Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
g3x

Nazi's Beheading People

59 posts in this topic

If anyone can look at that for 5sec without exiting your a freak :spawn1:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did it say what crime they commited? I didnt watch the video, I just minimized it and listened to the audio. It's sick.

It didn't say. Probably petty theft or something relatively trivial. :voteno:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of the unfortunate side-effects of the Internet. These brutal, sick bastards know they can get attention for their "cause" by posting this crap online. As long as they can get this stuff out there, they will keep using snuff movies as advertisement to promote their hate.

I do not advocate censorship of the Internet, but I only hope that the proper authorities can somehow glean enough evidence from these videos to somehow aid in their investigation and bring these ignorant assholes to justice.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If anyone can look at that for 5sec without exiting your a freak :spawn1:

Meh. You should see the video of the guy who dies by internal injuries for letting a horse screw him up his poop chute. Search for death by horse cock or something.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please DO NOT click this link if you can not handle gore. I just whatched 5 seconds of this video I do not know what happens later. But this is disgusting and a crime against life. I do not know how anyone can look at this

I guess Russians don't know too mush about WW2 and how the Nazis did that to their grandfathers.

Russia is just a hell hole now. (it's always been) By the way, why were you on Hal Turner's site?

He's a fucking Nazi that need to be hang.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
should we have ever became?

i dont know, in some ways, you know, life is ok, i mean, everything in nature kills, you cant help taking life, its a natural function of life to take other life, even if you dont eat animals, you kill plant life, or some sort of life. hell, even if we didnt need to eat, our bodies are constantly killing bacterium. its a natural law, for life to continue, life must end. it's a fucked up thing that i cant really understand, but, i guess you cant fight it. without dying.

but, the way we have destroyed things on this planet, and completely fucked this earth over and degraded ourselves and negated our environment, im not totally sure if we deserve to exist.

is any of the above coherent?

omg that was nasty as hell

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If anyone can look at that for 5sec without exiting your a freak :spawn1:

Well I guess I'm a freak with a strong stomach since I watched the whole thing, I haven't seen anything as awful as that (and I have seen some bad things)...I can't understand how they were proud of doing that at the end and be able to sleep at night. :/

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man's inhumanity to man is beyond my understanding. I dated a girl many years ago that was a nurse in a children's hospital. The stories that she would tell of what adults would do to children.............. :nono:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so who searched for the death by horse cock? :lol:

Shall I stir shit with more reality? Most of us Americans would rather not think of the reality that we have done much worse to many more people. Here's an example: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=beyond+treason .

Life, and death, goes on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Q-tzCcsw0w

in times like these

im times like those

what will be will be

and so it goes

and it always goes

on and on and on and on and on

on and on and on and on and on it goes

and theres always been laughin, cryin, birth and dyin

boys and girls with hearts that take and give and break

and heal and grow and recreate and raise and nurture

but then hert

from times

to times like these

in times like those

what will be will be

and so it goes

and there will always be

stop and go and fast and slow action reaction

sticks and stones and broken bones

those for peace and those for war

and god bless these ones not thoses ones but these ones

make times like these

and times like those

what will be will be

and so it goes

and it always goes

on and on and on and on and on

on and on and on and on and on it goes

somehow i know, it wont be the same

somehow i know, never be the same

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If anyone can look at that for 5sec without exiting your a freak :spawn1:

No

I came.

Goddammit I was gonna say that.

Aside from the obvious sarcasm and caustic sense of humor that is embodied within our dear friend murd0c, I have something intelligent to say.

1. Beheading is a very grizzly form of execution, however if done correctly can be ALLOT MORE HUMANE THAN THAT! Doesn't say much though.

Also, I am fairly certain that the fuck heads do not realize (or if they do, that makes it all the more scary) that Hitler and his higher-ups were obsessed with the occult. Further invalidating a Neo-Nazi regime (not that it is not invalidated enough already). Fascism is Bad in allot of the same ways that Communism is Bad/The Wrong Thing:

1. They're polar opposites (we already covered that I think)

2. They press the humanity out of the societies they are implemented in.

I agree with Marx allot, but that was then... this is now. It was an OK theory, not a good one by any means and to some extent democracy and capitalism are not the best things in the world either. The appeal is simple; "Well this didn't work so maybe the opposite will?" Hell, that's just wrong.

