it's true, China is like a model of what the "elites" hope to implement globally. probably sooner than later.

If that's true, then a huge organization like Google refusing to go along with the censorship is pretty big news.

the only reason they have changed their minds is because the chinese government has launched massive sophisticated hacker attacks against google's corporate network, using previously unknown (0day) vulnerabilities in adobe and other client software. Other large US corporations have also been attacked recently.

It has nothing to do with Google finally developing a conscience and refusing to go along with China's censorship. That's just the cover story.

At least they have the balls the stand up against China, which few organization do. I can't really blame them for dealing with China in the first place, that's a huge chunk of business and that's what Google is, a business.

Um, I think we are a model of what the chinese elites hope to implement globally. Think about it, makes more sense.

No it doesn't, don't be ridiculous.

Lol, sure your right. I'm ridiculous.

Think about it, makes more sense.

This is the best evidence ever.

If it's true, I'm sure you'd have some empirical evidence supporting that claim?

ya how about the patriot act for starters?

What about the Patriot Act? I can't read Acts since I understand them to be written in Legalese. Does that Act have language in there that can be directly compared to, and evidences, the Chinese model you mentioned?

what exactly would you consider evidence that those in real power wish to create an all-powerful world government? one that can crush dissent quickly and quitely and controls all the money. you cannot see it happening around you?

Well, that has been the goal of any government with power hungry leaders (read every government).

Leaps and bounds are easier to conclude when it's what you want to see. It's much harder to explain a process step-for-step. I believe, if at any point in a discussion, there is an assumption not based on fact; then the remainder of a discussion cannot be taken in good faith until that assumption has sufficient evidence to address. I'm not asking you for evidence of "real power [wishing] to create an all-powerful world government". I'm asking how China has a model gov't that mimics or exemplifies a model preferred by "elites".

To be convincing; You'd need to start by discussing the matter subjectively. Identify what or whom these "elites" are. Name them. Provide verifi(able/ed) subjective evidence of an elite agenda. ("Can you not see it happening around you?" is not proof since that is objective.)

We may reach conclusions on our senses alone. I hold faith that this is a subject where many have reassured themselves of answers based on unsolved questions. I am now asking questions such as those.

Finally, provide verifiable/ed evidence that China has a similar agenda. I've read into as much as I can bear about the abuses on human beings of another nation. However, I don't wish to assume anything about their actions that isn't explicit. That would run the risk of continuing a chain of assumptions that systematically bolster faith in more falsehoods, and so on.

To be convincing; You'd need to start by discussing the matter subjectively. Identify what or whom these "elites" are. Name them. Provide verifi(able/ed) subjective evidence of an elite agenda.

dude, do you not know what subreddit you are in?

edit: here - but im sure you already know all about it.

Sure do. Isn't this /r/circlejerk?

it's /r/circlejerk but with aliens, NWOs and reptile people ;)

("Can you not see it happening around you?" is not proof since that is objective.)

dude, there is never going to be "proof" until it all goes down and the world is locked in a super-technological police state.

and I take it that you can see it happening all around you but you just don't want to admit it?

dude, there is never going to be "proof" until it all goes down and the world is locked in a super-technological police state.

Is it similar to how an all-knowing, all-seeing, murmur-listening, tithe hungry, incorporeal life shaper can't be proven until every sensory capacity held in life vanishes forever?

I take it that you can see it happening all around you but you just don't want to admit it?

I can see why.. people choose to think this is the reality. However, I can't see how even the most impressive foresight can ever make up for unproven, unfounded knowledge.

I can see why.. people choose to think this is the reality

Well maybe if we didn't have something such as HISTORY to go by then yeah maybe we'd all go down your path. Just because YOU are INCAPABLE of learning from history does NOT mean the rest of us are. Do your OWN research....get off your high horse and join the people instead of remaining in your extremely narrow view of your own "reality".

And why does history; dictated, rather than experienced, hold more value than your own process of observation and conclusion? What makes you think I have a high horse?

