Global Revolution!

[Ohm-Nei]

http://news.yahoo.com/senate-blocks-house-disaster-aid-bill-163747221.html

 

Be prepared this week. I'm sorry to say - there will most likely be a sizable disaster by the end of September. :-/ Unfortunately it's a guarantee.

 

Take care.

[gendao]

I don't know. Tyranny of the masses can be pretty bad. Sometimes things fall to the lowest common denominator and historically its a strong leader that keeps us from doing the 'frightened will' of the masses and taking a harder course.

 

Similarly, on the economic front people will vote for bread and circus and we end up bankrupt. Not to far from where our present system is now.

 

Still in some areas direct democracy might work well. I wonder if California is a good example of it at work, in all its good, bad and ugliest?

I would say California is a great example of tyranny of the masses. They suck up most of all Federal funds...yet are also the deepest in debt. How does that work???

See Pelosicare, Solyndra & their new bullet train (much of it Federally-funded), for instance.

California High-Speed Rail Authority said it could build 520 miles of high-speed train tracks between San Francisco and Los Angeles for about $43 billion.

 

If costs escalate statewide as much as in the Valley, the price to build the system from San Francisco to Anaheim could leap from the 2009 estimate of $43 billion to as much as $67.3 billion, even before buying any trains.

 

Some critics are saying, "I told you so,"

I'm guessing the only place that actually had direct democracy recently was LIBYA (before US/NATO invaded to "liberate" them from that!):

Direct democracy has been employed in Libya ever since when Gaddafi relinquished all official power and resigned to the symbolic position he has today in 1977.

[Informer]

Woot, the live stream is up to 7k viewers and the crowd is multiplying!

 

 

Over 100 arrests.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Informer

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

I would say California is a great example of tyranny of the masses. They suck up most of all Federal funds...yet are also the deepest in debt. How does that work???

See Pelosicare, Solyndra & their new bullet train (much of it Federally-funded), for instance.I'm guessing the only place that actually had direct democracy recently was LIBYA (before US/NATO invaded to "liberate" them from that!):

You say this, they say that.. i prefer to simply pay attention, informed attention.. i have found the most reliable understandings are often revealed by what is 'not' said or written, rather in the clarity and intellect applied.. the neo-con slanted agenda of this post is as egregious as it purports the subject of its self-righteous indignation to be..

 

Be well..

[gendao]

the neo-con slanted agenda of this post is as egregious as it purports the subject of its self-righteous indignation to be..

Actually, both neocons and liberals were pushing to invade Libya. Because they are simply 2 factions of the same party.

 

Neocons just fight more for totalitarian control abroad, whereas liberals fight for totalitarian control at home. Like with healthcare:

"The horror to us was that in the United States of America, land of the free, home of the brave, you have no legal right as a parent to select the doctors or the treatment for your child,"

 

"A lot of people don't understand that in Tibet they practice medicine for 30 years before they are allowed to have a real patient. After his MRIs, after his surgery, Thomas had 11 inoperable tumors in his head, neck, and spine. They [the Tibetan doctor] gave him what they refer to as "the jewel." It looked like a jaw breaker. They ground it up until it was just like dust and then you brew and steep it as a tea... He had one cup a day. It took 10 weeks... no more tumors, no cancer. It was gone! Done!

 

The hospital freaked out. Who are these guys? What are they doing? And that's when they went after the chemo. "Sorry, hospital policy. Got to have the chemo, 10 cycles, blah, blah, blah." There wasn't going to be a chance to get in there with something that worked. They had to make bloody sure that they dispatched it."

Now, who sponsored the H.R. 3677: Thomas Navarro FDA Patient Rights Act bill to keep the FDA, ACS, NCI & CPS from FORCING cancer patients to take chemo against their will and deny them choices in their own treatment???

