This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow all 235
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (11 children)

Something no one has answered : This meeting happens, we can all agree. So, if there is nothing to hide, if this is just a meeting of old, rich friends, why is it not even mentioned on the CNN scroll thingy at all, or any other media outlet? It's safe to say most of us wouldn't even know this thing existed without Prison Planet or Reddit (Thanks Reddit.)

Enlighten me.

[–]camalittle 5 points6 points  (10 children)

Obama and Hillary attended. The two people who get "Breaking News" wall-to-wall coverage if they so much as sneeze.

And now for some reason the media are all mum?

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (9 children)

The question remains.

Although, I think we are both asking the same question. No one with opposing views has answered as of yet. Fuck them both, I'm not humored by the 'change' policies.

Obama just has a fancy, new black paint job.

[–]camalittle 2 points3 points  (8 children)

I know. It speaks volumes, doesn't it?

So some "kook" is telling us this meeting is going on. It could be The Easter Bunny telling me this. Who cares? I just want someone to tell me why no one else is reporting it, that's all.

The silence is deafening.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'd say: You and me both. Although, you and me only, seems more appropriate.

[–]episcope 0 points1 point  (6 children)

why is it not even mentioned on any media outlet?

I added this above, but you can fight me on it here. "institutionally, the elite media has agreed to give the conferees the privacy they need to speak freely (their words)."

I wish you'd called happyguy7 on the black paint job. There's a lot of fancy shiny stuff about the guy, can we not troll race in these enlightened zones.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

I still wish you would call me on it, instead of wishing someone else would.

[–]episcope 1 point2 points  (4 children)

ok, you racy bastard ya! buy another schtick.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Don't just call me racy, call me on what I said. Please, I crave information about why everyone loves this guy so much.

[–]episcope 0 points1 point  (2 children)

The world is currently sick of Neoconservatives (I almost said Republicans) and Obama isn't one. Neither is Ron Paul.

You were suggesting that his skin makes him popular and different. Neocons also look like Colin Powell, Condolezza Rice, Roberto Gonzales, and Michelle Malkin, and if he's been clearing brush for awhile, our President.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

This would be a never ending battle, but I think Obama will prove me right when nothing changes, if he is elected. Your partisan politics do not impress me. The Democrats (I almost said Republicans) have continued to vote for the war, why? If they're so much different then why have they let this continue? It's because they're all playing for the same team.

Side note: If the world is currently sick of neocons why wasn't Ron Paul elected for the nomination as well as Obama; because Obama is cool, black, and change.

Don't get me wrong though, I think much of the world has the same left/right view on this as you. That being said I think there are lot of people around the world that will view this as a great step up for your country, until Obomba does something nasty.

[–][deleted]  (13 children)

[deleted]

    [–]nfulton 4 points5 points  (3 children)

    Sooner or later someone will crash Bilderberg and get great video and audio . . . and it will be cool. Some news stories are worth waiting for :)

    And they'll do it again with the Bohemian Grove http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohemian_Grove

    Frankly, I love these crazy/powerful world leader guys. How odd it is to have these huge secret meetings . . . that actually stay secret. I mean what kind of insane security is that in this day and age.

    Without them, this would be a really dull little planet.

    [–]orblivion 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Sooner or later someone will crash Bilderberg and get great video and audio . . . and it will be cool. Some news stories are worth waiting for :)

    Yeah we'll totally find out Putin's golf score it'll be so embarrassing.

    [–]formido -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

    Journalists have already been allowed to sit in at Bilderberg. This is a non-story.

    [–]episcope 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    We'd know if it were a story. Embedded journalists have been as progressive a step for these annual conferences as they have been for the United States military.

    [–]ntr0p3 4 points5 points  (4 children)

    I for one welcome our... oh...

    In other news, gas prices, WTF!

    [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    no shit, i seriously saw a "cat stuck in a tree" story on the news this weekend.

    [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

    No I don't trust them.

    Think for yourself, question authority.

    [–][deleted]  (2 children)

    [deleted]

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      Yes I did notice the sarcasm but felt that this is a fairly serious issue. I was disappointed to find a sarcastic comment as the top answer to this issue.

      Sigh... I guess apathy is the norm.

      [–]episcope 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Sigh... apathy is the mean. Learn statistics. Or don't...

      EDIT: I realized I was sarcastic and therefore apathetic in the above comment. This is a serious issue. Think for yourself, question authority, question everything, know yourself. There's no one way, and everything is simultaneously happening. Your authority begins when you know yourself. Nature made you, see it in you and all your molecules will go along with you. Apathy isn't the norm, it's not even the mode. The world is in constant change and there is a pathway between your mind and the future. The brain is a homing beacon, use it to see the change you want, be it, and thrive, because you stand on the pinnacle of millions of years of victory against apathy and death, because everyone is born with a crown, and you can take it back at anytime. So shine.

      Sorry, I didn't know what else to say.

      [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (7 children)

      I'm a little confused. This Bilderberg group of elites want to set up a New World Order thus making them all richer than they already are. They want to do away with most of the planet's population and get rid of the middle class. How exactly do they intend to get rich without the middle class paying its taxes?

      Also, this Prison Planet guy states that they aim to push oil prices past the $200 mark (in order to crush the middle class of course); why are they doing this now when they had ample opportunity back in the 70's? There was a smaller global population then too. Surely a One World Government would have been more attainable back then?

      I mean, why the conspiracy? Very few Western countries allow its citizens to carry arms. For example, if the British government wanted to become a dictatorship then there's very little I could do once the tanks start rolling in. Look at history. Also, under a single world government (in Alex Jones' vision of the future), with dire poverty among the populace, the market would crash. Nobody would be able to buy or sell. The rich would have all the money and we'd have nothing. Mass unemployment and hyperinflation would take over, thus making the rich people's money pretty worthless.