As far as I can tell, I am doing my own research. The claims made so far haven't included a single name or identity to look into. I have seen titles, and assumptions, all reinforced with more.. titles and assumptions. SO, I ask questions of those who make claims, since claims imply understanding, and understanding implies concrete knowledge.

Would you mind clarifying exactly where these questions are proving to be a loss? You could also try asking me questions and I'll see if I can answer them if you wish.

Study John P. Holdren

In 1969 Holdren wrote that it was imperative "to convince society and its leaders that there is no alternative but the cessation of our irresponsible, all-demanding, and all-consuming population growth." That same year, he and professor of population studies Paul Ehrlich jointly predicted: "If … population control measures are not initiated immediately and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come."

Sounds like China to me

What sounds like China to you? I'm aware they have a one offspring limit, with exceptions, however isn't that a response to physical necessity?

Also, what defines John Holdren as an elite? He may be "Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy" However, I can only find stories of a man remarkably concerned about what he judges to be an issue of sustainability versus population growth. Not to mention your quote came from a site (discoverthenetworks.org) that reads like an internet propaganda 'rag'.

I have a couple questions for you. Are you for or against a one world government? I'm sure you are so I'll go ahead and ask the second question. Would you be willing to achieve that world government via force, lies and manipulation?

I'm not for a world government by any means. Education, discovery, and responsibility(such as being able to back up claims) are my main interests. I've been looking at the world freeman movement for answers to present day governance as it seems to make the most sense. The second question no longer applies.

Now I have a question: What is it about my questions that creates such a visceral response? It's my understanding that questions are exploratory and create no assumption beyond gathering knowledge.

There is quite a lot of reading required to get yourself up to speed on the complex machinations of the globalist elite over the last century. You could watch a couple of sensationalist youtube videos and get a basic understanding and a few names to throw around... however you indicated you are trying to educate yourself properly on the subject, so I will provide you with some reading material.

The fabian/socialist "New World Order" as envisioned by the Anglo-American Establishment in the early twentieth century:

H G Wells - The New World Order

H G Wells - The Shape of Things to Come

Bertrand Russell - The Impact of Science on Society

Alan Watt discussing Betrand Russell - video

Charles Galton Darwin - The Next Million Years

Post WW2 - League of Nations, United Nations and the plan to implement a world government that would become a synthesis of capitalism and communism:

Prof. Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University (and mentor to Bill Clinton) was permitted to document the history and inner workings of the globalist thinktanks such as the Council of Foreign Relations, and by extension the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberg group:

Carroll Quigley - The Anglo American Establishment

Carroll Quigley - Tragedy and Hope

In the 1970's we saw the emergence of global strategists such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, who documented the plans to encircle and destroy the USSR (using mujihadeen proxy wars in Afghanistan - by creating the Taliban/Al-Qaeda), to prop up China and encourage this synthesis of communism and capitalism to form in the east:

Zbigniew Brzezinski - Between Two Ages

Zbigniew Brzezinski - The Grand Chess Board

This should be enough to get you started.

Thank you much!

however isn't that a response to physical necessity?

It's typical for someone into a one world government to make such an assumption....is that what you wanted to see...or do you have proof that a government should be killing millions of it's citizens due to this supposed physical necessity?

Does the direct quote below from John P. Holdren Sound like China to you?

It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

What human history doctrine do you subscribe to?

I look to the policy as a simple observation. 1 serving/2 people = 1/2 serving per person. 1 serving/1000 people. 1/1000 serving per person. Someone's gonna die.. slowly. What would be your solution in this case? I'm unsure whether you have knowledge that would prove me to be naive; I'd appreciate it if you shared.

Do I think killing is an appropriate response; no.

Do I agree there should be groundwork for reproductive limitations when evidenced rates of finite resources, production capabilities, and consumption compromise the basic needs of a populous; yes.

If you can't afford to have more children in a family, you either lower your standard of living to accomodate, raise your wealth, (which means gaining it at the expense of another, usually indirectly), or you just don't have more kids. Now imagine your 'family' being one-billion strong.

What do you mean by human history doctrine?

