JohnDJasper

You truely believe that a man hacked to death in front of countless witnesses with bloodied hands on Youtube, was a false flag? To put it into context, I believe that 9/11 with 1000s dead and $billions in property damage was a false flag (not coutning all the dead and damage justified by it over the last 12 years. I believe that the London 7/7 bombing with numerous dead, 3 tube trains and 1 bus destroyed was a false flag. Need I mention the Oklahoma City bombing, the 1993 WTC attack, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the Anthrax letter attacks? I have no problem whatsoever believing that this COULD be a false flag and as far as I'm concerned, the onus is on the authorities to prove that it wasn't (not that they'll give a damn what I think!) Remember what we saw in the video: A body on the road, some blood trails and blood on one man's hands and weapons, two more bodies on the ground apparently after police showed up and shot the attackers who kindly waited around for them. None of this is outside the realm of fakery nor does it make much sense. People who have no qualms about killing or maiming 100s or 1000s will not even blink in sacrificing one or more patsies to promote their agenda. As far as I'm concerned, I won't trust anything these people say about this event until I've seen the results of the Public Enquiry.

I recommend American Everyman for a sensible discussion of the facts about this case. If anyone will get to the bottom of it, it's investigative journalist, Scott Creighton. IMO, this has all the hallmarks of a staged false-flag event but let's see how the narrative plays out.

Read the article here. Dr Humphries points to the evidence showing that pertussis vaccination has failed in every way.

What rules? I thought the laws of physics were the rules. JanC, don't read too much into it. The rules ARE the laws of physics. For simplicity I should have said "stay within the laws." Sure, because those two situations are not the same. The relevant question though is: What if you did choose Brand A and we would rewind the clock to that exact same moment, with all molecules back in place. Do you believe then that you could have made a different dicision? Yes, I believe that a different decision could have been made at the precise moment but also that the same or a different decision could have been made earlier or later as before the decision was made, there was no requirement that it be made at that precise moment. I just find that hard to believe. Based on what could it possible change? But this is what determinists are saying. All these variables together determine your final decision and actions. What's not deterministic about this? What you are ignoring is all of the choices made leading up to the event. To rewind to the point of decision multiple times might result in exactly the same decision being made but it also might not. What would be telling would be to rewind a day or week earlier and see if you got back to exactly the same decision point and if the complete course of life continued exactly as before. If it did, then we are just automatons following our programming and therefore are as pointless as we perceive mosquitos to be. Hence there is no reason whatsoever to do anything other than live our short lives to the fullest enjoyment and die leaving the world a shithole for those who have the misfortune of following behind us. So, as it has already been stated before, what is your motivation for discussing determinism? Are you feeling guilty about something?

Naddrin, I think that the first error here is to presume that free will has rules by which it functions. The fact that most everything in our universe does have universal laws that must be obeyed does not in itself prove that the same applies to conscious decision making. Dead or non-living objects rely on inertia for motion and they cannot just decide to stop or go in a different direction. Most Living objects have the ability to choose to alter their course and/or speed and as such they cannot be depended on to play any set role in the great billiard game of the universe. They cannot disobey the laws of physics but as long as they stay within the rules, they have the freedom to roam as they wish. You, of course, have the freedom to think of this "free roaming" as predetermined action based on predictable stimuli. If I'm standing at street corner X and I can go in one direction and buy a coffee at Brand A coffee shop or a second direction and buy coffee from Brand B shop, ad infinitum, I might choose Brand A today but just as easily choose a different Brand tomorrow or any day in the future. The decision process might include any number of variables such as distance, available time, taste preference, availability of doughnuts, the direction of the wind, my mood, the possibility of meeting a friend, weather conditions, or just the desire for variety. Given a device that could read all of these variables at once, it might be possible to predict the outcome but in the absence of such a device, reliable predictions could only come from observing my personal habits over a period of time and you wouldn't be able to distinguish between deterministic behaviour and personal choice based on free will. If you tried to convince my dog that her behaviour is deterministic, she would give you a quizzical look and then choose one of her toys for you to play a game of catch with or just decide that she's not really interested and go back to sleep, unless of course she thinks it's getting close to mealtime. My dog's pretty smart and she is probably hoping to be reincarnated as a human next time around as we get unlimited access to the refrigerator and never have to walk attached to a lead. I'd hate to disappoint her by telling her that we're just a higher-functioning deterministic animal with a huge superiority complex!!!