The communist assumes that people will go along with him, the fascist assumes that people will not go along with him. What you end up getting is a weird mix of the two, a Red Totalitarianism where communist policy is enforced under a fascist regime.

A good book by my favorite writer, The Wanting Seed by Anthony Burgess, covers the ideas allot. Though the words above are mine.

The two parties in question have run into each other idea wise, if they dropped the names they would get along fine. :P

--p0d

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If anyone can look at that for 5sec without exiting your a freak :spawn1:

No

Oh, come on now. Just admit. We're freaks. Now, go search death by horse cock on the web for happy viewing.

Aside from the obvious sarcasm and caustic sense of humor that is embodied within our dear friend murd0c, I have something intelligent to say.

1. Beheading is a very grizzly form of execution, however if done correctly can be ALLOT MORE HUMANE THAN THAT! Doesn't say much though.

Isn't the logical continuum for your to demonstrate the "humane beheading" on our dear friend murd0c? A simple guillotine, or something more interesting?

Also, I am fairly certain that the fuck heads do not realize (or if they do, that makes it all the more scary) that Hitler and his higher-ups were obsessed with the occult.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8795795223394289910

Same shit, different asshole. But, what is your point in reference to this vid? Are you assuming if they knew then they'd not do this? I doubt it.

Further invalidating a Neo-Nazi regime (not that it is not invalidated enough already).

Invalidating a Neo-Nazi, as in they are not true to the Paleo-Nazi or there is yet another reason to condemn them for their beliefs?

Actually, when one looks at the occult and the harmless portion of it's practices from the view of atheism, as I do, I couldn't care if they are into it or not. Satanic Ritual Abuse is fucked up though. Any time you get into to harmful, blood sacrifices and that mess .... the libertarian in me says you deserve serious shit.

As for the rest of the post: Capitalism is the closest economic policy to true freedom that I know of. Combined with compassion and charity, it can be utopian. I believe a lot more people would realize this if Aristocratic Socialism weren't purported as Capitalism.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for the rest of the post: Capitalism is the closest economic policy to true freedom that I know of. Combined with compassion and charity, it can be utopian. I believe a lot more people would realize this if Aristocratic Socialism weren't purported as Capitalism.

yeah, because it and democracy have DEFINETLY done the US good so far...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for the rest of the post: Capitalism is the closest economic policy to true freedom that I know of. Combined with compassion and charity, it can be utopian. I believe a lot more people would realize this if Aristocratic Socialism weren't purported as Capitalism.

yeah, because it and democracy have DEFINETLY done the US good so far...

Democracy sucks! What we need is a Republic. That's what the United States was SUPPOSED to be.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you'll be happy then, because thats what it's turning into!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

haxahubris,

With respect, albeit bluntness, your last two posts appear to be the most ignorant in this thread to date.

In order to properly reply, it is best to respond to these two posts in reverse.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr020200.htm

This, along with a mass of Pro-Republic and Anti-Democracy quotes from many prominent documents and people responsible for the founding of the most free country in recorded history:

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Commentar...s_Democracy.htm

There are just too many good quotes in that article. I will copy the article in a following post.

This country (USA, without arguing the corporate entity) was founded as a Democratic Republic, also referred to as a Representative Republic or Republic, and has drifted far away from it since inception. The most practical potential I see that it will be closest to holding true to a Republic is if Ron Paul is elected President; and, unfortunately, that will not likely happen.

Now do you understand how absurd it is for you to talk as if the country is heading towards a Republic and as if the country was established as a Democracy and that is a primary flaw for it's ailments? If not - Darwin Award!

Now that we have cleared that fallacy in your head up, we can better respond to your "roll eyes", facetious comment that states :

"yeah, because it [capitalism] and democracy have DEFINETLY done the US good so far...".

Not only did you not understand that this country was not founded as a Democracy because the founders were intelligent and wise enough to know that a Democracy is far inferior to a Republic by judgement of freedom, but you further ignore that even the purported Democracy is a fallacy when elections are won by people who are good at being elected by raising money and playing politics, not merely by the will of the people, and even worse by stolen elections because those who count the votes decide everything, not those who vote ... and we have plenty of reason to see that is what is going on in our most significant elections with testimony from programmer Clinton E Curtis

and reporting like BBC's Greg Palast http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=greg+palast+election and documentaries like Hacking Democracy (should be Hacking Republics) http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=hack...cracy&hl=en and American Dictators (showing how illusion of choice can be created by infiltrating both sides and playing good cop vs bad cop) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7143092292184582857 ..... thus quite aristocratically.