 

Far-right Rep. Dan Burton [R-IN6] & 48 co-sponsors:

Bob Barr [R-GA7]

Joe Barton [R-TX6]

Shelley Berkley [D-NV1]

Ken Calvert [R-CA43]

Tom Campbell [R-CA15]

Charles Canady [R-FL12]

Steven Chabot [R-OH1]

Helen Chenoweth-Hage [R-ID1]

Thomas Coburn [R-OK2]

Peter DeFazio [D-OR4]

John Doolittle [R-CA4]

John Duncan [R-TN2]

Robert Ehrlich [R-MD2]

Barney Frank [D-MA4]

Benjamin Gilman [R-NY20]

Gilbert Gutknecht [R-MN1]

Ralph Hall [D-TX4]

John Hayworth [R-AZ6]

Maurice Hinchey [D-NY26]

Stephen Horn [R-CA38]

Henry Hyde [R-IL6]

Walter Jones [R-NC3]

Ray LaHood [R-IL18]

Steven LaTourette [R-OH19]

Rick Lazio [R-NY2]

Frank LoBiondo [R-NJ2]

Bill McCollum [R-FL8]

John McHugh [R-NY24]

David McIntosh [R-IN2]

Howard McKeon [R-CA25]

Carrie Meek [D-FL17]

Jack Metcalf [R-WA2]

James Oberstar [D-MN8]

Frank Pallone [D-NJ6]

Ronald Paul [R-TX14]

Nick Rahall [D-WV3]

James Ramstad [R-MN3]

Charles Rangel [D-NY15]

Thomas Reynolds [R-NY27]

Jim Ryun [R-KS2]

Marshall Sanford [R-SC1]

Joe Scarborough [R-FL1]

Bob Schaffer [R-CO4]

Robert Stump [R-AZ3]

Thomas Tancredo [R-CO6]

Tom Udall [D-NM3]

James Walsh [R-NY25]

Frank Wolf [R-VA10]

 

Of which only 11 were Democrats...

And it is still stonewalled due to objections from Democratic Congressmen like Hollywood liberal Henry Waxman [D-CA].

"I hate to say it, it is a Left-Right issue. Henry Waxman killed it the first time. And Kennedy killed it in the Senate." (12:01)

So, sheeple who want Pelosicare really don't know know what they're in for!!! Edited September 30, 2011 by vortex

[TzuJanLi]

So, sheeple who want Pelosicare really don't know know what they're in for!!!

Here's the deal.. you are being manipulated by a different agenda than the one you 'poke at' with righteous indignation.. it's not easy but, find your own neutral ground.. do not stop looking.. if you're posting anything other than 'original research'(i already know you are not), you are dancing to somebody else's tune.. careful about calling others 'sheeple'..

 

Be well..

[gendao]

Here's the deal.. you are being manipulated by a different agenda than the one you 'poke at' with righteous indignation.. it's not easy but, find your own neutral ground.. do not stop looking.. if you're posting anything other than 'original research'(i already know you are not), you are dancing to somebody else's tune.. careful about calling others 'sheeple'..

Ok, well I'm under the impression that I am supporting an individual's common sense right to choose their own medical treatment for their own health/well-being. While I believe chemo should be an available option in cases like these, I believe that the final choice should be up to the patient (or perhaps their parent if they are a child) - NOT the Feds/Big Pharma.

 

But what is grossly infringing upon this right now is micromanaging government control and decreasing separation between "corporation and state" (FDA, CPS, ACS, NCI, Big Pharma, etc). And this is the larger issue that I am fighting against.

 

Now, if I am being "manipulated" as a "sheeple" here, please "unbrainwash" me and let me know how I've been misled! What exactly is this "other agenda" that you're speaking of?

Edited September 26, 2011 by vortex

[Informer]

 

Now, who sponsored the H.R. 3677: Thomas Navarro FDA Patient Rights Act bill to keep the FDA, ACS, NCI & CPS from FORCING cancer patients to take chemo against their will and deny them choices in their own treatment???

 

 

 

 

I think your facts are mixed up, or maybe confused or I am

 

All the names you listed are sponsoring this.

 

"To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to restrict the authority of the Food and Drug Administration to issue clinical holds regarding investigational drugs or to deny patients expanded access to such drugs."

 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h106-3677

 

They all wanted to "Fix the Problem" to give the rights back to the people to decide.

Edited September 27, 2011 by Informer

[gendao]

"To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to restrict the authority of the Food and Drug Administration to issue clinical holds regarding investigational drugs or to deny patients expanded access to such drugs."

 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h106-3677

Right, this is the amendment they want to add (which would only be a partial solution to much greater systemic problems here):

SEC. 2. INVESTIGATIONAL NEW DRUGS; RESTRICTIONS ON AGENCY AUTHORITY REGARDING CLINICAL HOLDS ON TRIALS AND EXPANDED ACCESS FOR PATIENTS.

