AGENDA 21

[GostHacked]

Yes, I really do think that I would.

You live in an open society with wide ranging freedoms and few restrictions on self-expression, movement, or the pursuit of happiness. The idea that you're being monitored/controlled to the point where it should be a concern is just lunacy IMO.

Well, then you simply have not been paying attention. And our society is incrementally getting more closed than open. If you think it's lunacy, try monitoring the government and see what resistance you get, buy yet they expect us to be open with out every day things.

Let's use the UK as an example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance

State enforced

Privacy International's 2007 survey, covering 47 countries, indicated that there had been an increase in surveillance and a decline in the performance of privacy safeguards, compared to the previous year. Balancing these factors, eight countries were rated as being 'endemic surveillance societies'. Of these eight, China, Malaysia and Russia scored lowest, followed jointly by Singapore and the United Kingdom, then jointly by Taiwan, Thailand and the United States. The best ranking was given to Greece, which was judged to have 'adequate safeguards against abuse'.^[1]

Many countries throughout the world have already been adding thousands of surveillance cameras to their urban, suburban and even rural areas.^[2][3] For example, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has directly stated that "we are fast approaching a genuine surveillance society in the United States - a dark future where our every move, our every transaction, our every communication is recorded, compiled, and stored away, ready to be examined and used against us by the authorities whenever they want."^[4]

I'll let you parse through the rest.

In the USA, AT&T have been working with the NSA with their spyrooms on a couple of the major backbone hubs of the internet. All data going through the AT&T network was monitored, regardless if it was not the origin or destination. As long as it when through their networks, it was monitored and archived. This was almost ten years ago now. What things have been put in place since then?

You need to pay attention to the technology, that is where you are going to have an understanding on how ubiquitous the surveillance grid actually is.

[Michael Hardner]

Well, then you simply have not been paying attention. And our society is incrementally getting more closed than open. If you think it's lunacy, try monitoring the government and see what resistance you get, buy yet they expect us to be open with out every day things.

...

In the USA, AT&T have been working with the NSA with their spyrooms on a couple of the major backbone hubs of the internet. All data going through the AT&T network was monitored, regardless if it was not the origin or destination. As long as it when through their networks, it was monitored and archived. This was almost ten years ago now. What things have been put in place since then?

You need to pay attention to the technology, that is where you are going to have an understanding on how ubiquitous the surveillance grid actually is.

Even if you think that this activity is dangerous somehow (which I don't) then you have to show the consequences of what it means to us in concrete terms. I understand why some don't like the idea of government putting cameras in public, monitoring online transactions and so on - but what of it ? Is there anything beyond the eavesdropping that we have to worry about ? And is this activity even really anything new ? They did it when we used telephones and Canada Post and they're doing it now.

Explain to those of us that aren't surprised why we should care about this more than we already do.

[GostHacked]

Even if you think that this activity is dangerous somehow (which I don't) then you have to show the consequences of what it means to us in concrete terms. I understand why some don't like the idea of government putting cameras in public, monitoring online transactions and so on - but what of it ? Is there anything beyond the eavesdropping that we have to worry about ? And is this activity even really anything new ? They did it when we used telephones and Canada Post and they're doing it now.

Explain to those of us that aren't surprised why we should care about this more than we already do.

A saying for you perhaps : If you are doing nothing wrong then you have nothing to worry about? But since you are not doing anything wrong, why would you be monitored on a daily basis? You are already conditioned to accept this level of surveillance in your daily life. One that has incrementally been happening for the past couple decades. People don't care or notice when it's small and incremental, but if you went back 20 years and compared to what we have today, one would be quite shocked. But since we have seen it creep in over a long period, it's not noticed. Your stance here is exactly the kind of response the government wants. They want you to love being under the watchful eye of the camera.

All of this is about control, control of you and everything in your daily life.

[Michael Hardner]

A saying for you perhaps : If you are doing nothing wrong then you have nothing to worry about? But since you are not doing anything wrong, why would you be monitored on a daily basis?

Yes, and no. I get that people don't like to be monitored but that is entirely a different matter from any consequences that are implied from said monitoring.

You are already conditioned to accept this level of surveillance in your daily life. One that has incrementally been happening for the past couple decades. People don't care or notice when it's small and incremental, but if you went back 20 years and compared to what we have today, one would be quite shocked. But since we have seen it creep in over a long period, it's not noticed. Your stance here is exactly the kind of response the government wants. They want you to love being under the watchful eye of the camera.

It's only incremental because the technology of communication is incremental. 20 years there was no internet in the home. As to concrete evidence as to what IS being monitored vs what MAY be monitored you need to be clear on that.

It's preposterous to say it's not noticed - this paranoia industry is screaming about it all the time.

Who cares if the government wants it? The question is do I want it. There are examples of people pushing back over such things but for the most part it's the same level of intrusion as in the past.