Maybe not on this subject, but I already have changed your mind. You konw now that I exist. That is an example of a mind changing. You gained knowledge. Changing someone's mind in the sense that he will change his opinion an a subject, is just another example of a mind changing. I'm not saying these forms of changes are exactly the same, but I also don't see a fundamental difference between them. JanC, I disagree that you have changed anyone's mind because they "now know that you exist." For that to be a "change of mind", a person would have to have previously thought that you didn't exist and I suspect that before meeting you on this forum, none of us had an opinion either way about your existence.

I'm seriously disturbed but not particularly surprised by the vicious killing of a human by what amounts to a Officer of the Law these days. I am disturbed and very surprised that bystanders would let their phones be confiscated although there was no doubt an implied threat to the bystanders. In future, bystanders will take their photos and flee the scene before the confiscation can begin.

Yep! George had it figured out long ago but it's taking the rest of us awhile to catch up.

Well said, Moriartis. My thoughts exactly! I love it when I'm introducing some of my local people to these concepts and I see the little light switch on inside. I hate it when the light is no longer glowing next time I see them! :o(

By Alan Phillips Although this is not a new book (published 1997) I thought that the Introductory paragraph was important to flag up for those who have trouble getting concerned about the vaccination program. The author goes on to discuss 10 vaccination myths and the facts regarding them. I won't reprint the whole article here but hopefully this will wet your appetite and convince people to take the time to read it: VACCINATION MYTH #1: "Vaccines are completely safe..." VACCINATION MYTH #2: "Vaccines are very effective..." VACCINATION MYTH #3: "Vaccines are the main reason for low disease rates in the U.S. today..." VACCINATION MYTH #4: "Vaccination is based on sound immunization theory and practice..." VACCINATION MYTH #5: "Childhood diseases are extremely dangerous..." VACCINATION MYTH #6: "Polio was one of the clearly great vaccination success stories..." VACCINATION MYTH #7: "My child had no short-term reaction to vaccination, so there is nothing to worry about..." VACCINATION MYTH #8: "Vaccines are the only disease prevention option available..." VACCINATION MYTH #9: "Vaccinations are legally mandated, and thus unavoidable..." VACCINATION MYTH #10: "Public health officials always place health above all other concerns..."

Article by Matt Taibbi in Common Dreams More proof that we do not live in a free market.

That’s the part I don’t get: why is this religion / atheism issue? This is solely about weighing effectiveness of vaccine combined with likelihood of contracting decease and severity of symptoms with possible side effects of such vaccine. Nothing is 100% effective, contraction likelihoods are usually low, and side effects are always present. In the case of swine or even seasonal flu, the window between discovery and identification of possible culprit and required in-market dates is usually impossibly narrow, that only government mandated program would be able to “deliver”. I'm not aware of this being a religion / atheism issue? @Spastic Ink was just passing on that the Atheist Experience Show expresses specific view on vaccination. Fortunately Canada allows for religious or philosophical exemptions (unlike the USA which recognises religious and medical exemptions although it is allegedly impossible to get a doctor to sign a medical exemption now)

A sure sign that they're working from emotion instead of intellect. "Just get your damn shots!"

Thanks, SimonF. I've added this paper to my library. Unfortunately, the people who conduct studies like this make assumptions on relevance of data based on their viewpoint and I wasn't surprised to find that they only included in the study those children who were hospitalised. It doesn't say how many minor cases of neological illness were excluded. It also makes an assumption that only the pertussis vaccine was under question so doesn't include the history of other vaccinations. For pertussis, it only gives information where the child was vaccinated within 14 days of being reported as ill so making an assumption that if the child became ill after 14 days, then the vaccination is not a factor. The overall wording of the report seems to say that although there might be reasons for concern, the results were inconclusive which is as good as saying, "nothing to see here, folks."