 

(a) CLINICAL HOLDS- Section 505(i)(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(i)(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following subparagraph:

 

‘(D) The Secretary may not under clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (B ) place a clinical hold on an investigation of a drug on the basis that the Secretary has determined that--

 

‘(i) there is another drug (including another investigational drug) that is or may be a safe and effective therapy for the disease or condition involved; or

 

‘(ii) there is a comparable or satisfactory alternative therapy available for a patient who is receiving or will receive the drug as a clinical subject in the investigation, except that such restriction on the authority of the Secretary applies only if the patient declares in writing that the patient is aware of the comparable or satisfactory alternative therapy, is aware of the risk involved in receiving the drug in the investigation, and chooses to receive the drug notwithstanding such risk and notwithstanding the comparable or satisfactory alternative therapy.’.

 

(B ) EXPANDED ACCESS-

 

(1) INDIVIDUAL PATIENT ACCESS- Section 561(B )(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb(B )(1)) is amended by inserting before the semicolon the following: ‘, except that such conditions for the receipt by the person of the investigational drug do not apply if the person declares in writing that the person is aware that there is a comparable or satisfactory alternative therapy, is aware of the risk involved in receiving the investigational drug, and chooses to receive the drug notwithstanding such risk and notwithstanding the comparable or satisfactory alternative therapy’.

 

(2) TREATMENT APPLICATION- Section 561©(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb©(2)) is amended by inserting before the semicolon the following: ‘, except that such condition for the receipt by a patient of an investigational drug does not apply if the patient declares in writing that the patient is aware that there is a comparable or satisfactory alternative therapy, is aware of the risk involved in receiving the investigational drug, and chooses to receive the drug notwithstanding such risk and notwithstanding the comparable or satisfactory alternative therapy’.

IOW, these proposed clauses would prevent the FDA from arbitrarily banning "experimental"/non-conventional therapy for a patient, even if the patient signs full consent of any additional risks involved in writing. So, the goal here is to give patients greater access to alternative therapy (especially initially) & prevent the FDA from blocking clinical trials of such alternative therapies and literally FORCING them to use "conventional" (Big Pharma) therapies instead.

 

Because currently, such patients are FORCED to use conventional therapy (like chemo) first, by the full extent of the law. Only after that has completely failed, are they allowed to try anything else (of course, they are basically already dead by that point.)

Parker had been diagnosed with cancer on May 19. The family felt that they were being given little time to make informed decisions about their son's care and no options other than chemotherapy - and that meetings with doctors were "threatening." Their requests for further tests before chemotherapy treatment commenced were considered inappropriate.

 

The judge in the case ordered chemotherapy to begin on August 8. The Jensens, however, left Utah before that time and went to Pocatello, Idaho to visit family before they planned to go to Houston to see Burzynski, who they hoped would perform more tests on Parker. The judge ordered Parker to be placed in state custody on Aug. 8 after the Jensens' lawyer told the court that the family had not started chemotherapy. On Aug. 15, kidnapping charges against the parents were filed by prosecutors. Barbara Jensen and Parker went underground in Houston, while Daren, who was arrested on the kidnapping charge after a car accident, stayed in Pocatello to fight extradition back to Utah.

 

In any case, Burzynski's hands were tied clinically. After several decades of battling the medical Establishment, the internationally known innovative clinician is forced to work under strict oversight and close regulation by the Food and Drug Administration and cannot accept patients for treatment with his antineoplaston therapy unless he is conducting an FDA-approved clinical trial on the kind of cancer the patient has.

Primary support for this amendment has come from the alternative, holistic health community, right-wingers and Libertarians. Primary opposition has come from the establishment medical mafia & Leftists. Who interestingly, support pro-choice on abortion for women, but not in general health for all..

Saul Green, a retired biochemist from the Sloan Kettering Institute in New York, has made something of a career debunking Burzynski and other nontraditional doctors and caregivers. But he admits it's a near-impossible task, given the wide acceptance of alternative care today.

 

"The alternative medical community has a huge Internet presence," Green said. "There's no way to get them to toe the line. Somebody has to die first."

 

Green, who serves as a member of the American Cancer Society

Now, who originally funded and led the Sloan Kettering Institute???

1927 - John Rockefeller begins funding the Memorial Hospital, later named Sloan-Kettering.