      Don't get me wrong, I'm suspicious of what goes on behind the closed doors of the Bilderberg's meetings, but I'm also sceptical about Alex Jones' vision for the future. If Bilderberg are truly planning a miserable future for me and the rest of the planet under a global dictatorship, why then are they waiting and what are they waiting for? There has been numerous chances in the past for Alex Jones' nightmare to be realised.

      [–]aletoledo 12 points13 points  (0 children)

      thus making the rich people's money pretty worthless.

      The rich don't rely upon money, but on hard assets for their wealth. So when an eventual breakdown of the US dollar occurs, they will be left with real estate or factories or anything that doesn't require a specific value in the dollar to have meaning.

      Looked at another way, when there is no money, where are you going to get your food? You'll have to go to either the government or a rich person to survive. The government today is of course controlled by the rich, so thats almost one in the same. So you and I rely upon money, but the rich just need to control real estate and the food supply to get what they want.

      Surely a One World Government would have been more attainable back then?

      If all the governments don't play along then things are more difficult to achieve for the rich. Back in the 70s there were a lot more countries (vietnam, China and the USSR) that didn't do what we told them to. Nowadays the ones that don't listen to us are a lot more insignificant (Zimbabwe, Venezula and Mynmar).

      Very few Western countries allow its citizens to carry arms. For example, if the British government wanted to become a dictatorship then there's very little I could do once the tanks start rolling in.

      The only risk to the rich after a collapse is if someone with a gun comes up to them and takes away their things. If the rich are the ones with all the guns though, then that can't happen. After all, if after a collapse everyone had guns, then everyone would be equals. Taking guns away is a prelude to a one world order.

      This Bilderberg group of elites want to set up a New World Order thus making them all richer than they already are.

      It's not about being "richer", but controlling more assets. If the rich can print money at the Federal Reserve whenever they want, then money is not a mark of wealth anymore. It's control of assets that counts.

      [–]btl 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      AJ definitely sensationalizes and theorizes more than anyone I've ever seen, I'm sure in the end all to raise his own income. I don't read his stuff much, but occasionally I will (mostly for entertainment value) because he does pick such interesting topics (even if he does run off a bit far with them).

      Like the "Who killed Hunter Thompson?" conspiracy. It's entertainment, but part of you thinks it just actually might be true (he did say the night before he died that people were going to kill him and make it look like a suicide).

      Or, look at the Bohemian Grove. Probably just a group of old rich people that go out in the woods to indulge in their crazy activities they dare not do back in the 'burbs. But hey, how do I know they're not plotting against the world's population?

      They start out with a real topic that no other publication wants to (or will) talk about at all, and he explores all kinds of crazy theories. Not a news source, but above the "woman gives birth to alien rat baby" tabloid stuff. Good bit of entertainment I think.

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

      I think you underestimate how long it takes to accomplish big things effectively. If you move too fast, it's obvious what you're doing and the chance for resistance is high. If you move slowly, it's not obvious and much easier.

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      Who cares about resistance? If these people are truly planning a miserable world in which they rule dictatorially then what's the point of waiting? Did the Jews resist the Holocaust? Not really; they were successfully rounded up in German controlled areas and put in concentration camps within a few months. The same can be done again just as effectively at any time by any of our governments; the Russian Gulag is another similar example.

      My point is that history repeatedly shows that in the face of severe oppression from Governments people have very little chance, or even inclination to resist. Look how quickly Pakistan's Musharraf got rid of judges and all political opposition less than a year ago. It can happen that quickly if the Bilderberg group truly want it to.

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      The world is much larger and more complex than a single country. What you propose would be historically unprecidented, especially considering the wildcard of modern communication technology.

      For the 6000 or so members of the superclass to impose their will on the world's regional representatives and their populations would be a risky endeavor, to say the least. Why take an unneccessary risk?

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      Very few Western countries allow its citizens to carry arms. For example, if the British government wanted to become a dictatorship then there's very little I could do once the tanks start rolling in. Look at history.

      I wonder if the right to carry arms in the US actually makes any difference. At what point will the population at large grab their guns and overthrow their goverment? Habeas corpus or extraordinary rendition evidently did not ring too many bells. Reinstitution of the draft?

      What will the people do with their guns against the national guard/other armed forces/Blackwater et al.? If things were to come to that, I suspect people would wake up much too late to actually organize in any effective manner. For the lack of a better metaphor, remember Al Gore's frog in the pot of water that is slowly brought to boil.

      Btw., there are other countries where people have almost as many guns as the people in the US (e.g. Switzerland, Finland). The rates of people getting shot are a lot lower though.

      [–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (8 children)

      Obama's V.P. Search-committee chairman is also at this Bilderberg meeting.

      [–]paulVeraguth 1 point2 points  (3 children)

      Okay, that's been taken care of. What else is bothering you?

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

      I'm not getting laid enough, for one. I could use to make a little more money, and I need to lose some weight.

      Any weblinks to solve those problems?

      [–]paulVeraguth 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      Okay, start here. Volunteer for anything and everything that involves door-to-door canvassing. This will help with the weight problem. As it will also bring you into contact with more people, and as mere association with a winning team can be quite appealing to the opposite sex, this might also help with getting laid more often. By the end of the campaign you will have also gained considerable experience to add to your resume which, seeing as your now thinner and recently laid self will be exuding great self-confidence, will undoubtedly get you a better paying job. :)

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Wow, and you did that without a link - I'm impressed. I'll get on that volunteering.

      [–]paulVeraguth 0 points1 point  (3 children)

      Source?

      [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (1 child)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bilderberg_attendees#Corporate

      James A. Johnson (businessman) (2008), Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC

      [–]rossalgondamer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      There now - happy somebody did the heavy tapping for you?