But what counts as coercively held land and resources? Is it the property held by the state at the time of dissolution or will it include property given (or sold below market rate) to private individuals in exchange for favors rendered to politicians or officials?

(Thanks to Chaz for the mediahint tip!) I got up to the second advert and it packed up on me but it's probably just as well because I couldn't fastforward through the "drill sergeant" bits. What I saw was enough to piss me off probably because it was too much like my childhood only it was my father who made it a living hell. My mother was strict but sane but when Dad was around, she wasn't strong enough to reign him in. I recognised too well, the room inspections, the lack of privacy, the lack of respect for the children as people and being kept on a tight leash. We couldn't even play in the front yard much less join the neighbours on the street or at their houses without specific permission until well into the teen years. We learned that we had to play very quietly so as not to get noticed because getting noticed meant being assigned jobs to do so that we weren't wasting time playing. And with free use of the belt, switch or bare-hand, it was a house without love and for the most part, without fond memories. Fortunately, I learned how to make a happy home for my girls and I'm pleased that, in their late 20s and up, they tell me they have such good memories of their childhoods. My wife taught all three girls to read before they started school. The eldest was an avid reader from that time and still is today. The other two could read but had little interest in reading for pleasure for most of their childhood. They were very active in sports and chose television and games to occupy their time otherwise. Somewhere along the way, they both caught the reading bug and are happily catching up on what they missed out on. All three graduated from University with excellent results so apparently no harm done! :o) There, that's my story!

@Arius, I don't think that your question is a valid response to darkskyabove's question. No one can actually specify how a free society would work as it would be up to those free individuals to decide what rules they live by and what methods were considered valid. What seems important for this thread is to hash out the validity of reallocation based on prior seizure by force. @darkskyabove, I'm shooting from the hip on this but it seems to me that anyone who feels that they have a claim against a property owner for whatever reason, has every right to press their claim as they see fit. I understand that sharia tribal custom is still practiced in parts of the world where instead of families continuously duking it out over an offense, they subject themselves to a tribal judge. The judge, being a wise elder of the tribe as opposed to an elected or appointed government official) passes judgement and sentences as they see fit and if the families accept his judgement, the matter is seen as settled. If not, they return to warring against each other. In a world without rulers, an aggrieved individual will have the same freedom to seek justice and if they're not satisfied with any 3rd party ruling handed out (say from a DRMO?), who's to stop them trying to extract justice as they see fit? They might lose to a superior opponent or be successful but then shunned by society as a whole or they might be hailed as a champion of the oppressed. In such a system, their can be no statute of limitations other than that set by the individuals involved or what the local society will sanction. In practice, this would be represented by the strength of the aggrieved's wish for justice versus the strength of the opposition or in other words, how bad do they really want to fight! Besides the other objections raised to this idea, much of this "free" land is so because no one would consider trying to scratch a living on it. If they could sell it, it probably wouldn't be for enough to make any real difference to their plight. Otherwise, a damn-fine plan. Further to the topic in general, any society-enforced redistribution plan would be, in effect, forming a government and giving it the power to use force against individuals so a non-starter for a free society.

Natasha Bita, a journalist for The Australian won a Walkley Award (the Australian equivalent of a Pulitzer Prize) in 2011 for an in-depth article series on the CSL Afluria flu vaccine, a shot that caused convulsions in one percent of Australian infants who received it. Unfortunately, the efforts of this intrepid reporter faded into insignificance because the medical cartel disregards these small victories for the anti-vaccination movement and people in general and carries on with their arrogant and self-serving agenda.

