"It only happened twenty year ago." Let's look at that in real life.

It's been 15 years since 9/11, and something like 1/4 of Americans think it was an inside job conspiracy theory. The fall of the Soviet Union was 22 years ago, it may as well be ancient history to my generation. The fear of WWIII and nuclear winter was never a part of my childhood. Most people my age never give it a 2nd thought. I'm sure my kids will feel the same way about the "war on terror."

@Asmo
i get what you are saying but i think you are missing the insidious implications that this new system of indoctrination represents.

i think @ChaosEngine's term 'stealth totalitarianism" is rather clever..and apt.

i agree with you on the points of peer pressure and how people can easily be manipulated.we are all,to varying degrees,subjected to a plethora of propaganda and targeted rhetoric,all meant to mold and shape our opinions in order to sustain the status quo while giving the impression that somehow our conclusions are an organic and natural response,when in reality we have been duped.

on that point we agree that this is not actually something new or novel but an old,tried and true method of social control.

what is new about this 'gaming" system,is that it is not taking the more subtle and passive approach of what current and supposedly "free" societies now implement to control public opinions and attitudes in order to either remain in power,sway the public into policies against their own interest,or create an atmosphere of fear to foment opposition.

this new system is actually aggressive.
this system will actively use its own population to do the oppressing,manipulating and controlling FOR them.

it is brilliant in it's simplicity.
it will use very human attributes we all possess in order to enact a better system of control,all the while having the appearance of being a harmless and innocuous social media competition.

but it is anything but harmless.
nor innocuous.
it will and can affect every facet of someones life.from their job to where they will be able to live,to even HOW they live.

think back to the times of east germany and the stasi,or the weimar republic,or even the soviet union of the 80's.

all used elements this new gaming system is representing,but those systems of control,while relying on the public to do much of its surveilling,all had one thing in common that they ALL relied heavily on:fear.

fear of reprisal.
fear of exposure.
fear and suspicion were the driving forces that kept those systems in power and the people in a perpetual state of paranoia.

the dread of the midnight knock.
of jackboots and black bags.

but those systems of control were fragile and once even a little resistance was exerted those systems crumbled incredibly fast.

this new system is far more subtle and devious in my opinion,because it removes the spectre of an imposing and oppressive government that will respond with violence and replaces it with the citizen to do the work for them.

the government does not have to do anything.
your neighbor will,and not because of some fear-based reason but rather for points to propel their own ambitions.their own selfish desires.

the wholesale implications are absolutely terrifying if you really think about it.

i would speculate that within a very short amount of time dissent and criticism of the chinese government will all but have vanished.replaced by a obedient and compliant population.

not because they are afraid of reprisal from the government but rather fueled by their own selfish desires for a better job,better living quarters,more privileges etc etc.

so a seemingly benign system utilizing social media will become of a self-propelled system,where those who do not tow the party line soon face joblessness,homelessness and ostracization.

not because the government strong armed them into submission,but rather their own neighbors.

so you are right.
there is nothing new here,but this system has taken the old forms of social control and brilliantly utilized one of humanities greatest weaknesses:selfishness.

it is the simplicity that makes this so brilliant and yet so horrifying at the same time.

@Trancecoach
lol...whaaaat?
are you living in an alternate reality?
west germany=social market economy,which later became to be called democratic socialism (which is what sanders is promoting).
east germany=stalinism style communism,which did end badly.

and you are right there was a short term plan but that was EAST germany,dictated by soviet union.

jesus trance...read a book.

Do better, eh? No problemo.

China: Try reading the actual study (from your first link).

Conclusion:
A timely two-dose MMR vaccination schedule is recommended, with the first dose at 8 months and the second dose at 18–24 months. An MR vaccination speed-up campaign may be necessary for elder adolescents and young adults, particularly young females.

In other words, what's needed is more vaccination.