The only thing I'm aware of that is of significance to a mass of people that I'm signed to is a nation. That's only because my parents signed me up at birth to have rights and duties.

My solution to not having enough food for the amount of people would be for nature to take its course. Whether that be some starve to death or make more food if possible. Definitely not for government to be involved in any way shape or form. Does not matter how many.

gaining it at the expense of another

So you think the only way someone can raise their wealth is at the expense of another...hmmm...I definitely disagree. If I enter into an agreement to work for someone and they've agreed to pay me for that work it's a win win not a win lose. They get something done they needed done and I raise my wealth.

What do you mean by human history doctrine?

Like most people do with you, I'm sure, I read something you wrote (about history) and took it wrong.

You seem to be on a high horse because regardless of how anyone answers you it's not good enough or if it is you just continue to badger on. For instance I replied with some quotes of John P. Holdren's desire to do the exact same thing that China is doing to curb the supposed population problem. Instead of acknowledging that you got your original answer you troll on and ask how is he an elite. I mean give me a break...Obama nominates the control freak to a position of power and you ask what makes him an elite? You come off as an ass when you do such things. A troll just trying to annoy people with a zero common sense mentality. Is that your goal? To troll?

Leaps and bounds are easier to conclude when it's what you want to see. It's much harder to explain a process step-for-step.

No shit sherlock....yet your goal is to come in here and troll for that explanation knowing full well it's been written a thousand times over, video's of it all over the web, countless stories right from the peoples mouths who have experienced it and are now warning the people who haven't experienced it personally. Documentaries out the ying yang. If you have access to Reddit then you have access to Google. People don't have any desire to play your game. You can claim you're just wanting proof and want people to not make leaps and bounds but it becomes immediately obvious that you're just a troll. You could be given proof all day long and you'd still be asking other obvious, pointless, diverting, time wasting, trolling questions. If you really aren't purposefully trolling, which I seriously doubt, but if you really and truly aren't trolling may I suggest you study up on gaining some common sense. That would help you more than anything.

whats so bad about population control? it seems like a responsible thing to do

Oh....so I guess when you/your mother/father/brother/sister were born the government should have taken you and killed you huh?

i was a first born so i guess im biased

I think you should learn the difference between subjective and objective.

Would you be so kind?

http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Bankers.htm

I appreciate you sharing this info.

Though, I understand the history and notion of "he who controls the money supply, controls those who use it" as well as other historically noted usurpations such as the Russian Oligarchy (Tsars) and JP Morgan's rise to power. Also, I've been reading up on Bilderburg, Illuminati, Corporate Personhood, watched series such as The Industry, Monsanto's GMOs, Codex Alimentarius presentations by Rima Laibow, HAARP, and more that don't come to mind at present.

What I'm doing here is trying to ask a few extremely simple questions of people who make claims.. yet are consistently unwilling to share definitive knowledge. Of the ones who have responded, aside from you, they infer that they know more than the average 'informed' man, yet would apparently rather shoot down someone who hasn't beat off to the same videos as they have.

Anyway Salami, I commend you on at least linking a foundation to the ideas here. I started learning about such things with the very subject you share. It still doesn't answer the original claim that I have questioned.

I guess in China the actual people have little / no influence over the people in power. Why wouldn't they want to expand that model?

empirical evidence

I guess in China...

empirical - adjective

1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.

2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine.

3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

I love when people think they are smart.

1) Try real time, as in the US government has been giving us a front row view of such an experiment for a very, very long time.

2) Self-evident.

3) Um... maybe every single electronic transaction or communication you transmit openly being archived by multiple government agencies, and all the "laws" being rewritten to accommodate such craven intent. Obama even flip-flopped on that issue with his overnight Rockefeller FISA bill vote change before he was elected, but after a big donor drop by the telecoms under fire.

Also, how about everyone's cock and balls being photographed and saved when you take a flight anywhere. Make sure your children smile for the camera, whose radiation is the perfect frequency to unzip DNA.

And let's not forget US citizens being subjected to indefinite detention, all without pesky lawyers, courtrooms, or having that messy family of yours involved because no one told them your government took you.