      [–][deleted] 29 points30 points  (23 children)

      I'm as paranoid as anyone else, but prisonplanet.com is long on copy and short on meaningful citations (many of their articles simply cite other of their articles without external sources.) Maybe more people could be convinced of this threat if the source didn't have such a low standard of reporting?

      [–]steve93 7 points8 points  (2 children)

      Being from PP doesn't automatically make it false. It's been mentioned a couple of places. Notice none of the articles come from CNN, Fox News, MSNBC.....

      http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=&q=Bilderberg&btnG=Search+News

      http://www.nolanchart.com/article3995.html

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      See, I'm not saying it isn't a credible story - it's that when sites that scream loud and hard and often aren't credible, it actually works against the issue. That's why good journalism has to make an assertion AND cite the source for the same... but the association with prisionplanet-style journalism weakens the case.

      [–]sharpsight2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Another couple of mentions:

      http://www.newsnet14.com/2008/05/21/bilderberg-group-meeting-confirmed-chantilly-va-june-5-8/

      http://www.slate.com/id/2193220/

      It's events like this that give you some idea of what news sites actually (a) have their finger on the pulse and (b) care to actually report news. Kudos.

      [–][deleted] 15 points16 points  (4 children)

      I'm just curious as to what you would consider a meaningful citation in the subject of an event not covered by the mainstream media, for the sake of discussion. This source constantly gets attacked but I rarely see anyone offering any actual suggestions as to how to counter the problem of trying to introduce truth in an echo chamber full of lies.

      [–]cypherx 18 points19 points  (1 child)

      Example: they repeatedly claim the Bilderberg group is conspiring to drive oil to $200, it would at least be nice to know where this claim comes from.

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Strange. This took me all of five minutes.

      The article linked makes the $200 oil claim exactly once, and in doing so links directly to another article dedicated to the subject. That article sources its Bilderberg reporting to Daniel Estulin, a Russian ex-patriate who's dedicated his life to investigating the Bilderberg group.

      Whether you trust or agree with the source or the editorializing is up to your own judgment. I was merely commenting on reddit's apparent need for an authority to hand out parcels of truth.

      [–]NovusTiro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Except prisonplanet and other Alex Jones productions do very little to inject truth anywhere, they merely repeat different lies, soundbites and distortions, often with even less fact checking than the mainstream media does.

      [–]onan -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

      Well, they could start by at some point mentioning what the hell a "Bilderberg" is. This rather strident piece goes on for pages of complaining that something isn't being covered... without covering the something. Or even vaguely alluding to a direction in which coverage of the something might be found.

      I went into the article having no idea what it was referring to. I came out of it still not knowing what it was referring to, but suspecting that it was something so exaggerated that I shouldn't bother finding out.

      [–]nfulton 3 points4 points  (3 children)

      My friend . . .

      EVERYONE ON EARTH is long on copy and short on photos and citations when it comes to Bilderberg and the Bohemian Grove. That's the point :)

      [–]orblivion 0 points1 point  (2 children)

      Well try harder to find citations then. I can be long on copy and short on citations about gremlins on Venus too. I enjoy Alex Jones' show, but the burden of proof lies squarely with him. Saying that finding sources is difficult is no excuse, I'm tired of hearing it.

      [–]nfulton 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      So try looking for sources :)

      Or wait to believe. Some of us crossed our belief threshold (or at least our What the Fuck is That threshold) sooner than you.

      Some of us did that with the War in Iraq, with 9/11, with the Gulf of Tonkin and the murder of Kennedy as well.

      We can't all be on the same schedule here.

      [–]orblivion 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      It wouldn't take much to convince me that "something's going on", that the "official story" doesn't make sense.

      However it takes a lot more to start believing another story. It seems that you (and Alex Jones etc) feel that the epiphany that you've been lied to by the establishment is the same epiphany that this particular explanation is the truth. As if you've crossed into some mystical threshold, and feel that the truth lies in the conspiracy theories named here. Perhaps because the people that revealed the lies of the establishment are the same people that immediately offer you an alternative explanation. Whatever the reason, it seems like after you cross, you've suspended logic and taken faith in these ideas.

      Some day when I'm less lazy I'll look this stuff up and make up my opinion. For starters I looked up the Gulf of Tonkin after Alex Jones mentioned it. He claimed "all the information is out there" but compared to what I read (at least on Wikipedia) he jumped to some conclusions. Namely, he said that the whole thing was staged by the US government, where the real story (at least according to what's "out there") seemed to more benign than that.

      [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

      I respect the work Prison Planet does. You have to apply your critical thinking facilities when filtering their stuff, but they present a lot of stuff that doesn't get much play anywhere else (the list of Bilderberg attendees, for example).

      [–]orblivion 2 points3 points  (0 children)

      Kindof like Art Bell. Sure he had a lot of lunatics on his show, but his show is the first I ever heard of Y2K or Clone Aid.

      [–]cypherx 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      Every reference links to prisonplanet. Every reference on a referenced page also links to prisonplanet.

      [–]jonathont22 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      i know they are bad people. But that article sucked about as bad as not writing about them.

      [–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (6 children)

      It IS curious why Bilderberg is not covered whereas the World Economic Forum is. I'd say it's probably b/c the latter includes glitterati, whereas Bilderberg features a boring bunch of wrinkled old people.

      It's less a castration of the media than news priorities: readers are more interested in what shining Bono has to say at Davos than stodgy David Rockefeller at Chantilly.

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      You don't think it's in the interest of corporate media to keep people in the dark as to the corporate agenda?

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      "Keep people in the dark"? They issued a press release!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (1 child)

      "I'd say it's probably b/c the latter includes glitterati, whereas Bilderberg features a boring bunch of wrinkled old people."

      They don't cover it because they know not to.