To further show how ridiculous the comment was, you were replying to the post of mine which I thought clearly stated that we do not have free market capitalism in this country, but we do see a sort of aristocratic socialism (granted mixed with some remains of capitalism) being purported as free market capitalism.

:roll::lol::roll::o:roll::P:roll:

You do act like you know what you're talking about fairly well, but you just don't know what you're talking about.

Edited by KnowShtuff
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good reading for everyone B) , especially people like hexahubris and possibly baby-hackribs with the Marx praise :o:P .

National Republic vs. Federal Democracy: Understanding the Political Nature of the United States of America

- by D'arcLyte ©, Sept. 16th, 2004

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

The Constitution for the United States of America purportedly guaranteed a Republican form of government, so did the constitutions of the several States. Nowhere in those instruments, nor in the constitutions predecessor, the Articles of Confederacy, is the mention of Democracy. The Founding Fathers didn't want Democracy and as will be shown, they knew it leads to the destruction of nations employing it. Many of the founders voiced very strongly, and expressly against Democracy. In the understanding of the founders, irrespective of recent decades of judicial legal wording manipulations, Democracy was not a "Republican form" of government.

A Republic is one of the highest forms of government yet devised by man, but it also requires the greatest amount of human focus, care and maintenance. If neglected, it will quickly and silently deteriorate into a variety of less desirable forms of government including Democracy, Anarchy, Oligarchy, or Dictatorship as witnessed by our recent governmental slide. "Representative National Republic" defined herein as a republic that is a "government of laws and not of men". This definition appears to be most appropriate while accurately describing what the founders intended, to wit:

"Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a Democracy yet that did not commit suicide", John Quincy Adams, founder.

"The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, Democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived", John Quincy Adams, founder.

"A simple Democracy . . . is one of the greatest of evils", Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence. "Pure Democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state, it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage", John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration of Independence.

"It may generally be remarked that the more a government resembles a pure Democracy the more they abound with disorder and confusion", Zephaniah Swift, Author of America's First Legal Text.

Why are the people promoting Democracy? What the $%^& are we voting for? Don't you understand that we are partially living in, and voting for more socialistic governance? People, we have been warned that this is societal and political suicide. Democracy does not promote freedom, it lies about promoting freedoms and in the end, by force if necessary, takes all those freedoms away as witnessed by all recorded history, James Madison said:

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths."

Virginia's Edmund Randolph, participating in the 1787 constitutional convention demonstrated a clear grasp of Democracy's inherent dangers, he reminded his colleagues during the early weeks of the Convention that the purpose for which they had gathered was:

"[T]o provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and trials of Democracy...."

Samuel Adams, Declaration of Independence signatory, championed the new Constitution in his State precisely because it would not create a Democracy, he stated:

"Democracy never lasts long," "It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself." He insisted, "There was never a Democracy that 'did not commit suicide'."

New York's Alexander Hamilton, in a June 21, 1788 speech urging ratification of the Constitution in his State, thundered:

"It has been observed that a pure Democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."

Earlier, at the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated:

"We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."

Fisher Ames served in the United States Congress during the eight years of George Washington's presidency. A prominent member of the Massachusetts convention that ratified the Constitution for that State, he thus defined Democracy:

"[A] government by the passions of the multitude, or, no less correctly, according to the vices and ambitions of their leaders."

On another occasion, he labeled Democracy's majority rule one of "the intermediate stages towards … tyranny." Ames later opined:

"Democracy, in its best state, is but the politics of Bedlam; while kept chained, its thoughts are frantic, but when it breaks loose, it kills the keeper, fires the building, and perishes."

And in an essay entitled "The Mire of Democracy", Ames wrote that the framers of the Constitution:

"ntended our government should be a Republic, which differs more widely from a Democracy than a Democracy from a despotism."

John Marshall, Supreme Court chief justice, 1801-1835, echoed the sentiments of Ames:

"Between a balanced Republic and a Democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."