How Vaccines Harm Child Development: They don't.
First, the article is by Russell Blaylock, who believes "he former Soviet Union tried to spread collectivism by covertly introducing illegal drugs and various sexually transmitted diseases into the United States." He also hangs out with Alex Jones and Pat Robertson.
Second, almost everything in it is bullshit. He even falls back on the "vaccines cause autism" bollocks that was never true and had the idiot shill doctor that made it up stripped of his credentials.

Measles vaccines kill more people than measles, CDC data proves
Holy shit, that's terrible. Oh no, wait, it's a complete misrepresentation. No-one died from Measles, BECAUSE THEY WERE VACCINATED AGAINST IT.

Stop getting your medical information from quacks, liars and homeopaths.

That would have only worked with a lightbulb from the soviet union not affected by the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel ..


Yeah looking at you Philips

I live in Finland, one of the top countries on guns per capita. Also one the lowest gun crimes per capita. Very strict gun control, in fact, i can't own a single casing, let alone live bullet. All have to be licensed, all counted, no guns licenses without a hunting or shooting club membership, no guns without proper training. No backyard sales, not even ammo. We have long hunting tradition. Also a long militia background, guns and the need for them are acknowledged in every part of our culture and history, armed uprisings (albeit all of them failed) against oppressive conquerors are our heroes.. And of course that one little squirmish against Soviet Union, we got thru with it with guns. But the tools they used are not worshiped, just appreciated as good tools.

Hand guns are not for hunting and as such, they are even more controlled. No ONE has ever raised an opinion that our freedoms are being oppressed by our gun laws. Overwhelming majority likes them the way they are, only wanting more control on mentally disturbed individuals. Some of course want no guns at all and very small portion wants guns for all. But majority and i mean majority as in +80% are very happy the way things are now. If i want to start hunting or shooting as a sport; i can. I can't, however, get a gun just because i want one.

Also, front doors in Finland are sturdy enough that you can't just kick it in... Something to think about, we got the best locks in the business (google abloy, 99,99% of our locks are ABLOY). In fact, and this is coming from experience, our burglars don't pick locks. They remove the whole doorframe with hydraulic jacks (or remove the whole lockbase and part of the door with tons of force.. or drill the lock)..Locksmiths here don't have lockpicks as the locks are protected very well against lockpicking, in fact abloy is one of the benchmarks on lockpickers and it still takes hours. Instead locksmiths carry a big ass cordless drill with the hardest drillbits you can find; they drill out and replace the whole cylinder and it's noisy as hell. That's what our doors are like, maybe there is some answer there; you don't feel afraid when your front door can take a bear.

I also found it interesting they highlighted the Ryugyong Hotel (the huge pyramid building). It's been under construction for 25 years, largely halted since the Soviet Union collapsed and the slush fund train ended. While the exterior is done according to wikipedia, the interior is not and it's always be unoccupied.

China's metropolises feed a similar misconception. They are similarly impressive that it's easy to forget that the country as a whole is still very poor. China's GDP per capita is half of Brazil, a quarter of South Korea and a tenth that of the US.

While China is obviously not as repressive as NK, the hukou dual citizenship system has a similar effect of segregation rural and urban dwellers. While rural workers may be able to move to work in the cities, they will enjoy none of the social benefits and protections that local citizens do. This has a lot to do with China's disparity of income and accretion of wealth to the large cities.

Your "refutations" are, for the most part, self-defeating, so I will allow others to do their own research and come to their own conclusions rather than addressing each one. Suffice it to say that gun-control, in the U.S. at least, starts as an anti-minority measure (not unlike the "war on drugs" and the "war on poverty") and spurs on a "dark economy" (or "underground economy"), not unlike what (eventually) felled the Soviet Union. It's not dissimilar to what's going on in Puerto Rico and, to some extent, the Bay Area (except NorCal doesn't have the feds all over them like Puerto Rico does, so violent crime is high in PR and low in Mendocino).

Is it purely a "coincidence" that Puerto Rico has a higher murder rate than almost anywhere else in the U.S, while citing as many as 50%+ of the people on "public assistance," is an epicenter on the "war on drugs" and has about the strictest gun control laws of anywhere in the U.S.?

