own destiny.

Mankind is rapidly outgrowing this planet. Science and technology have introduced so many significant new risks and now our leaders have become extremely nervous. There is a great deal of fear that the end of the world is nigh and this of course serves to proliferate the sense of urgency to live life to the full whilst the world still exists as it is. There is also a sense that we are not alone anymore and that the time will soon come when humanity will not be the only intelligence inhabiting this planet. For all these reasons and the ones mentioned above we must tread very carefully, whilst still looking forward to the day when there will be peace and harmony for all.

Or so the propaganda says. I think they are getting extremely nervous because every day there are more people who see the world as it really is, and because they are not willing to take on their lies and their corruption anymore (not only individuals or groups, but also sovereign nations). Therefore the recent disproportionate moves from our governments are a mere attempt to end up any resistance (whether it is with a fascist police state or a foreign invasion). What these people fear the most is losing their perpetual power, and their true intentions are starting to show as they get more worried.

[flyermay]

freedom is all in the mind

But the mind also responds to external stimuli, and I’m not willing to disconnect from the physical reality in favour of psychical freedom. I think it's fair to have both: freedom to think what I want, and freedom to do as I like without interfering with other people's freedom!!!

[raptorialis]

Much depends on whether you believe the propoganderists of doom or gloom or whether you accept that our world is far from perfect and become part of the solution - as opposed to a significant part of the problem.

All i am saying is don't buy the frenzied words of the insane anarchists.

There is much good in this world and many great leaders. But things won't get better by damning all the bad things and forgetting all the good.

And i do accept that there is far too much lies, self interest and corruption.

But we are light years ahead of where our forefathers were in terms of quality of life - but there is still heaps to do and children are still dying under unacceptable conditions.

Have faith in mans ability to recover from the mire. If you look at history it is full of peeks and troughs.

[flyermay]

I already took sides many years ago, far before the current awakening. The recent theories that appear on the net only confirm what some of us always knew but couldn't prove.

Unfortunately, I had to live for some years under a real fascist regime, and in my opinion, the supposed "democracy" we have starts to look a lot like it. It is well known that the average German didn’t had a clue where there were heading when they elected Hitler; so it’s not as easy as sit back and hope that others will look after your best interests (that just doesn’t happen; though they would love us to do it).

All of us have the moral duty to keep an eye on what it is done in our name; and so far I feel ashamed of how things are developing. And it is because our forefathers died for a better world, we all should fight to keep it that way.

[raptorialis]

I have known many people that rage at the world for all its injustices.

I was one of those too. You can read many of my posts on this forum.

But i came to realise that my rage was something deep inside me that was not right. It came from experiences deep in my psyche.

Once i realised that and reconciled it, i no longer did rage at those in power.

I decided to go with the flow and to try and put as many things right along the way, as i could possibly do in the short life i will inevitably have.

No sense raging at democracy when you can focus your enerigies on working to change it.


I already took sides many years ago, far before the current awakening. The recent theories that appear on the net only confirm what some of us always knew but couldn't prove.

Unfortunately, I had to live for some years under a real fascist regime, and in my opinion, the supposed "democracy" we have starts to look a lot like it. It is well known that the average German didn’t had a clue where there were heading when they elected Hitler; so it’s not as easy as sit back and hope that others will look after your best interests (that just doesn’t happen; though they would love us to do it).

All of us have the moral duty to keep an eye on what it is done in our name; and so far I feel ashamed of how things are developing. And it is because our forefathers died for a better world, we all should fight to keep it that way.

[flyermay]

I also tried many times to go with the flow, but that was just not me. Anyway, I'm of the opinion that you get to know the most interesting people going against the flow (like now).

At the end of the day, you're probably right, and maybe there is something wrong inside of me; which makes me complaint against everything that I think is wrong. But that's who I am, and at this point I see no point in changing so that I fit in a system that I don't like.

Anyway, I can see that you are a nice guy and that knows what his talking about. I also understand that you saw an advantage in changing your attitude, but I don't understand what took you to give a 180 degree turn and take sides with the NWO; was all that a joke?

[raptorialis]

I lived with the devil for many years which eventually brought me to my knees.
Then i tried to run away from it, but it was always there whereever i fled
Then i tried to wrestle with it and lost
Now i just walk hand in hand with it.
That way i can keep an eye on it
And it on me



I also tried many times to go with the flow, but that was just not me. Anyway, I'm of the opinion that you get to know the most interesting people going against the flow (like now).

At the end of the day, you're probably right, and maybe there is something wrong inside of me; which makes me complaint against everything that I think is wrong. But that's who I am, and at this point I see no point in changing so that I fit in a system that I don't like.

Anyway, I can see that you are a nice guy and that knows what his talking about. I also understand that you saw an advantage in changing your attitude, but I don't understand what took you to give a 180 degree turn and take sides with the NWO; was all that a joke?

[flyermay]

I lived with the devil for many years which eventually brought me to my knees.
Then i tried to run away from it, but it was always there whereever i fled
Then i tried to wrestle with it and lost
Now i just walk hand in hand with it.
That way i can keep an eye on it
And it on me

:) Maybe this can help on your future deals with the devil
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/picture.php?albumid=309&pictureid=2798

[raptorialis]

http://fc08.deviantart.com/fs23/i/2008/004/b/d/Cuddle_by_anglerfishies.jpg