American poet James Russell Lowell warned:

"Democracy gives every man the right to be his own oppressor."

Ralph Waldo Emerson joined Lowell in his disdain for Democracy, remarking:

"Democracy becomes a government of bullies tempered by editors."

Across the Atlantic, British statesman Thomas Babington Macauly agreed with the Americans:

"I have long been convinced, that institutions purely democratic must, sooner or later, destroy liberty or civilization, or both."

Perhaps the most concise and definitive condemnation of Democracy came from Lord Acton:

"The one prevailing evil of Democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections."

In light of the Founders' view on the subject of Republics and Democracies, it is not surprising that the Constitution does not contain the word "Democracy," but does mandate:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of government."

By the 20th century however, the falsehoods that Democracy was the epitome of good government and that the Founding Fathers had established such a government for the United States of America became an increasingly widespread fallacy. This mis-information was fueled by President Woodrow Wilson's famous 1916 appeal that our nation enter World War I "to make the world safe for Democracy", and by President Franklin Roosevelt's 1940 exhortation that America "must be the great arsenal of Democracy" by rushing to England's aid during WWII.

From the U.S. Government Training Manual, No. 2000-25 WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, November 30, 1928 and prepared under direction of the Chief of Staff, under the title of "Citizenship":

"Democracy: A government of the masses, authority derived through mass meetings or any other form of direct expression; results in mobocracy; attitude toward property is communistic negating property rights; attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate whether it is based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences; its result is dem-o-gogism, license, agitation, discontent and anarchy."

"Republic: Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best suited to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles that establish evidence with a strict regard for consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass, it avoids the dangerous extremes of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice contentment and progress, is a standard for government around the world."

The War Department training manual went on to state:

"Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They 'made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.'"

By 1952 the U.S. Army via the new War Department Field Manual 21-13, sub-section entitled "The Soldier's Guide" was singing the praises of Democracy instead of warning against it. This new manual incorrectly stated: "Because the United States is a Democracy, the majority of the people decide how our Government will be organized and run...." [Emphasis in original]

Meanwhile, other important voices continued to warn against the hurried siren song for Democracy and in 1931, England's Duke of Northumberland issued a booklet entitled "The History of World Revolution" in which he stated:

"The adoption of Democracy as a form of Government by all European nations is fatal to good Government, to liberty, to law and order, to respect for authority, and to religion, and must eventually produce a state of chaos from which a new world tyranny will arise."

In 1939, historians Charles and Mary Beard added their strong voices in favor of political historical accuracy in their "America in Mid-Passage", writing:

"At no time, at no place, in solemn convention assembled, through no chosen agents, had the American people officially proclaimed the United States to be a Democracy. The Constitution did not contain the word or any word lending countenance to it, except possibly the mention of 'We, the People,' in the preamble.... When the Constitution was framed no respectable person called himself or herself a Democrat."

On September 17, 1961 [Constitution Day], John Birch Society founder Robert Welch delivered an important speech, entitled "Republics and Democracies," in which he proclaimed:

"This is a Republic, not a Democracy. Let's keep it that way!"

The speech was later published and widely distributed in pamphlet form amounting to a jolting wake-up call for many Americans. In his remarks, Welch not only presented the evidence to show that the Founding Fathers had established a Republic and had condemned Democracy, but he warned that those basic definitions had been distorted, and that powerful forces were at work to convert the American Republic into a Democracy in order to bring about eventual totalitarian dictatorship.

Eighteenth century historian Alexander Fraser Tytler, says Lord Woodhouselee is claimed to have argued:

"A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a Democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

And as British writer G.K. Chesterton put it in the 20th century:

"You can never have a revolution in order to establish a Democracy. You must have a Democracy in order to have a revolution."

Communist revolutionary Karl Marx understood this principle all too well. Which is why, in "The Communist Manifesto" this enemy of individual freedoms stated:

"[T]he first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of Democracy." For what purpose? To "abolish private property"; to "wrest, by degrees, capital from the bourgeoisie"; to "centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State."