And - more germane to the OP - because the government has the ability to monitor internet usage does that mean we now resist every UN initiative, every government initiative which is practically what is starting to happen now.

All of this is about control, control of you and everything in your daily life.

Control or monitoring ? You're being controlled more than I am, in that somebody is pushing your button and getting you to react.

[GostHacked]

Yes, and no. I get that people don't like to be monitored but that is entirely a different matter from any consequences that are implied from said monitoring.

It's only incremental because the technology of communication is incremental. 20 years there was no internet in the home. As to concrete evidence as to what IS being monitored vs what MAY be monitored you need to be clear on that.

It's preposterous to say it's not noticed - this paranoia industry is screaming about it all the time.

Ask some of your friends and family and ask them if it's noticed.

Who cares if the government wants it? The question is do I want it.

Well good question, why do you want it, if in fact you want it in the first place? Did anyone get your approval; and

There are examples of people pushing back over such things but for the most part it's the same level of intrusion as in the past.

The level of intrusion is far greater today than ever before, just due to the technology that in place. Remember the days when you needed a warrant to wiretap someone? You needed probable cause to get the warrant. Now you can just wiretap anyone without a warrant, indefinitely.

Look at Vic Toews, and how upset he was when some of his publicly available information was made .. public. He was pissed. And that was a direct result of him and the Canadian government wanting warrantless wiretapping of Canadians under the guise of catching child predators/pornographers. That should tell you what their real motive of all this is about. They sure as shit hate it when their privacy is breached, but have no problems with breaching the privacy of 36 million Canadians.

And - more germane to the OP - because the government has the ability to monitor internet usage does that mean we now resist every UN initiative, every government initiative which is practically what is starting to happen now.

True we have to know which stuff will be beneficial and what stuff is being used against us. However that is never discussed with us, we are just told to accept it once it is in place.

The Canadian government may not be able to monitor it's own citizens, but with cooperation from another country, like the USA, the Canadian government can get the info they need by talking to the USA who does surveillance on us, and vice versa. The two countries trade information and works just as good.

Control or monitoring ? You're being controlled more than I am, in that somebody is pushing your button and getting you to react.

With all this monitoring you are being conditioned and controlled as well, but I can at least recognize that they are trying to control and condition me. However, your conditioning and controlling has worked because you have the stance the governments want.There is a psychological effect to all this as well.

[Michael Hardner]

Ask some of your friends and family and ask them if it's noticed.

If people notice it and they're not outraged then you write them off. It's impossible for somebody to accept the situation and not be mind-controlled according to you.

Well good question, why do you want it, if in fact you want it in the first place? Did anyone get your approval; and

The level of intrusion is far greater today than ever before, just due to the technology that in place. Remember the days when you needed a warrant to wiretap someone? You needed probable cause to get the warrant. Now you can just wiretap anyone without a warrant, indefinitely.

The level of intrusion follows the technology obviously. They used to open mail in the 1970s too, without a warrant. Do they ask me ? No, but they don't ask me anything really other than to put an 'x' on a ballot.

With all this monitoring you are being conditioned and controlled as well, but I can at least recognize that they are trying to control and condition me. However, your conditioning and controlling has worked because you have the stance the governments want.There is a psychological effect to all this as well.

There is no conditioning. You're defining 'conditioning' as basically anybody who doesn't agree with you that the world is ending. Meanwhile, people are raising alarm bells and implying things that are just not true - for their own personal gain. Tell me again who is the one conditioned: the one who accepts the situation and understands the risks and the tradeoffs or the one who buys into the paranoiac alarm industry and watches their shows, buys their DVDs, goes to their conferences etc ?

[GostHacked]

There is no conditioning.

That is exactly how they want you to think. You are not even aware that you are being conditioned.

You're defining 'conditioning' as basically anybody who doesn't agree with you that the world is ending.

Focus Mike. And I said that people are just not really aware on how much they are being monitored. I never said the world was ending, you are grasping here.

Meanwhile, people are raising alarm bells and implying things that are just not true - for their own personal gain.

The only thing people have to gain is their privacy.

Tell me again who is the one conditioned: the one who accepts the situation and understands the risks and the tradeoffs or the one who buys into the paranoiac alarm industry and watches their shows, buys their DVDs, goes to their conferences etc ?

Jumping the shark here Mike. Grasping at those straws in an attempt of character assassination is against forum rules and its not becoming of a forum facilitator.

[Michael Hardner]

That is exactly how they want you to think. You are not even aware that you are being conditioned.

I am aware of all the facts and have made my own decision. You haven't responded to my assertion that the Glenn Becks, the Alex Jones of the world are making money off your fears.

The only thing people have to gain is their privacy.

That's not what is being asserted, though. It's a whole range of stupid lies - from FEMA camps, and vaccine hysteria to whatever the latest fad is: according to the OP it seems to be Agenda 21.