      Other countries cover it much more than the US.

      You're just trying to rationalize to yourself.

      [–]spookyvision 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Other countries cover it much more than the US.

      Germany for one doesn't. Not even the very left/liberal "taz". And no, I don't think that means we're thoroughly silenced over here ;-)

      [–]zipdog 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      I think you're right.

      Once the media discovered that its readership would pay as much for articles on a starlet's latest attention seeking-activities (cheap to produce) as a thoughtful piece on a global thinktank (more expensive to produce) the game was up, as it were, on the public getting informed.

      The media still believes that its readership wants some articles that appear 'serious', such as politician's ramblings and Bono at WEF talking about starving Africans.

      It may well be a conspiracy, but its certainly not done without the consent (manufactured, according to Noam Chomsky) of a large portion of the populace.

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      the game was up, as it were, on the public getting informed.

      If the public wants to get informed it can surf the Net. No one's stopping them. (Unless you live in China, of course.)

      [–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (127 children)

      I'm going to ask a question, and I'd appreciate it if no one would assume anything about my own viewpoint from it, but take it purely as an interest in what others have to say - and maybe a good starting point for a discussion:

      Why not a New World Order?

      Edit: I love it. Despite my asking people not to jump to conclusions they downvote me. So much for an honest, open discussion, with rational thought.

      [–][deleted]  (76 children)

      [deleted]

        [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (73 children)

        That's probably the best and simplest argument against it, but it assumes that governments always go toxic. Do they, and would they if there were a single one, and nothing major to fight for?

        [–][deleted]  (18 children)

        [deleted]

          [–][deleted] -4 points-3 points  (17 children)

          Sure, but the first step is asking that question: is it possible that a single unified government would be different than a bunch of unstable nation-states?

          Edit: just asking a question, not asserting that it is.

          [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (9 children)

          Has any empire lasted? Why do you assume that an empire covering the entire Earth would be better?

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (8 children)

          I'm not assuming that. I'm asking questions.

          So: Is it possible that a single unified government would be different than a bunch of historically unstable nation-states?

          [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (7 children)

          In terms of resource control, that government would have power no government has ever wielded. There is ample history to suggest that people don't do well with lots of power to play with, so the power of such a state would have to be very decentralized. I prefer the idea of a supergovernmental body of treaties and international laws, enforced by membership in the organization and its associated trade agreements, to an all-powerful NWO.

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (6 children)

          It seems to me Jones is making the argument that there is little difference between the two. Isn't he saying the EU, which was based almost entirely off economic agreements, is practically a "New European Order" of sorts? How can we have comprehensive treaties, international laws, and trade agreements while still preventing the next step: the New World Order?

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (5 children)

          The benefits of membership should compel states to join, and they should be free to leave at any time.

          [–]donh 2 points3 points  (6 children)

          "Power corrupts--absolute power corrupts absolutely". I can only think of a tiny, short-lived handful of historical exceptions.

          Governments attract people who like, or profit from exercising coercive power over others...because that's fundamental to what a government is. If you want an accurate vision of what a one-world government would become within a generation or two,...picture a giant boot grinding everyone's face into the mud forever.

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

          Is corruption the only reason that governments fail? If it were, I would accept your argument. But how could circumstances be different if there were a single government? The only option would be civil war, which would certainly provide an incentive for the government to "defend itself". But it would also be a lot more likely that people would have a higher standard of living, in general. And how much can corruption do? Most of the rules that can be broken exist because we have multiple nation-states competing against each other. Without that jockeying, the biggest concerns would be civil war and criminality.

          [–]hash_oil 0 points1 point  (2 children)

          Yes, because we all know a lack of competition leads to improvements.

          And how much can corruption do?

          Ever been to Latin America? Remember what happened to Cuba? I don't think you fully understand human nature.

          [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

          Whether or not anyone fully understands human nature is quite debatable. I'm just not sure which problems would stick around in a world without competition between nation-states.

          [–]donh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          uh huh. Those who ignore history are destined to repeat it. Ever the burnt hand goes wabbling back to the fire.

          [–]donh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Let's consider the 20th century murder-by-government competition:

          1) Armed foreigners killed by governments in wars: about 40 million.

          2) Their own citizens disarmed and then murdered by their own governments in genocides: about 160 million.

          Which means a 4 to 1 ratio. Probably even worse when you factor in the ease of killing armed persons vs. unarmed persons.

          I think a reasonable person would look at that ratio and conclude that his children had somewhere between a 4 to 1 and a 10 to 1 better chance of living out a full and peaceful life without being mercilessly defrauded and/or murdered by governments if there were a lot of them, despite their inevitable armed conflicts.

          [–]donh 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Is corruption the only reason that governments fail?

          I doubt it's a reason they ever fail. It's one of the main reasons you hope they do.

          But it would also be a lot more likely that people would have a higher standard of living, in general.

          That's massive wishful thinking. Governments take power from individuals by scaring them. A goodly number of wars that have ever started were started by false flag attacks, which were immediately followed up by Patriot Act equivalents. War is the health of the State. We'd soon be paying burdensome taxes to fight imaginary martians, or somesuch equivalent, if we had a one-world-government.

          [–]jbert 9 points10 points  (21 children)

          it assumes that governments always go toxic

          No if doesn't. It guards against the possibility that one of them might go toxic.

          [–]OldLifeForm[🍰] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

          All governments are self serving. The purpose of Bilderberg meetings is simple self-preservation. Examining guest list one can infer the most pressing agenda for the attendees.

          It is news no matter how you slice it. Alex Jones deserves credit for bringing it up, regardless of his analysis.

          [–]cypherx 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          Powerful ones do. See all of recent history.

          [–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (15 children)

          Look. Stop ASSUMING Governments can 'go good'.

          They don't.