im really curious to know whats wrong with modern medicine dazed and confused, For a brief outline but in no specific order: Iatrogenic illness (caused by medical treatment or physician) is estimated as being at least the 3rd most fatal disease in the USA. (I'm supplying one relevant link out of many that exist.) Even if the underlying philosophy and science were sound, the application of modern medicine is killing and maiming people equivalent to a Jumbo Jet crash every day of the year. The underlying philosophy and science of modern medicine is unsound. Leaving aside trauma and the unfortunate minority born with defects, the human body is naturally healthy and poor health results from an unhealthy lifestyle and/or environment. A return to health is properly occasioned by avoiding the unhealthy factors and adequately supplying the factors that support health such as clean air, water, wholesome food, rest and sleep, exercise, security, correct temperatures and healthy relationships. Alternatively, the medical mindset sees poor health as something to be poisoned or surgically removed. In so doing, they treat the symptoms of the poor health while leaving the cause. The medical mindset also sees the human body as poorly adapted to survive in this world and arrogantly believes that it knows best how to improve the body's chances. They are so convinced that their vaccinations are saving the world from disease that they easily overlook all evidence to the contrary including the fact that they and the pharmaceutical companies demanded immunity from prosecution for vaccine-related injuries. So, combined with state-sanctioned mandatory vaccination programs and the threat of jail for refusing to get children vaccinated, parents are too often faced with no choice but to have their children injured by vaccine with no legal recourse. (An example of the suppressed evidence of vaccine injuries: Judicial Watch Seeks Answers to Payouts Made to Victims of HPV Vaccines and Will Merck’s Gardasil HPV Vaccine be its Next Vioxx?) The medical philosophy sees diseases such as colds, flu, measles, etc as an attack by germs on the body and with some diseases such as malaria, this is undisputed. The germ theory view of disease is, say in the case of influenza, the body presents flu symptoms and a test identifies a flu virus so this is an attack by that virus. One alternative to germ theory sees both the flu symptoms and the presence of the flu virus all as evidence of the body resolving an internal crisis which requires opening extraordinary paths of elimination to increase efficiency of waste removal and invoking our natural waste-eating microorganisms. If you accept, as I do, that acute diseases are body-initiated, healing mechanisms, the last thing that you want to do is interfere with the body's ability to initiate them nor interrupt them while in progress. (For a reasonable discussion on germ theory and alternatives: Germ Theory by Kate Tietje and another one: A Heretic’s View of Influenza’s Role in Health and Disease by Dr Tenpenny) Modern medicine has long been guilty of turning adults especially the more senior ones into drug addicts and they have now focussed their efforts on addicting our children to anti-psychotics and other behaviour-adjusting medications. (Perhaps this is to make them less resistant to the vaccination programs?) Government-mandated restrictions on competition in both the pharmaceutical industry and medical practice itself results in exhorbitant costs for treatment. One good case of heart disease or cancer can leave a family homeless and in serious debt even with medical insurance. ("75% of people who filed for bankruptcy because of medical debts had health insurance") And much of this expense is on procedures such as angioplasty and cancer treatments that, according to , have consistently failed to prove beneficial in research studies. There's much more that I could say but hopefully this has satisfied some of your curiosity.

Vaccinating pregnant women “halves the risk of pertussis in infants’ first four months” ~ A critique by Dr Suzanne Humphries Another hard-hitting critique from Dr Humphries as she continues the fight against the vaccine industry's ongoing propaganda campaign. This article comes almost in answer to a recent discussion on this forum about the mutation/evolution of our species due to vaccinations and other reliance on medical treatments, The author provides documented evidence of the harm that vaccination is doing to us and future generations. Some key points: So, add the fact that vaccines interfere with natural and healthy immune response to the already established facts concerning 1) the fatalaties and severe damage done to a significant number of people by vaccines, 2) he too-cosy and lucrative relationship between pharmaceutical companies, medical professionals, politicians, government agencies and NGOs not to mention 3) the lack of correlation between vaccination and the decline of infectious disease and 4) the vaccine-cartel's immunity to prosecution for any harm done and maybe you'll think twice about subjecting yourself and your loved ones to vaccinations. More importantly, you'll help fight the growing trend of government-enforced, mandatory vaccination.