The name of the game is control, and everyone copies notes from each other.

I'm glad you're happy :)

1) Try laying it out for "the reddit main". Does the title of your post illustrate an inability to concisely explain to the differing crowd? Or is it similar to the thrill of slapping each others' asses in the conspiracy locker room?

2) I can't prove the connection, so if it's self-evident, it's only that way to someone with specific knowledge, I imagine.

3) Thanks for the candid info. However, if you're a citizen of a nation (corporation) you have signed/attested to a contract with rights and duties. You have obligations and someone to answer to. You are a child of the state and really have no leg to stand on when you complain that the parent, or the process, is something you don't like.

May I assume you still use money? Even knowing the power it gives those who issue it?

[deleted]

not your buddy, guy.

At least you're allowed to talk and complain about this stuff in the U.S. without being arrested.

not really true. Whistleblowers are going to jail, protesters are being pulled off the streets into unmarked vehicles, and if you talk loudly enough about the 'wrong' stuff, the FED's will give you visit.

A lot of these actions are then reversed in the courts.

After their rights have been trampled, then if anything meaningful gets to the supreme court and might turn out against the police, they withdraw the charges making sure the courts don't declare these actions unconstitutional, ruining their power monopoly.

Underhanded and slimy.

Let's not forget the high probability of bankruptcy you enjoy from the court proceedings.

How I did forget that most crucial of prerequisites? You gotta front the lawyer fees, just to attempt to protect yourself from unlawful arrest.

No one is being executed or completely disappearing.

Habeas Corpus doesn't exist if they give you the right Label, i.e. terrorist. Protesters are now considered low level terrorists

http://open.salon.com/blog/dennis_loo/2009/06/14/dod_training_manual_protests_are_low-level_terrorism

and they are arrested and homes searched for doing nothing wrong.

http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2009/10/anarchist-arrested-after-tweeting-out-the-fuzz-to-protesters.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss

Last but no least, what about GITMO detainees from an undeclared war? That's totally illegal.

Sure, again: no one is being executed or disappearing. I am not condoning the actions of the US government but I am simply stating that they are hardly comparable to the normal Chinese government activities. They have roving death vans. We at least get stirred up about it whenever our country royally fucks the rule of law...and so does the rest of the world.

Not surprised I got downvoted for that comment - so many people want to make the government out to be devastatingly evil all of the time - yet I know that my point is not empty. We treat our people better. How much better is debatable.

Nothing is better, indeed.

I find the differences slowly eroding, even though we still are in the best position compared to China.

Those roving death/organ stealing vans scare the crap out of me: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-06-14-death-van_x.htm

you act as if you would know if it were occurring..

you do know what the word disappearing means yes?

"Fear the Greeks, even when they bring gifts"

But that doesn't mean they're not watching. ;)

You're allowed to talk if you're wrong, if you are on to something though.. not so much.

It comes back to bite you.

for now..

complain as long as no one is listening, try speaking out to an audience and see who comes over to say hi

you're speaking to an audience right now.

No, he's speaking mostly to couch potatoes right now.

glad someone got it...

couch potatoes don't make noise.

Go out, speak out, make some noise, don't worry Mr. Billyclub & friends will be happy to give you singing lessons and that's if you're lucky. Usually they just load you up with some lead and dump what remains of your carcass in some back alley...and yet there are still people that think it would be the first time..

Hilarious, eh? Sounds like someone has a strange sense of humor..

Didn't you know... Flight 253 was a failure to connect the dots

You mean a failure to connect the dots PURPOSEFULLY.

Oooh my dots connected to make a giraffe!

Was the giraffe trained in Yemen?

"At least we're free, unlike some countries. Tsk tsk tsk."

well it is a well known - also government sponsored technique - reinforce the public interest in the world problems while the local garden is filled with feces.

Oh god no, that would require them to think about the perfect world around them. They live in a PERFECT WORLD! No IF's, AND's or BUT's about it......they are in full control, they are all totoally free, and are not manipulated in any way shape or form!

If they pop the little bubble they live in, they will have to grow a pair and fix it.