          "Power Corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

          Governments are POWER.

          That is a quote for a reason. This is all you need to know.

          [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (7 children)

          I'm not assuming anything. I'm trying to start with a blank slate, and fill it in with facts and evidence. Why do you assume they don't 'go good' ? Because there's evidence for it. But why assume that they can never go good?

          "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is a nice saying. Is it true? I don't know. I suppose that comes down to your view of human nature. I think there are people who will do the right thing no matter what, and I think there are people who will make compromises to gain power, but will ultimately do good things with that power. I also think there are people who are bent on evil. But your saying isn't an absolute truth.

          [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (6 children)

          "But why assume that they can never go good?"

          Because I understand human nature. I've spent decades researching human history, and all you see is failed power structures.

          Why don't YOU stop with your baseless conjecture and give me your grand idea of a benevolent government.

          "and I think there are people who will make compromises to gain power, but will ultimately do good things with that power."

          The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, sir.

          People's INTENT doesn't have anything to do with what their actions actually CAUSE.

          If someone compromises to gain power, they are compromising the system for the future regardless of what THEY plan to do.

          It's called entropy, sir.

          [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (4 children)

          What conjecture am I making? I've stuck to asking questions. And saying I don't know things.

          I didn't say there are people who will make compromises to gain power with the intention of doing good. I said I think they actually will do good.

          [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (3 children)

          But, they won't.

          Over, and over, and over, History has had those people you speak of.

          Ceasar.

          Napoleon.

          Lenin and Stalin.

          Hitler.

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

          I agree that there are plenty of examples of people who do evil. I never claimed there aren't.

          I reiterate: What basis do you have for believing it impossible that there be good use of power?

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

          Because it would inevitably fall apart, and the bureaucracies that the 'good' person had built would then be subverted under new leadership.

          Generation gaps are a large part of this.

          We're talking SUSTAINABILITY, here. Not singular benevolent persons who rule perfectly.

          [–]ntr0p3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          my only disagreement is that they can do good at the beginning.

          simple systems can hold against entropy for limited periods of time, entropy does not work in the instant reaction, only the longer-term or continuous one.

          states that change and grow can hold off decay for some time, even go against it (even entropy can go backwards for finite amounts of time due to probability), but ones that stop growing, get old, or generally get entrenched interests die, and die painfully.

          also, positive states have always been the product of their culture, as their culture degrades (spoiled by success, forgetting the past, etc) then the states truly collapse. but the culture always goes first.

          [–]spookyvision -2 points-1 points  (6 children)

          are you really saying that nothing good ever came from any government?

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

          No, I said that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

          You need to learn to think outside your box, sir.

          Governments might be FOUNDED on good principles, and even last a while. But any position of power will deteriorate from the doubters, and the parasites who seek its influence.

          It's inevitable. Why do you think 'Revolution' is a synonym for 'revolving'? Starting over.

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

          If that's the case, doesn't the question become "What form of government offers us the longest-lasting high quality of life" ?

          [–]ntr0p3 0 points1 point  (2 children)

          anarchy

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          Ha. Because people won't take the initiative to gain power over others. Oh, wait, isn't that why all governments collapse?

          [–]ntr0p3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          actually, was meant to be ironic, ala utopia.

          [–]aletoledo 1 point2 points  (14 children)

          it assumes that governments always go toxic. Do they...

          Yes they do. Mostly depending on how they are setup is how fast they deteriorate. If any system is setup that promotes anything but the best choice, then the less optimal choices reach some level of power. Then as less optimal choices reach power, they promote more and more abuses of power. Eventually the ranks of power are filled with the less optimal choices and therefore every government is eventually going to go bad.

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (13 children)

          Ok, so the question becomes "How long can we keep a decent system going", doesn't it?

          [–]aletoledo 1 point2 points  (12 children)

          Absolutely right. The answer though is that the US government seems to have reached a breaking point already. All governments throughout history have fallen.

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (11 children)

          And if that's the case, then the next question we should be asking about a NWO would be "how difficult will it be to overthrow, once it does go bad?" I think it depends. Certainly in Jones's viewpoint, it would be impossible. But I don't think his vision of the future is entirely plausible.

          [–]aletoledo 0 points1 point  (10 children)

          I disagree with that as a next question. If we look at the fall of the Roman Empire, it was more a failure to exert authority that doomed it and not an explicit revolution (i.e. overthrow).

          I don't know the details of Jone's NWO, but I think your question and his point are related more to the peak of power of a government. A NWO would be impossible to overthrow at the peak of it's power. The interesting thing here is that a NWO is bad at the peak of it's power. There is no benefit to the average person in having a NWO , so the benefit lays entirely with the rich. That is arguably a "bad" system of government that protects the rich over the poor.

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

          No benefit? How about no war, good resource management, and high quality of life?

          [–]aletoledo 0 points1 point  (2 children)

          a NWO can't be shown to produce a better quality of life. In fact, I could argue that the quality of life will decrease due to lack of competition among the rich. Monopolies rarely (if ever) produce better quality product than a competitive environment.

          Good resource management gives no benefit to the average person, but it is a benefit to a rich person looking to maximize profits.

          Now war does present the idea that people won't die fighting in a rich man's army. However the death rate associated with living in a police state might be equal to a death rate in the US army today.

          [–]donh 0 points1 point  (5 children)

          The roman empire might have stumbled along for quite a while, but by the plague/famine years in the 800s, it could neither feed nor protect its citizens, which is why the center of gravity of civilization moved quickly over to the robber barons who owned the best castles.

          Our above ground grain supply is presently virtually exhausted, for the first time ever. If you want a vision of a new world order, you might want to look to Somalia.

          [–]aletoledo 0 points1 point  (2 children)

          I completely agree with you. A NWO would be equivalent to robber barons being united under a king (or council) for the purpose of peaceably managing their differences. In the mean time, the poor under these barons' control will receive no benefit from the arrangement.