Another proclaimed champion of Democracy was Communist Mao Tse-tung who proclaimed in 1939 [a decade before consolidating control on the Chinese mainland]:

"Taken as a whole, the Chinese revolutionary movement led by the Communist Party embraces the two stages, i.e., the democratic and the socialist revolutions, which are essentially different revolutionary processes, and the second process can be carried through only after the first has been completed. The democratic revolution is the necessary preparation for the socialist revolution, and the socialist revolution is the inevitable sequel to the democratic revolution. The ultimate aim for which all communists strive is to bring about a socialist and communist society."

Still another well-known champion of Democracy is Mikhail Gorbachev, who stated in his 1987 book Perestroika:

"[A]ccording to Lenin, Socialism and Democracy are indivisible.... The essence of perestroika lies in the fact that it unites Socialism with Democracy [emphasis in the original] and revives the Leninist concept.... We want more Socialism and, therefore, more Democracy."

The push for Democracy has only been possible because the Constitution is being ignored, violated, and circumvented by our un-informed and mis-guided vote. The Constitution defines and limits the powers of the federal and national government. Those powers, all of which are enumerated, do not include socialistic agricultural subsidy programs, housing programs, education assistance programs, food stamps, etc. Under the Constitution, Congress is not authorized to pass any law it chooses, it is only authorized to pass laws that are constitutional [except in D.C. and its other territories where Congress exercises sovereignty, this does not include most areas inside the 50 states]. Anybody who doubts the intent of the Founders to restrict federal and national powers, thereby protecting the rights of the individual, should review the language in the Bill of Rights, including the opening phrase of the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law...").

Fisher Ames, one of the great Founding Fathers and author of the First Amendment, argued forcefully that the new United States of America was to be constructed as a "Constitutional Republic". Ames' demonstrated the fine intellectual rigor required to distinguish between democratic and republican forms of government, to wit:

"A Democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way. The known propensity of a Democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty."

Ames further stated that:

"Liberty has never lasted long in a Democracy, nor has it ever ended in anything better than despotism."

In fact Ames believed that it was:

"Democracy that pollutes the morals of the people before it swallows up their freedoms."

For pure Democracy, Ames argued, would lend itself to the new nation's coming under the influence of the basest of human motivations: greed and a lack of public virtue. Ames further believed that:

"[T]he United States must lash itself to a constitution of laws, not the whim of democratic preference."

The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin:

"Well, Doctor, what have we got, a Republic or a monarchy?"

With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded:

"A Republic, if you can keep it"

Constitution signer James McHenry in a diary entry, later reproduced in the 1906 American Historical Review recorded that purported exchange. Not only have we failed to keep it, most people don't even know what it is and ignorantly keep voting for its further subjugation and destruction.

Our society used to exist noticeably within a "Republican form" of government (approx. up until the civil war), it has taken all this time to subvert our Republic into a Democracy, which we now live noticeably under. The revealed time scale shows how strong a Republic can be, and how difficult it is to subvert it. Don't be fooled, the current Republican and Democratic parties are now opposite ends of the same side of the coin... Democracy… Wake up people!

Just because Democracy [a.k.a. self voted enslavement] is the only choice that is currently presented for us to vote for does not mean we have to vote for it... if we do, then we deserve, and shall by force live with the resulting societal enslavement. If we resist, then our license to live will be revoked. We cannot vote away our present or future enslaved predicament in a Democracy; it is virtually impossible, history is our witness.

Again, as British writer G.K. Chesterton put it in the 20th century:

"You can never have a revolution in order to establish a Democracy. You must have a Democracy in order to have a revolution."

In a Democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens with the few controlling the many or the one. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens. In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether the one or the many, and one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem. And similarly, one remains free to exercise his or her Rights without government interference, or interference from the many. Here the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the people is obliged to its owner, the people.

"No such ideas obtain here that the State is sovereign to the people: at the revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects [unless the African slaves among us may be so called] and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 1 L. Ed. 440 (1793).

Let's explain the difference another way. A republic is a government of law under a constitution. The constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority (acting through their government) from violating the rights of the individual. For example, the suspected criminal cannot be denied the right to a fair trial even if a majority of the citizenry demands otherwise. A democracy, meanwhile, is majority rule and is destructive of liberty because there is no law to prevent the majority from trampling on individual rights. Whatever 51% of the majority says goes, no matter what.

Which do you want, a Democracy where the many or the few can tell you how to live your life, or do you want a Republic whereby the individual man and woman, with all Rights and expressions of Rights secured and defended are recognized Sovereign? When was the last time you felt like you had your rights defended? When was the last time you felt like the Sovereign?