But don't worry! Here's some good news!
"They found that a country like Luxembourg, which bans all guns has a murder rate that is 9 times higher than Germany, where there are 30,000 guns per 100,000 people. They also cited a study by the U.S.National Academy of Sciences, which studied 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and it failed to find one gun control initiative that worked. . . . The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, conceded that the results they found in their report was not what they expected to find."

I guess they didn't account for the fact that outlaws don't really care about laws! The nerve of some people...

Delaware is considered a northern state. Maybe not by you but by others.
And when I lived in Maryland, everyone there seemed to consider it a northern state too. But ok, you don't consider it a northern state. Cool.
(Ask anyone in Boston if he is a "Yankee" and see how that goes!)

But what's your point now? You agree that the Civil War was a "War to preserve the Union, not a Lincoln crusade to end slavery". That's why he did not invade or interfere with the border states. They did not secede. So how is this relevant to the original point about Jon Stewart thinking otherwise and going off on Andrew Napolitano about it? And are you now trying to claim that the north was acting in "self-defense" because of southern attacks on federal forts?


"In 1862, the General Assembly replied to Lincoln's compensated emancipation offer with a resolution stating that, "when the people of Delaware desire to abolish slavery within her borders, they will do so in their own way, having due regard to strict equity." And they furthermore notified the administration that they regarded "any interference from without" as "improper," and a thing to be "harshly repelled.""

The proposal was never put to a vote. It was not tried in other states. And it was not addressed directly to the slave owners but to politicians in the Assembly. No effort was put into it.

Among the tactics employed by the British, French, Spanish, Dutch, Danes, and others were slave rebellions, abolitionist campaigns to gain public support for emancipation, election of anti-slavery politicians, encouragement and assistance of runaway slaves, raising private funds to purchase the freedom of slaves, and the use of tax dollars to buy the freedom of slaves.

The most charitable thing I could say is that Lincoln tried but failed to come up with and implement any other way to end slavery but to engage in 'bloodshed and violence' (putting aside that he claimed to not care to end slavery except as a way to get one over on the South).

Still, that only says something about his competency, his "political genius" as some say (or lack of it), but not about whether there were other options available that could have worked without the 620,000 dead and 800,000+ more maimed-or-disfigured-for-life.

Of course, there is no empirical way to 'prove' or 'disprove' that any more than there is any empirical way to 'prove' or 'disprove' that, without two nukes, Japan would have lost the war, or that without the Korean war, the Communists would have taken over the world, or that without the Iraq invasion, Saddam would not have built "weapons of mass destruction" to unleash on the world.

What if 'peaceful secession' would have neutered the federal enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act (which Lincoln strongly supported), creating a flood of runaway slaves that could not have been stopped and would have broken the back of the slave system'?

The Soviet Union collapsed on its own without the US and its allies going into a bloody war against it. Maybe if the US had started a third world war with the USSR, it would have collapsed sooner. But it certainly would not have been worth the 'blood and violence'. And it is far from certain that the 5 years of Civil War accelerated the end of slavery, while it has certainly served to bolster and continue the decades of segregation, discrimination, and abuse that followed.

The first Republican president seems to have set a precedent for later Republican neocons. When faced with a problem ---> go to war.

You seem to forget that the south attacked Federal forts and 'captured' federal property first...and declared secession. The South STARTED the war...no matter who you blame for the reason they did it.
(and I am a 'southerner' by birth).

And wow, do you really not understand the difference between the United States and Soviet Union? let me explain, the Soviet Union was not a union the satellites had a choice about. They were mostly forced into it, and forced to stay in it. The United States 'union' was entered into voluntarily by all states.

Get it?