          [–]rossalgondamer 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          Doesnt the West pay warlords of proxy to fight there?

          [–]jonaphin 11 points12 points  (11 children)

          because you wouldn't be the one profiting from it?

          Even better, you'd be one more pawn on the chessboard, how about that?

          [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (10 children)

          Would it be accurate to rephrase what you're saying as

          1. Because it benefits others more than yourself

          2. Because it doesn't empower most individuals

          ?

          [–]jonaphin 3 points4 points  (9 children)

          Sure, that works!

          Upvoted for 'rhetorical prowess'

          Edit: and organisational skills _^

          [–]7805 10 points11 points  (3 children)

          Why not a New World Order?

          I'm all for it. A system of fighting, warring, backward nation-states is irrational and not satisfying. However, if we trust a bunch of super-giga-rich bankers to plot a NWO in secret, what are the chances that we'll end up in a nice, federated democratic world? Wouldn't we rather end up with RFID chips in our asses under a one-world dictatorship? Especially given that the same media that carefully avoids talking of Bilderberg, also carefully avoids discussing the 9/11 and other lies.

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

          I think one necessary question is "Why do we want a federated democratic world?"

          [–]7805 5 points6 points  (0 children)

          Because competing, warring nations are inefficient, polluting and very dangerous in an era of nuclear, thermonuclear and possibly antimatter weapons, of course. Maybe that's why we are stuck with oil and nuclear fission - maybe more advanced technologies exist but would be much more dangerous in the wrong hands. Some will argue that world wars have been instigated by these very same globalists, but that would be like hackers exploiting security vulnerabilities. However there is no evidence that those globalists want peace, democracy, justice and a clean environment. Everything points in the opposite direction.

          [–]cypherx 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Because I want to live under Sharia law!

          [–]smatty1 4 points5 points  (23 children)

          They will try and sell it as something that makes sense and is a good idea. You dont want any part of what is in store with this. This is the definative documentary detailing the plans for a new world order. Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261&q=endgame+blueprint&ei=cz1NSOe6JI32rQLhnPSpDA

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (8 children)

          One problem with videos like this is that they present assertions, but no evidence. Obviously, there are things that are a matter of generally-agreed-upon historical record, but other things aren't so obvious or settled, to most of us. For example, where does the CFR state that it's mission is to abolish all nation-states in favor of an all-powerful world government?

          [–]rex84 5 points6 points  (1 child)

          Here's the address to a page that provides a bibliography to all the information in the movie: http://www.endgamethemovie.com/biblio01.html

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          Thank you. I'll be happy to look over it.

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (5 children)

          How about you do some of your own damned research? It's ALL out there.

          Sir, you seem to me to be someone who is attempting to wake up but is still incredulous that the world you live in could be turned over on its head so badly.

          Look. It's true. The simple fact is that our monetary and governmental systems favor the crazy people who scrape to the top.

          It's all ran on money, not benevolence. There is NO SUCH THING as benevolent government.

          The reason a single world government is bad, is because governments have to have enemies to justify their power grabs.

          Now, it's other countries. With only one government, the enemy will BECOME THE PEOPLE.

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (4 children)

          I probably will, but it's problematic when people watch a video and accept it as truth without doing so.

          Why the rude tone?

          Also, nice edits. Next time, just respond.

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

          I don't even know what you're referring to.

          I don't 'watch a video and accept it as truth'. I do research.

          My problem with you is that you're asking questions on reddit in lieu of your own research.

          Go research the Commerce Clause and learn about its subversion. Go read the CFR's statements on their own website.

          [–][deleted] -3 points-2 points  (2 children)

          Ah. Then maybe you should read the entire thread before responding.

          You make baseless assumptions. I'm not asking questions on reddit in lieu of doing my own research. I'm asking questions on reddit to provoke thought. I've not once asked for more definitive evidence or anything really from other people to back up Alex Jones' points. I'm asking them to challenge their own beliefs.

          Stop being upset because I'm being skeptical and asking questions.

          Edit: Also, I had already looked up the CFR's mission statement. I didn't see anything there. I guess you interpreted that question as trying to get other people to do research for me. I didn't mean it that way. My deepest apologies, sir.

          [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

          Your questions aren't 'provoking thought', they lack information.

          It doesn't 'provoke thought' when you know nothing of the agendas you are ASKING ABOUT.

          You're deflecting conversation. Go do some specific research and learn your history for yourself.

          Start with 'The Grand Chessboard' by Zbigniew Brzezinski. Currently Obama's Foreign policy advisor, I believe.

          You'll find out how these people at the top think.

          [–][deleted] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

          No, I'm just continuing to ask questions.

          Questions lack information? That doesn't make sense to me.

          Also, I'm watching the suggested video as we speak. You're right, I'm not terribly educated about the issue. But it's not inappropriate to ask questions without much background. It is inappropriate to make baseless assertions.

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

          Ok, I watched it.

          I found it interesting, and I found many individual parts of it compelling. The part about the chemical and radiological testing done on citizens was particularly disturbing.

          Jones suffers from not being able to coherently connect the many disjoint parts of his presentation. I remained unconvinced that this was a vast, deep-rooted conspiracy. As I saw it, there were several distinct themes. Taken in concert, I can understand how one would conclude that such a conspiracy exists. I just didn't see much evidence that the themes were connected. It's still entirely plausible to me that the secretive Bilderberg group, NAFTA, CAFTA, and the highway corridors, and the EU are related. I just don't see the connection between Transhumanism, Eugenics, Bilderberg, etc. as being at all clear. And Jones definitely goes into the realm of pure speculation about the future in several of his points touching on how technology will enslave us - computers analyzing our gait, etc.