They, we are all too lazy. Its not until we get roally fucked will anyone come to grips with reality. The problem is, we've already been fucked and are getting fucked all the time and we still don't want to fix the problem.

What has this to do with google? Are you only capable of dealing with one issue at a time, would it tax your little brain too much to be able to be glad/sad about google and at the same time think about other subjects too?

[s]edit: oh hang on, have i misunderstood - are you claiming that flight 253 was a google mission? [/s]

Simple minds think simply. My subject was censorship, not google. The particular subject of google's censorship actions falls underneath the total subject of censorship, kinda like a sub-reddit. Was this explained in a simple enough manner for you?

Try a few more years working on your English before trying to interact with native speakers again.

Dude you're arrogant

Oh you are funny. So, are you incapable of dealing with more than one issue at a time? I notice you didn't manage to read that bit, which is ironic given your comment. Also funny is that the purpose of language is to communicate information, so either you didn't understand what i put, which makes you stupid, or you did understand it, in which case you are stupid for attempting to say that what I wrote wasn't in English.

It is also amusing that you, an american (one would assume from your posts) would dare comment on my english, when i am english, and clearly better at it than you. You are not, by the way, a native english speaker.

[deleted]

2:(

FYI: This is in response to the deleted question "Tell us, how many shooters on the grassy knoll?" posted by firemillen2.

tell us, how many shooters on the grassy knoll?

Study John P. Holdren

In 1969 Holdren wrote that it was imperative "to convince society and its leaders that there is no alternative but the cessation of our irresponsible, all-demanding, and all-consuming population growth." That same year, he and professor of population studies Paul Ehrlich jointly predicted: "If … population control measures are not initiated immediately and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come."

Sounds like China to me

Dude you're arrogant

My solution to not having enough food for the amount of people would be for nature to take its course. Whether that be some starve to death or make more food if possible. Definitely not for government to be involved in any way shape or form. Does not matter how many.

gaining it at the expense of another

So you think the only way someone can raise their wealth is at the expense of another...hmmm...I definitely disagree. If I enter into an agreement to work for someone and they've agreed to pay me for that work it's a win win not a win lose. They get something done they needed done and I raise my wealth.

What do you mean by human history doctrine?

Like most people do with you, I'm sure, I read something you wrote (about history) and took it wrong.

You seem to be on a high horse because regardless of how anyone answers you it's not good enough or if it is you just continue to badger on. For instance I replied with some quotes of John P. Holdren's desire to do the exact same thing that China is doing to curb the supposed population problem. Instead of acknowledging that you got your original answer you troll on and ask how is he an elite. I mean give me a break...Obama nominates the control freak to a position of power and you ask what makes him an elite? You come off as an ass when you do such things. A troll just trying to annoy people with a zero common sense mentality. Is that your goal? To troll?

Leaps and bounds are easier to conclude when it's what you want to see. It's much harder to explain a process step-for-step.

No shit sherlock....yet your goal is to come in here and troll for that explanation knowing full well it's been written a thousand times over, video's of it all over the web, countless stories right from the peoples mouths who have experienced it and are now warning the people who haven't experienced it personally. Documentaries out the ying yang. If you have access to Reddit then you have access to Google. People don't have any desire to play your game. You can claim you're just wanting proof and want people to not make leaps and bounds but it becomes immediately obvious that you're just a troll. You could be given proof all day long and you'd still be asking other obvious, pointless, diverting, time wasting, trolling questions. If you really aren't purposefully trolling, which I seriously doubt, but if you really and truly aren't trolling may I suggest you study up on gaining some common sense. That would help you more than anything.

Oh you are funny. So, are you incapable of dealing with more than one issue at a time? I notice you didn't manage to read that bit, which is ironic given your comment. Also funny is that the purpose of language is to communicate information, so either you didn't understand what i put, which makes you stupid, or you did understand it, in which case you are stupid for attempting to say that what I wrote wasn't in English.

It is also amusing that you, an american (one would assume from your posts) would dare comment on my english, when i am english, and clearly better at it than you. You are not, by the way, a native english speaker.