cicero, I'll break the mold here and reply from a point of having actually looked at the video as well as reading into the subject matter over a period of months including two of Bruce Lipton's books. IMO, there is plenty of evidence of suppressed history and scientific knowledge and in many cases, we're presented scientific opinion masquerading as facts. When it comes to the elongated-skulled Egyptian pharoahs and people from other civilisations, they may just be human mutations but that doesn't explain why they're overlooked in general discussion and education. (a quick note to documentary makers: if you add a spooky/sci-fi type soundtrack to your video, don't be surprised if people don't take it seriously!) Whether ancient knowledge or modern-day, if it's ignored, suppressed or just innocently misunderstood, it can only result in a disservice (at best) to us. Healthy skepticism is good but not blind trust in modern "knowledge" because it's modern. For additional material on ancient knowledge, I recommend the video Project Camelot, hidden Alien and Human history, Klaus Dona as well as the video linked at the end which gives a slideshow of many of the artifacts that he's researched. [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH1pEtmdGtQ]

kirk24, Many thanks for your post. Although we're just "people on the internet," it's useful to share these anecdotes if just to stimulate discussion. In many avenues of life, learning is stifled because people with strong views (biases, beliefs, prejudices, whatever) shutdown any discussion that threatens their mindset. Vaccination is one such topic that has the ability to send individuals into the screaming habdabs. Hopefully, the sight/sound of people discussing the topics without thousands of children dying in the background will hopefully open these people up to more sober discussion. You say that you've never heard of the lab tests being ordered to confirm a flu diagnosis and yet, I've had nurses and doctors (in person and on-line) insist that every case is lab tested, even during the last Swine Flu "pandemic." The CDC broadcast during the alleged crisis that they wouldn't test every case but would count every flu-like case as H1N1 which of course pushed the numbers up significantly. But the health experts insist after the fact that all cases were confirmed by lab test. They also insist that every person that was vaccinated but died either didn't have the flu or had "underlying conditions." It's a lovely success story if only people who know better would just shut up! I suspect that you're right about flu death and fever but not just in children. Fever is a part of the bodies natural defense mechanism and, as the body never intentionally injures itself, What Natural Hygienists and some other alternative health professionals know is that when you try to reduce fever, you're interfering with the bodies attempt to detoxify itself. Reducing the fever means diminishing the body's ability to eliminate dangerous levels of toxicity which is threatening organs and tissue and if you use drugs to accomplish this, you're adding to the toxic burden on the body. It's then easy to wind up in a vicious circle of reduced ability to eliminate toxins and an increase in toxins to be eliminated resulting in organ failure and fatality. How many of you would take yourself or give your child pain reliever when they come down with a cold or flu symptoms? How many physicians would recommend the same? If the patient was denied food and tended to with bed rest and as much pure water as they would like to drink, they would probably avoid the higher fever and recover much quicker. I'll point out that Hygienists will not entirely ignore the fever but, to my knowledge, they would not advocate the use of medicines to manage it. And finally, what would you accept as real evidence that vaccines do harm? Maybe these unhappy links will help you see why so many people have strong opinions against vaccination: Ian's Voice Baby Dies After 9 Vaccines in One Day H1N1 Swine Flu Vaccine Insert Admits It Causes Guillain-Barre Syndrome, Vasculitis, Paralysis, Anaphylactic Shock And Death

Either way, thanks for posting this article. I read Shock Doctrine several years ago and ever since have watched the progress of Disaster Capitalism across the globe. It's good to keep flagging this up because the more people who realise what's going on, the more likely we'll put the brakes on it someday.

SteveRG1, Some might write you off as crazy or unreasonable but IMO, yours is a rare example of sane reasoning.

Metric, I fail to see how you reduced the argument down to the risk of heavy metals against the benefits of the flu vaccine unless you completely ignored my posts (and therefore I'm wasting my time typing this!) As there is no reliable proof that vaccines provide any benefit and considerable evidence that vaccines can cause permanent injury ranging from developmental disorders to death, I think the argument boils down to whether or not you believe the mumbo jumbo that the medical cartel pushes on us. The anti-vax contingent is made up of those who believe that 1) vaccines are generally good but some are dangerous and need fixing and 2) those who believe that vaccines are completely unnecessary and at best useless but more likely harmful and occasionally, extremely so. The OP's position is that we should listen to faith-based, fear-induced propaganda and disregard all evidence to the contrary. I feel that this is a more reliable, quick summary of the argument.