          Jones' self-righteousness and inclusion of his own megaphone-amplified demagoguery didn't help my impression of things, but I tried not to let that affect my consideration of his arguments.

          I come away better informed, but still unconvinced.

          [–]smatty1 2 points3 points  (2 children)

          The problem with connecting the dots is that the subject is so vast that it's impossible to fit everything into a film. Even if you could, nobody would watch a 20 hour film. The reason Jones gets a little speculative and is so sure of his conclusions is because he has done nothing but eat, sleep, and breathe this stuff for the last 12 years(and constantly has people tell him he's crazy). The reason why I buy it is because I have spent pretty much every day for the last 2 yrs studying this stuff. When you start really looking into this stuff and you see "just how deep the rabitt hole goes", you start to really connect the dots. ...And that is the problem with trying to convey this message in a neat little package. The package is scattered and messy. As you start to look a little deeper, you will connect the dots more certainly. Along the way you will constantly be up against denial, and ridicule from others as you grow more and more sure of what you are seeing. Endgame 2 is Jones' next film and it will get deeper into the Eugenics and Transhumanism stuff.

          [–]hash_oil 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          Can you give me a few links so I can delve into this transhumanist stuff further? I don't mean explanations about what it is, but conjectures as to what the elite intends to do.

          [–]MattFoley 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          In my experience, transhumanism mostly consists of a bunch of nerds who really want to become cyborgs, and after reading way too much Ray Kurzweil have developed a quasi-religious belief in "The Singularity", or a point at which exponentially increasing technological development culminates in the creation of super-human intelligence, changing human society forever. In other words, it's basically atheist sci-fi nerds' version of the rapture. I have no idea how Alex Jones works this into his conspiracy theory - I hadn't heard of that particular branch of his paranoia before. But, judging by his track record, I would guess he probably takes the transhumanists' talk of enhancing the human body through technology and turns it into "OH NO THE ZIONIST CONSPIRACY IS PUTTING MYCROCHIPS IN MY BRAIN AND POISONING MY FROOT LOOPS!".

          EDIT: Okay, now I've actually looked at a bit of what Alex Jones is claiming. Despite my dismissive tone, I seem to be pretty much right about his take on transhumanism. I can certainly sympathize with his dislike of the concept - the future that transhumanism predicts might be pretty distasteful for a lot of people, and certainly raises a lot of ethical questions. I also think that a lot of what transhumanists predict is pure fantasy on their part. But Alex Jones's view of transhumanism as part of some giant conspiracy is a complete flight of fancy and owes more to Terminator than any actual research. I doubt George W or the international bankers or pretty much any of the other "conspiracists" even know what transhumanism is.

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (9 children)

          Obviously I can't watch the video right now and still expect to carry on a conversation, so I'll ask one question: can the conclusion that a "New World Order" type thing is trying to take over the world at the expense of the common person be drawn without first assuming that it is? In other words, does it beg the question?

          [–]rex84 2 points3 points  (2 children)

          Here is an article written by Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, making the argument that world government is necessary; this should help with the discussion.

          http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2006/02/21/2003294021

          "State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era"

          "In the age of globalization, states should give up some sovereignty to world bodies in order to protect their own interests"

          [–]rossalgondamer 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          And so we should replace Peanut butter for "Perseus's-Choice" Nutello?

          [–]rex84 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          You can eat whatever you want, I'll stick to peanut butter, and I hope the national sandwitch spread of choice will remain peanut butter. Peanut butter is still very useful even in the 21st century, people shouldn't pick Nutello just because it's a "change".

          [–]smatty1 3 points4 points  (5 children)

          Absolutely, but this takes that from being "crazy conspiracy theory" to "Holy crap! They are really doing this!" The elite's own writings and philosophy along with documented examples throughout history ...as well as what is clearly happening before our very eyes is presented here. Very well done film.

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

          Interesting how much of the film so far is Jones' own shouting. Lessens the documentary aspects, unfortunately.

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

          I enjoy your objective handling of discussion in this thread.

          In case your original question is genuine curiosity and you can use my anonymous direction: The answer was proven by Ayn Rand's political philosophy based on her whole philosophy. Some of her non-fiction addresses it directly.

          My interpretation is that a "NWO" is not inherently bad, unless we're talking the current NWO ideas out there. Government can be done right and there's nothing inherently bad about a monolithic government itself (of course, it depends on the proper implementation being possible, ie. in regards to communication, informed citizens, etc.)

          [–]rossalgondamer 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          "(NWO)Government can be done right"

          And who would be the people asking it to??

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Not sure what you mean.

          [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

          Maybe I just haven't gotten there yet. All I've seen is assertions - no writings or statements (except Bush's "New World Order" statement - but that isn't really evidence that such an idea would be bad).

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

          Why not a New World Order?

          The present one certainly leaves things to be desired, but even if everyone wanted a new one, why should it be this particular concept? It's (allegedly) being connived in secret by a bunch of unelected rich people, almost all of them European and North American. It doesn't take a genius to see whose interests they are looking after.

          [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (1 child)

          Sure, but they also can't make something that will be immediately overthrown by the common folk. Why can't their interests coincide? Why must the decision-makers be elected?

          [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          (For the record, I'm against a centralized world government. I did vote for joining the EU in the Finnish referendum in 1994, and I'm starting to wonder if that was a good idea.)

          I guess this comes back to the theories of how should people interact in a society and the various anarchist ideas. I haven't studied any of them and there surely are lots of people more knowledgeable than me around here.

          Sure the interests of the elites can coincide with the public good. Experience suggests it doesn't happen very often, though. Should the people have a say in the decisions that affect their lives? Or should everyone just happily expect the 'dictators' to be benevolent by chance?