And why in the FUCK trancecoach, would there have to be examples cited, when it's glaringly obvious the system is flawed and fucked in favor of those who have perpetrated the ruse that IS, the completely fucked government scenario of what we have? Tell us all this please, in just how many ways is it NOT fucked, from prisons, to infrastructure, to bogus bureaucracy, to the nightmare of surveillance and privacy violations that make the Stasi in East Germany and the Soviet Union KGB look like fucking children's birthday parties?? The system worldwide is as inefficient as any goddamn circa 1840's battleship, and I will be fucked if I have to listen to this kind of trite brain-dead soliloquy of justifications as to what the fuck any news-hound's sources are or what the fuck she says, who gives a fuck if she has any examples cited?? Are you fucking asleep or simply that goddamn naive??

As far as I know this hot bitch is working for the cunt Putin, whose sucking Obama's dick and they're both licking his wife's asshole.

Goddamn. The issue at hand is this smug fuck laughing in the faces of every human on planet earth while fucking them and lying his ass off.

"Outrage get's a lotta shit done right."

I have a degree in physics. I'm guessing that English is maybe a 2nd language for you? Your explanation of mass and weight is a little confusing. With regards to our astronaut on the moon, it's the difference in weight that matters. He should be able to (approximately) lift six times the weight he could on earth.
(Sidebar: It's often been said that Olympics on the moon would be fantastic because a man who could high-jump 7 feet high on earth would be able to high-jump 42 feet high (7x6) on the moon. In fact, he would only be able to jump about half that. Do you know why? I'll leave that with you as a challenge.)

Insofar as faked moon landings, I'm 90 % sure we went to the moon. However, bear in mind that Americans didn't know their own government was spying extensively on them til last year. It's the old joke... "Just because your paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't watching you..."

Alternative 3 is an interesting study of conspiracy dynamics. I first heard of it 30 years ago. It started as an April Fools joke in Britain on a science news TV show. It was brilliant in it's conception...

Short version:
1. Global warming will lead to total collapse of earth's eco-systems in two centuries or less.
2. Global governments are co-operating to move the cream of earth's leaders, scientists, etc to bases that have been established for decades on the far side of the moon and on Mars. (Alternative 3. Alternative 1 was huge underground bunkers, Alternative 2 was huge geo-synchronous cities... both were deemed too impractical to carry out.)
3. Mars is actually very liveable. We landed there in the 60s, established bases, using flying saucer technology developed here on earth by scientists.
4. The general population is being kept ignorant of the impending disaster, our advanced technology, the true state of Mars, etc. Governments worldwide are co-operating at the highest levels to perpetuate the myth that our progress in space is a slow, laborious process. (Which explains why the Soviet Union did not expose the Apollo programs as fake...) They don't want to cause a panic while they advance their agenda.
5. They have even developed psychic assassins capable of killing with their minds via spontaneous human combustion.

Due to TV schedule changes it was shown at a later date convincing the general public there that it was the real deal. (You can actually see the original show on YouTube... you'll even recognize some of the 'real scientists' etc as British character actors if you're old enough.)

It's a long convoluted story but thanks to a couple of follow up books and the Internet which gave it new life it has now 'morphed' into this vast conspiracy that involves alien / government co-operation at the highest levels à la X-Files. (The original conspiracy did not involve aliens...)

Adding to the fun and mystery is that some real world events -- too complicated to explain here -- later played right into details of the conspiracy.

I always thought it would make for a brilliant Hollywood movie -- the original version, not the 'updated' version.

People so emotionally attached to the regime (as @st0nedeye seems to be) are often either regime propagandists being handsomely compensated or serfs who feel so vulnerable and afraid (and maybe even inept themselves) that they can't think of how they would survive without the "rulers" to protect them. (Of course, the jokes on them since that protection, safety, and security, is mostly an illusion.)

If they are regime propagandists, then unless you pay them more to take on whatever views you want them to stick to in the hopes of cashing in on the cronyism.

If they are true believers or fanatics (due to fear, insecurity, envy, etc.), then they will try to tear up anyone who tries to give them information, even if that information will ultimately help them out, improve their lot (help, to be sure, that was not solicited by them, and they have a right not to be given).