I for one cannot with good conscience, place a vote into a rigged democratic system that purposely brings about the eventual enslavement of my fellow countrymen. The folks on the current ballot know this material inside and out. What the hell do you think they are doing?! What the hell do you think you are doing?! Don't you really want to know? Liberty and ignorance cannot co-exist; we must choose our path… Thomas Jefferson was under no illusion when he stated:

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be… If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed."

And well informed with the truth my friends, not the half-truth fairy tales the spinners throw at us in the newspaper and at the 10 o'clock ritual feeding, nor that doctored, half-truth version of history that our children are subjected to in the government regulated and controlled public school system.

We should absolutely refuse to vote for Democracy. Our battle cry should be "Back To The Republic for Which We Stand."

The wool has not been pulled over our eyes; we were born wearing a hood. And since our parents didn't know any better, they left it on. Further argument on these issues will be forthcoming but the founders' intent is extremely crystal clear and simple, they set up a Republic not a Democracy. It's well past time to take back our rightful organic heritage and quit voting for this Democratic government that is fast leading us to our permanent national enslavement and destruction.

"It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error, it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error." American Association v. Douds 330 U.S. 382.

Secondary Treatise:

Exposing the distasteful attitudes the founders held regarding Democracy, let us now look at the real balance of power that the founders intended to implement in the then contemplated, United States of America.

"In questions of power...let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution", Thomas Jefferson.

Nearly every politician, teacher, journalist and citizen believes that the founders created a Democracy; this is absolutely and simply not true as should now be evident from the information presented thus far.

Our "Representative National Republic" form of government contained a very limited democratic process confined to the election of representatives of the States to Congress, the rest of America was intended to operate on the general principles of a republic based upon quasi common law ideals. The new, current trend of electing Senators by mass vote is another step downward toward pure Democracy. There are two forms of government set up in this country, the national controlled by the States, and the federal strictly controlled by Congress. Congress legislates for both. Neither holds sovereignty over the other in their respective spheres but may acquiesce thru contract. The republic side of government as it were, barely seems to exist in practice anymore as it has been largely usurped; yet, it can still be resurrected and re-ushered into its rightful place via the voice of the people, come' on people let's speak up.

Today's some-call Democratic Republic is a mis-balance of the concepts of a Republic and a Democracy. This term represents nothing more than a particular stage on a sliding scale as our Republic changes into a Democracy. This nation will fail if we keep up with this Democratic-Vote-Ourselves-Out-of-Rights policy. Every time we vote for more governmental power we are voting away more of our rights and freedoms. By the way, this is all one can vote for in a Democracy. You can't have it both ways. British historian, Lord Acton said:

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely!"

John Marshall, Supreme Court Chief Justice, 1801-1835, stated:

"Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."

Elbridge Gerry representing Massachusetts at the Continental Congress, warned:

"The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy. The people do not want (that is, do not lack) virtue; but are the dupes of pretended patriots."

In Alexander Hamilton's June 21, 1788 speech, he recognizes the fallacy of the theory of applying a democracy, "the many shall speak as one":

"It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."

The government's greatest victory was convincing the world that democracy was an essential good. Misconceptions of the beguiled masses aside, democracy clearly destroys freedom, and its fundamental disrespect of property rights is unquestionably opposite to the prosperity which democracy contrarily boasts. Empirical historical evidence indicates that democracy promotes ethnic and religious conflict, loss of rights and property, and eventual slavery at the hands of dictatorship in a socialistic state. This begs the question; why would our so-called government emphatically promote such a well-known, eminently destructive devise as democracy?

Rome slowly converted from a Republic into a Democracy and look what happened. Come on people, you had better *&%$ wake up before it is too *&%$ late! or you and your progeny will soon be suffering the same fate as Rome. The same historical fate that every other democracy has historically experienced; they self vanquish from the face of the earth after self-voted dictatorship has run its course. Is that what you want? That is what you are voting for! Didn't you know? Now you do. Change it, do something about it, educate yourselves, your children, and your friends into taking your collective futures into your own hands before your hands are forcibly taken from you.

Again, we should absolutely refuse to vote for Democracy. Our battle cry should be "Back To The Republic for Which We Stand."