 

The world’s most influential cancer research institution is Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York. Its “spiritual founder” was J. Marion Sims. Sims received minimal training during the 1840s before he began performing experimental surgeries on slave women. Slave women were at the bottom of America’s social hierarchy, and as such made ideal subjects for human experiments. Performed without anesthesia, Sims’ surgeries were accomplished by having friends hold down the slaves as he operated. According to his sympathetic biographer, his operations were “little short of murderous.” Sims’ friends could only endure about one stint of holding down his experimental subjects, as the subjects’ thrashing and shrieking were too much for them to endure. When local plantation owners refused to lend Sims any more subjects for his experiments, he bought a slave woman for $500 and performed 30 operations on her in a few months. After a few years of his experimental surgeries, he may have been run out of town, as he had the reputation of being some kind of Dr. Frankenstein.

The reality is that the Western medical establishment today is basically the profiteering legacy of greedy quacks & robber barons from a century ago. And this is the massive underlying monolith that patients today are still banging their heads against whenever they try to deviate from their profit-based model. And one that needs to crumble (for those who vouluntarily wish to opt out of it).

 

There's nothing wrong with having pharmaceutical medicine as another option, it may even be the best option available in many cases.. I personally enjoy having a buffet of options to selectively choose from for any given condition! But I just think it should be a personal option and not a mandated one.

 

I mean, when the CPS can force parents to allow the FDA to inject chemo into their cancer-stricken kid against their will, and then bill them $43K PER BAG of it (in a batch of 10 bags upfront, regardless of how many then actually get used)...SOMETHING IS HORRIBLY WRONG!!! And it's high time we corrected course!

 

Now, to really understand how we got to this point and what we're truly up against, one must learn the true history of how we got here. How we took the path of politics/profits over principle at every crucial fork (just like with Obama/etc over Ron Paul) in our road...and are now increasingly paying the price for it!! For a very interesting narrative (if overpoliticized at times) timeline of this, please read: The Medical Racket

Edited September 30, 2011 by vortex

[thelerner]

Actually, both neocons and liberals were pushing to invade Libya. Because they are simply 2 factions of the same party.

 

Neocons just fight more for totalitarian control abroad, whereas liberals fight for totalitarian control at home. Like with healthcare:

I guess if you work at it you can convince yourself everyone is evil or works for evil controlling ends. But, there are those who believe in universal healthcare, not for totalitarian control at home, but because it will improve preventive care, better outcomes in general then what we have now, save lives, save millions from bankruptcy paying giant medical bills, save businesses money (its 15,000+ an employee/family now).

 

Actually from what I've seen, many neocons were against Libya, if for no other reason then Obama was for it, and the pendulum is swinging towards American isolationism.

[joeblast]

Regarding Libya it was the how not the what - Obama never asked congress.

 

 

 

Still not understanding how people are completing this equation:

 

mandate everyone have health insurance + cover everyone, no exceptions = we save money??

 

that makes about as much sense as the underpants gnomes on south park

1) get underwear

2) ?

3) profit!

 

 

I've said time and again, the best way out of this is the free market. Stop treating health insurance like its a coverall and treat it like insurance and use it in a catastrophe when absolutely needed, not for maintenance items. Retail health clinics are a great way to take care of the up front care, hospital should be a last resort, insurance only when the cost really starts getting to the point where it affects your finances.

 

When people see the prices of things they buy, they consider more carefully that price. If they've already paid some lump sum to some huge amorphous entity that "takes care of it all," you can be damn sure that there's a ridiculous amount of bloat in there.

 

Examine the model, and our "healthcare insurance model" is but a "conglomerated healthcare finance model" and "insurance" is no longer insurance, its simply "the method of payment." Which is why "well, you'd better have insurance, or you might get screwed" because everyone who submits an invoice to the third party payer model mostly pays to support the model.

[ralis]

Given that this thread is about the Wall Street demonstrations, here is Lawrence O'Donnell exposing the jack booted NYPD committing atrocities against legal peaceful free speech!

 

 

[Aetherous]

Very glad it was reported like that!

[thelerner]

Given that this thread is about the Wall Street demonstrations, here is Lawrence O'Donnell exposing the jack booted NYPD committing atrocities against legal peaceful free speech!

 

 

 

Jeez if thats what you call jack booted atrocities, you live a sheltered life. In the 60's and 70's, when my Mom marched there high pressure sprays, police dogs, being run off the road, shootings and bombings. In the 30's & 40's they were just shot. Through out the MidEast people who stood up were getting sniped, disappeared, there families brought in for torture and viginity checks.