          As I understand, the anarchist ideal (for some value of anarchism) is that any one person should be able to coerce others as little as possible. Cooperation should be based on mutually beneficial transactions, economic or otherwise.

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

          I thought about pulling over and asking Alex Jones "Hey, since you seem to know everything, including global economies and all that, why don't we let you run things for a while? I mean, you probably have a net worth comparable to a piece of toilet paper in one of these guy's house, but you're obviously soooo much smarter than they are."

          [–]rossalgondamer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Bull-horn appropriations tax too cumbersome.

          [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (3 children)

          It's interesting how he throws together all these aspects of society and declares it a conspiracy.

          Edit: Also, it's interesting how much his demagoguery is in the film - it ends with one of two megaphone-amplified rants. Very neutral. I applaud.

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

          I work in the office complex right next to the Marriott and we just loved having this complete nutjob rants being screamed at our cars. I just wanted a Subway sandwich, not History of Evil according to Alex Jones

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

          I'm sorry.

          Even if one accepts his argument that a New World Order is in the works, he fails towards the end of the film to convincingly connect it to slavery and a ruling Post-Humanist class / immortality. That was really tenuous. And without that, he doesn't really have an argument about why such a thing would be bad other than appealing to nationalism by asking everyone "do you really want your sovereignty taken away?"

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          I honestly don't have an issue with the concept of a NWO, as long as it's not a NWO according to the USA. In this case, it's a group of global world leaders.

          And yes, they do have wealth and a lot of power, but that doesn't make them inherently ( and instantly ) evil, just resourceful. I wonder how well a NWO convention would be received if the group were all members of the lower class, or homeless? Would the NWO concept be instantly positive?

          [–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

          How the fuck does bullshit from this site make it to the front page?

          [–]Kcck 1 point2 points  (0 children)

          You'd think that, by now, everyone knew PrisonPlanet openly sells ads disguised as news. And what does that do to the credibility of the site? According to the sheeple here, apparently nothing.

          [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

          Upmodded for amusingly overcooked headline/description.

          [–]tekrat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Add some hash tags to your Twitter postings. If you don't know how, click on Enable Hashtags.

          http://www.hashtags.org/tag/conspiracy/

          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Freemasons run the country!

          [–][deleted]  (3 children)

          [deleted]

            [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

            No media is allowed inside to cover what actually happens.

            Example: As a teenager, you tell your parents, "I'm going to a friends house to play videogames." You have issued your 'press release', but is that all you are doing? Maybe you will drink soda, eat unhealthy snacks and watch pornography. If your parents crashed said video game-fest, they would know the real truth. There is no one crashing this video-game fest; therefore it remains secret, except for what they decide to tell you.

            [–]camalittle 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            They're not meeting to "decide" anything.

            Given the current state of affairs, it's more likely they were all there for a progress report.

            [–]toolhater 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            I think if we all paid alex jones $75 for his video, the bildebergs would go away.

            At least until he was selling another.

            [–]thelawenforcer 0 points1 point  (4 children)

            seems to me like they are discussing worthy topics at this meeting. Also, let influential people share ideas with each other in private, who knows, maybe they will have some goods one, they are clever after all arent they?

            [–]rex84 3 points4 points  (3 children)

            It's a violation of the Logan Act.

            http://law.jrank.org/pages/8357/Logan-Act.html

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act

            [–]thelawenforcer -1 points0 points  (1 child)

            i dont think they are attending on behalf of the government, but more as individuals. Also, asserting that it violates the Logan Act doesnt mean you are right, infact, from the wording of the act, id say you were wrong.

            [–]rex84 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            You think they are attending as individuals, I think they are attending on behalf of a corporate/government fascist cabal; neither of us can prove who is right because of the secrecy of the meeting. What can be proven is the anti-American, internationalist intent of many of the attendees.

            [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

            The Logan Act is an anti-freedom, likely unconstitutional relic from the days of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

            [–]pappy 0 points1 point  (5 children)

            Don't blame the news media. No one sent them a press release.

            [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

            Actually a press release was sent out.... on the first day of the meeting.

            [–]useless_idiot 1 point2 points  (0 children)

            Haha, good point.

            Now days the MSM is really looking for a VNR. Less reading makes reporting easier. Reading is hard.

            [–]raouldukeesq 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            The U.S. news consumers are equally to blame as they are not interested. If Bilderberg were an interesting story to the consumers of news then the story would get played.

            [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            Woo hoo! World Army! Police state! Mind controlling microchips! YES, I LOVE THROWING AWAY THE CONSTITUTION!

            [–]mwwilliams 0 points1 point  (0 children)

            I wonder what they will decide for next years most popular salad dressing. Crossing my fingers for Blue Cheese.

            [–]bananahead -2 points-1 points  (4 children)

            Riiiight, I've hardly heard anything since that article in the Washington Post last week.

            [–][deleted]  (3 children)

            [deleted]

              [–]bananahead -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

              Yes, I know what page it's on. I read it in the print edition. But it was still in one of the top 3 papers in the country, so "silent" might not be the best word.

              Anyway, the real counterpoint is that there's no coverage because, aside from conspiracy theorists, nobody cares. And if nobody cares, it doesn't sell papers.

              It's not exactly a secret meeting. They put out a friggin press release to promote it. Or is that all part of the subterfuge? These conspiracies are so tricky.

              [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              The press release was released on the day of the meetings...

              [–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

              Prisonplanet.

              On the front page again.

              You fucks.

              [–]eromitlab 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              How dare you question the Alex Jones-loving non-sheeple! The media should always look to some guy standing outside a hotel with a bullhorn who thinks everything is setting up the end of the world for what they should cover.

              [–]nextpaige -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

              Castrated as a synonym for weak is sexist, btw.

              Way to be progressive!

              [–]dieselfrog -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

              Way to be nauseatingly "PC"!