Note: The Army manuals containing the above-described definitions of Republic and Democracy were ordered destroyed without explanation about the same time that President Franklin D. Roosevelt, without any authority to do so, appeared to make private ownership of our lawful money [uS Minted Gold Coins] illegal. Shortly after the people turned in their $20 gold coins, the price was increased from $20 per ounce to $35 per ounce. Talk about good investment.

Almost overnight Roosevelt, the most popular president in the 20th century [elected 4 times] looted almost half of this nation's wealth, while convincing the people that it was for their own good, in the name of Democracy. His right hand man, Harry Hopkins, suggested many of Roosevelt's policies, he said:

"Tax and Tax, Spend and Spend, Elect and Elect, because the people are too damn dumb to know the difference".

We use the word 'politics' to describe the current process so well: 'Poli' in Latin meaning 'many' and 'tics' meaning 'bloodsucking creatures'... Think about what you are really doing the next time you think you are voting for freedom.

The founders were not at all confused about the meaning of Democracy. They were largely unanimous and unequivocal in their rejection of it for the new nation.

At the time of the American Revolution and Constitution, the meanings of the words "Republic" and "Democracy" had been well established and were readily understood. Most of this accepted meaning derived from the Roman and Greek experiences. The two words are not, as most of today's Liberals would have you believe — and as most of them probably believe themselves — parallels in etymology, or history, or meaning. The word Democracy [in a political rather than a social sense, of course] had always referred to a type of government, as distinguished from monarchy, or autocracy, or oligarchy, or principate. The word Republic, before 1789, had designated the quality and nature of a government, rather than its structure.

Another, older definition of the word uses the term "Republic" to describe what is commonly, and mistakenly called a "Representative Democracy"; it restricts the term "Democracy" to refer only to "Direct" or "Pure Democracy". Even this usage does not cover the many Republics, past and present, that are not Democratic at all [though a few modern ones admit their lack of Democracy].

Using this older meaning, it is mistakenly said that the United States is a "Federal Republic" [see definition below], not a Democracy. [Although most people, including most Americans, call it a Democracy, they are using the modern definition, not the older one referred to here]. This usage of the term Republic was particularly common around the time of the American Founding Fathers. The authors of the Constitution for the United States of America intentionally chose what they called a Republic for several reasons. For one, it is impractical to collect votes from every citizen on every political issue. In theory, representatives would be more informed and less emotional than the general populace. Furthermore, a Republic can be contrived to protect against the "tyranny of the majority."

Definition: The word federal comes from the French word "federal" which comes from the Latin foedus, foederis. To give you an idea of the true meaning of foedus when it is used as an adjective it means foul, hideous, revolting; vile, disgraceful. Feudal also comes from the Medieval Latin word foedum. Feudalism was a system where a lord held title to the land and the vassals and serfs lived on it. The vassal owed service and fealty to his lord.

The Federalist Papers outline the idea that pure Democracy is actually quite dangerous, because it allows a majority to infringe upon the rights of a minority. By forming what they called a Republic, in which representatives are chosen in many different ways [The President, House, Senate, and state officials are all elected differently], it is more difficult for a majority to control enough of the governmental power to infringe upon the rights of the minority.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following external treatise is from Steven Montgomery (Utah)

The U.S. Constitutional Republic is more than simple equal representation however. The differences between the American Republic and a Democracy of equal representation are highlighted by the fact that unequal representation was written into the Constitution. For instance, Article 1, Section 2, says, ". . . each state shall have at least one Representative," regardless of population. Or, in the same article and section, "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states . . .," even if the number of people represented is not the same. The biggest difference however comes with Article 1 Section 3, which states that regardless of size or population, "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state."

When setting up their Republican governments most states adopted the Federal Model, known as the "Federal analogy," and assigned one State Senator to each county. Reasoning that just as Federal Senators represented their respective State (before adoption of the seventeenth amendment), State Senators should represent counties. Furthermore, Hamilton reasoned, if the Federal Government were to deny the States this independent power it would be a "premeditated engine for the destruction of the State governments (Federalist 59)."

Advantages of the "Federal analogy" are numerous — such as: The tendency to pull power from centralized State Government back to counties; Keeping counties whole, rather than split; to give sparsely populated rural counties protection from heavily populated metropolitan areas; placing a check on gerrymandering; The identity it would give citizens in their particular county; To protect lesser populated counties from counties that have major industries and thus competing interests.