 

These yuppie kids are being told to move, give attitude, get pepper sprayed and cry out at the injustice. Poor babies. It not nice, its rude, its heavy handed, but Jack booted atrocity?? No. They need a handy wipe and espresso quick and they're getting it. Plus establishing there street credibility. There demands?? Who the hell knows, ask 5 get 3 different answers, none of which they have solutions too.

[Taomeow]

Jeez if thats what you call jack booted atrocities, you live a sheltered life. In the 60's and 70's, when my Mom marched there high pressure sprays, police dogs, being run off the road, shootings and bombings. In the 30's & 40's they were just shot. Through out the MidEast people who stood up were getting sniped, disappeared, there families brought in for torture and viginity checks.

 

These yuppie kids are being told to move, give attitude, get pepper sprayed and cry out at the injustice. Poor babies. It not nice, its rude, its heavy handed, but Jack booted atrocity?? No. They need a handy wipe and espresso quick and they're getting it. Plus establishing there street credibility. There demands?? Who the hell knows, ask 5 get 3 different answers, none of which they have solutions too.

 

I think the point is, the cops have no accountability and those who they report to make it so for reasons worth exploring.

 

It doesn't matter that no one gets dismembered and fed to the police dogs. What matters is, there's no indicators that there's a stop sign anywhere for the arbitrary and casual removal of people's legal rights. So it is up to the powerful to decide what to stop at. You trust them to decide it wisely on a case by case basis without any consideration for what is and isn't legal? Then what the fuck are we doing playing a lawful society if it's only the side that has no guns that is supposed to act lawfully?..

 

Oh, and not having a clear solution and an eloquently formulated list of demands is not against the law. Smashing one's face into the pavement for this is. But the law seems to begin and end at "no power to the people." At first glance, this makes it simple for those who are shielded from considering themselves "the people" by a relatively cushy life situation, all they need to do is make sure they support the side that has the guns, regardless of who's right and who's wrong, just support the powerful against the powerless. History teaches, however, that this kind of conformism has a propensity to turn around and bite the conformist in the ass, because you can't conform fast enough when the situation begins unfolding in the general direction of "no rights and no power to anyone except the ones armed" as business-as-usual of a disintegrating society whose cruelty typically escalates to where you wouldn't have to lament its modest scale anymore.

[thelerner]

I think the point is, the cops have no accountability and those who they report to make it so for reasons worth exploring.

 

It doesn't matter that no one gets dismembered and fed to the police dogs. What matters is, there's no indicators that there's a stop sign anywhere for the arbitrary and casual removal of people's legal rights.

There are problems, I just don't think as dark as people put it. The police do have accountability. There is an internal investigation on there conduct.

 

Quote"The Police Department will look into a complaint that an officer wrongly used pepper spray at a demonstration against Wall Street last week, Commissioner Raymond Kelly said Wednesday.

 

Internal affairs will investigate the claim made by a 25-year-old woman and others, Kelly said. Video from Saturday's Union Square incident shows an officer blasting a cluster of women with pepper spray. Two of the women crumple on the sidewalk in pain. One screams.

 

Kelly says the video leaves out tumultuous conduct by protesters who illegally tried to block streets. There have been about a hundred arrested since the protests began more than a week ago, mostly on disorderly conduct charges. A handful were arrested on more serious charges of assaulting a police officer and obstructing governmental administration."

 

The police deserve more then public lynching, where a camera looks and how its edited do matter, because they don't show the whole picture. It would be different if there was clear shot of the event. The shot shown is moving frantically, and I expect shot by a biased party.

 

Some of the protest was on private property. People have the right to set up rules for there property. In the U.S. is lawyer and lawsuit crazy. I'm have no doubt people filmed are lining lawsuits now and hoping to line there pockets. The people do have power and they have cameras.

 

I'm just thinking back to the 60's where there was a defined purpose, there was real brutality. This is the age of 'the people'. Millions are joining the Tea Party, waving guns and shouting slogans. The people aren't in danger, common sense is.

Edited September 29, 2011 by thelerner

[Aetherous]

I'm just thinking back to the 60's where there was a defined purpose, there was real brutality

 

Who cares? We are living about 50 years later, in 2011, and trying to make the world (and especially our country) a better and better place!

 

A place where cops don't beat and pepper spray people for no reason (yes I read your opinions on that video and think they're totally ridiculous). A place where people don't accept cops doing that (or shooting and killing, or doing 'virginity tests' ).