These are the attitudes that made Edward Bernays and others rather loathe "the people," allowing them to rationalize the various forms of manipulation imposed in the 20th century. This propaganda was ostensibly for "the people's" "safety," but was more accurately for personal profit. It's a fate though that I can't totally disagree is not deserved.

Still, despite the crazy analysis, I commend @st0nedeye for bringing up the interesting topic of the situation in Europe after the "fall" of Rome (which happened gradually and parallels that of most empires, including this current one). It's worth considering that the collapse of the Soviet Union also, a collapse that even to this day many in Russia bemoan -- just like st0nedeye bemoans the collapse of Rome. Life under the Roman bureaucracy and plutocracy was not as glamorous as many people would have you believe (maybe if you were a one of the beneficiary plutocrats).

Hey Republicans. Don't forget, you invented the individual mandate. You tried to pass it into Federal law many times yourself. Don't be all ticked off just because some black guy finally did what you couldn't. Typical move the goal post behavior. What's changed since the Republican version that was endorsed by the insurance industry? Let's see... they now need to cover pre-existing conditions, yeah, that's horrible, making insurance companies cover sick people and not charge them more, how horrible... and they changed it from catastrophic coverage to comprehensive coverage, so now the insurance companies have to pay for far more services... hmm... I wonder why Republicans suddenly oppose their own idea? Perhaps because suddenly there is less profit in the suffering of millions of people? That is all that matters to Republicans, profit over people. To undue the damage caused by unions in giving people 40 hour work weeks and make people work 80+ hours a week again so that the fat rich cats can keep more and more of the limited resource called money... so that nice little income gap can continue to grow. Hey, perhaps someday soon the US will be like the old Soviet Union with long bread lines, the Republicans clearly want to see that. After all hundreds of them chanted "Let them die!" at the Republican debate... that was the moment that I decided even if I got my faith in god back, I'd rather be in hell then in heaven with people like that, apparently they forgot all the teachings of Jesus about how the rich can't get into heaven, how to help the needy and the poor, how to be lovers of peace and not war, how love was the greatest commandment, and everything else that the Republican party is opposed to.

I don't get why people get upset at the keep the insurance plan. It isn't the government shutting it down, it is greedy insurance companies shutting it down. It's like jobs going to China, people get mad at the government rather than the rich ass hole who sent the jobs oversees so his own personal profits could be higher. I seem to recall the people who are complaining, defended oil company profits by pointing out that per dollar earned/gross profit margin oil was down at 17 or so, while banks were number one followed by a small gap, pharmaceuticals were number two and insurance number three with a nice gap to number 4 and on to the rest of the list. So yeah, if changes in how they have to cover people means they might fall off that list of top 3 most profitable bushiness, then I would expect them to drop the less profitable plans to maintain their multi-billion dollar profit off the suffering of others so a few rich people can have a nice cozy life while millions suffer for their greedy gains.

Health insurance shouldn't be about huge profits. It should be about getting people the health coverage they need... of course I could also argue that the health care industry as a whole shouldn't be so profit driven... nor should the education required to train our healthcare workforce (nor education at all really)... We should have gotten what Obama promised in the first place, a single payer system, or at the very least a Government Option, rather than caving into the Republican Right and turning the money over to a multi-billion dollar industry... and now look, they still oppose it even though it was their idea... If they were going to oppose it no matter what, he should have made it worth everyone's while and given actual reform.

And hey, if you oppose it, come up with something better. Something that will help the millions of people working at places like retail and fast food that can't get employer sponsored coverage. Make sure every American is covered and can afford health care, not emergency treatment, but going to see a doctor for preventative care and affording any medication that the doctor may prescribe.

In terms of the US securing it's war prize of western europe, history suggests that the nuke was dropped primarily because the Soviet Union had an army that was in excess of 20 million soldiers and had just beaten nazi germany and taken half of europe. had the soviets decided to keep going the US would not have been able to stop them.
it had very little to do with defeating japan and everything to do with dominating global politics.