At any rate, the Constitution also left it entirely up to the States to decide how to conduct their elections, determining who was eligible to vote, what positions were needed to run State government, how officers of government were elected, and the drawing up of districts. States, for instance, were perfectly free to adopt the Federal analogy and assign their state Senators by county.

All of this was to change however. Beginning with a series of cases better known as the "Reapportionment cases," the "Federal Analogy" was denied to the States and the Court instead demanded that "The seats of both houses of a bi-cameral legislature must be apportioned on a population basis (Reynolds v. Sims)" and demanded that there should be "One person, One Vote." For justification the Supreme Court twisted the so-called "Equal Protection Clause" of the 14th amendment. The Equal Protection Clause simply means that everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law and were thus entitled to "One Person, One Vote." But, as Justice Harlan's dissenting voice pointed out, the equality clause has nothing at all to do with the States power of choosing "any democratic method they pleased for the apportionment of their legislatures."

Further, as we learned, "One Person, One Vote" was not built into the Constitution for the United States of America. Instead it was unequal representation that was built in. The dissenting opinion of Justice Frankfurter demonstrated this knowledge when he wrote that equal representation, "has never been generally practiced . . . It was not the English system, it was not the colonial system, it was not the system chosen for the national government by the Constitution, it was not the system . . . practiced by the States . . . [and it was not then] practiced by the states today."

So today, to recap, because of the Reapportionment cases (Baker v. Carr & Reynolds v. Sims), States are denied a Republican form of government when it comes to their State Senators. State Senators can no longer represent single counties but instead Senatorial districts must be drawn up by population.

The Supreme Courts faulty reasoning on this issue should be obvious to anyone. Taking the Supreme Courts logic — Why shouldn't populous states such as Texas or California have say, 75 or 100 U.S. Senators, and limit sparsely populated states such as North Dakota or Wyoming to only one? The Founders clearly rejected proportional representation for the Senate. Isn't it about time the Supreme Court reversed itself and allow the States freedom to adopt the "Federal Analogy" if they choose — instead of punishing them with the worst of all forms of government — unchecked Democracy?

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Commentar...s_Democracy.htm

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DOES ANYONE CARE?

I came. :lol:

If we want to be serious though, :roll: , statements like these are the problem. Maybe when you grow up (and this has more to do with maturity and repsonsibility than age), if you are lucky enough to make it in this increasingly degenerative state due to a lack of disciplined vigilance and initiative for the people to rule their own country and world, then you will realize how important it is to care.

But, yes, since we are a culture that is often preoccupied with entertainment, immediate satisfaction and materialism ... if not merely surviving in part thanks to heavy taxing and a whole host of other issues that we don't like facing, I know the preferred norm is to not give a shit.

Edited by KnowShtuff
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Further invalidating a Neo-Nazi regime (not that it is not invalidated enough already).

Invalidating a Neo-Nazi, as in they are not true to the Paleo-Nazi or there is yet another reason to condemn them for their beliefs?

Actually, when one looks at the occult and the harmless portion of it's practices from the view of atheism, as I do, I couldn't care if they are into it or not. Satanic Ritual Abuse is fucked up though. Any time you get into to harmful, blood sacrifices and that mess .... the libertarian in me says you deserve serious shit.

As for the rest of the post: Capitalism is the closest economic policy to true freedom that I know of. Combined with compassion and charity, it can be utopian. I believe a lot more people would realize this if Aristocratic Socialism weren't purported as Capitalism.

I never condemn any one for there beliefs... I condemn them for there actions; it's just unfortunate that humans act in accord to there beliefs/

As for the Marx praise, people need to understand WHERE it was that he lived his life. The People of Russia were under an extremely oppressive Tsarist regime, and the aristocracy controlled so much of the money and government that communism MADE SENSE for the other 92% of the population. Who here asactualy read the Communist Manifesto? I don't think that Marx was right, but I don't think he was EVIL, or ill intentioned either. In fact, the only places that I can think of were people actually believe in Marxist theory is in academia... scary thought, but it makes SOME sense.

Also, true communism can never be implemented... with being in a controlled environment; and even then bad shit will go down.

--p0d

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0