 

Saying that people are sheltered or "poor babies" is contributing less than nothing towards making this world a better place!

 

The more people that voice a similar opinion to yours = the worse this place gets.

[Birch]

When i were a kid all we hazd were third-hand shoes and fish on Fridays because the good pastor told us to.

Yes I think it's a bit ironic to complain that the successes won by those who endured "real" brutality are still in effect. But that's just my overly-coddled, thankless, never worked a decent day in her life POV.

If we let it backslide, we'd have all those protesters in a camp in a jiffy. Isn't this democracy-thing written down somewhere? Can't we burn it and revert to the good old days?

I propose serfdom as a new paradigm.

[joeblast]

the house isnt coming along quickly enough, let's tear it down and start another?

[Birch]

the house isnt coming along quickly enough, let's tear it down and start another?

No, it's that "every generation needs it's revolution" stuff. I think we have our revolutions. Do i need to post links to all of them? They're not all described in the same way. So are all of them revolutions? The stuff in the UK for example was often reported as just a bunch of thugs with no agenda. The ladz lootin. And where were the parents who hadn't done a proper job of raising em? But when similar goings on are found in China, suddenly it has political clout. Does the press realise that the internet makes their reporting look a bit inconsistent?

I think that what we do once each revolution is over is just as important. Protests in the street with the authorities looking on won't acheive a huge amount IMO but I'd be very happy to be wrong. And i reiterate that it would be a shame if crowd action provides any so-called "justification" for any constitutional backsliding. Which it shouldn't.

Know your rights:-)

[joeblast]

I hear ya...I just see plenty of malfeasance on both sides of this one - some powers that be want to blame solely wall street, somehow politicians are clean on this one...let's protest wall st, yah, what's that going to accomplish again? protesters antagonize cops, cops antagonize protesters...

 

and then you get a severely one sided selectively edited presentation of it... I know Odonnel is supposedly a "journalist" but people of his stripe are anything but objective - couric, bashir, the lot of them all have an agenda to push, NBC is but the propaganda arm of General Electric. Companies like that are why antitrust legislation was invented.

 

"journalists" could at least be honest enough to measure everyone with the same stick, but that's probably asking WAYYY too much.

[Birch]

Journalistic 'objectivity' lasted a few decades only. It was brought into being so as not to offend (too much) the advertisers who funded them. Given the multiplicity of media outlets and organs, catering to the needs and prejudices of lots of different people just becomes a smarter marketing move. If you're complaining about Faux News, it just means you aren't its target audience :-) Go and watch something else.

 

And oh shock the horrors that opposite sides of any debate would deliberately frame events to their benefit. This 'objectivity' business ought to be valid for all sides. If it ain't, well, there's a thing...that we get to discuss quite frequently on TTB's.

 

----personal opinion alert----

 

Wallstreet is a gambling shop with too much influence on actual economic activity. Y'know, the 'real' value created by goods and services, not just hauling ca%h with ca%h. No reason why WST shouldn't be allowed to go on gambling, just un-index their over-influence from tangibles and don't have CEO's salaries tied into share-price-performance. Simple

 

-----personal opinion alert----

[Informer]

"CEO's salaries tied into share-price-performance. Simple"

 

That's perplexing, I had no idea that was even the case!

[Taomeow]

The movement of the 60s was infiltrated and destroyed by agents provocateurs, as were thousands that went before, anywhere on earth at any time. (In very recent memory, e.g., during the London protests, some kids were twitting each other that some folks posing as journalists were approaching them and offering them money to start rioting and looting.) Anything anyone does or reports is suspect, we're a society infiltrated by ulterior motives on all sides through and throughout.

 

When slavery was in full swing in the open (unlike today when it is in full swing under wraps), there were hundreds of uprisings every year, and all of them failed. Except one. The Haitian Revolution of the late 18th century (the French colony of Saint-Domingue at the time) succeeded in the elimination of slavery and the founding of the Haitian republic. (What the overlords of our world did in the next two hundred years and are doing even now to destroy the fruits of that accomplishment is a separate story.) This revolution was different from all the rest in two important respects:

 

1. It was led by Haitian secret societies and nothing they were doing was ever out in the open,

and

2. the leaders of these secret societies were voodoo priest-warriors and magic was used extensively.

[Birch]

So who are the contemporary Western shaman working for?