Jumping the shark here Mike. Grasping at those straws in an attempt of character assassination is against forum rules and its not becoming of a forum facilitator.

I'm not attacking character I'm stating the facts. Who's the naive one, the one who understands the risks or the one who is shelling money out to buy "Loose Change", conspiracy books and all manner of similar lies ? You seem to be insulted that I'm implying that these people are being duped - when that is exactly what you're saying to me.

The difference is, I know what the issues are and what the risks are. The people who listen to these charlatans have no idea what damage they're doing to faith in institutions. And for what ? Glenn Beck personally shills for apocalypse-defying gold coins, and is making a small fortune being prophet for profit.

But I'm the naive one because I don't care if the government pats people down at airports...

[GostHacked]

I am aware of all the facts and have made my own decision. You haven't responded to my assertion that the Glenn Becks, the Alex Jones of the world are making money off your fears.

Grow up Mike.

I've known about this stuff long before I ever heard of Glen Beck or Alex Jones. I don't need either one of them to confirm what I already know. I won't argue that they are making money off people's fears, but they are not making any money off me.

And it's not like the government is able to coerce people based on fear. You will accept invasions of privacy based on the notion that terrorists hate you for your freedom, all while your privacy and freedoms are incrementally being taken away from you. Are you gullible enough to buy that line as well? I mean it IS all for your safety.. right?

Edited December 17, 2012 by GostHacked

[Michael Hardner]

Grow up Mike.

I've known about this stuff long before I ever heard of Glen Beck or Alex Jones. I don't need either one of them to confirm what I already know. I won't argue that they are making money off people's fears, but they are not making any money off me.

Ok - but you concur that they're exploiting peoples' fears. Are you still claiming that I am being conditioned and controlled then ? What about them ?

And it's not like the government is able to coerce people based on fear. You will accept invasions of privacy based on the notion that terrorists hate you for your freedom, all while your privacy and freedoms are incrementally being taken away from you.

No freedom is being taken away from me. There are new technologies that have attendant capabilities for surveillance. To make a blanket statement that my freedoms are being taken away is parroting the call of the ridiculous Jones' and Becks.

If you're not being controlled by them as you claim, then use your own language - you don't have to be alarmist the way they are since you have nothing to sell.

Are you gullible enough to buy that line as well? I mean it IS all for your safety.. right?

Right. The claim is made that it's for my safety and I consider that more or less correct. At least, there is the possibility of extra safety there at the risk of extra surveillance.

What is your counter claim to this ? Do you have one ? If you do, what's the evidence ?

If it's just a vague fear of surveillance, then note that I already realize that this phone call may be monitored for quality assurance and I can accept that. What else do you have ? If I accept the possibility of surveillance when I send an email, or of random search if I travel then I'm making a conscious choice.

[GostHacked]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

[Guest Manny]

I don't get why this has to do with Alex Jones or Glen Beck. In fact, I forgot what the actual topic was about. But it wasn't about those guys, I think.

Anyone who doesn't agree that government, left unchecked, will exploit its position of power is naive about history. And while there are undoubtedly many false conspiracies dreamed up for fun and profit, it's quite reasonable to insist that people would know, clearly, what the government is up to and should be able to oppose government attempts at grabbing and consolidating its power. That should also be an obligation of a wise voting public. It's not enough to just put an X on the ballot, people need to know much more about whats going on than that. Trust in government institutions may give you a secure, comfortable feeling, but can also be foolish.

In any case such threads that raise doubts or fears about the government should be heard. They should be properly debated using facts. You raised a lot of other issues in your argument to debunk this, Micheal Hardner, but I don't think you addressed the issue specifically.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't get why this has to do with Alex Jones or Glen Beck. In fact, I forgot what the actual topic was about. But it wasn't about those guys, I think.

We're discussing a non-issue called Agenda 21, which is causing controversy because a cabal of media charlatans exploit ignorance about government and worsen the situation for their own gain.

Anyone who doesn't agree that government, left unchecked, will exploit its position of power is naive about history. And while there are undoubtedly many false conspiracies dreamed up for fun and profit, it's quite reasonable to insist that people would know, clearly, what the government is up to and should be able to oppose government attempts at grabbing and consolidating its power.

It's known. The government conducts surveillance on its citizens.

That should also be an obligation of a wise voting public. It's not enough to just put an X on the ballot, people need to know much more about whats going on than that. Trust in government institutions may give you a secure, comfortable feeling, but can also be foolish.

Blind mistrust is as bad as blind trust.

In any case such threads that raise doubts or fears about the government should be heard. They should be properly debated using facts. You raised a lot of other issues in your argument to debunk this, Micheal Hardner, but I don't think you addressed the issue specifically.

What doubts ? There are no doubts here: government is monitoring email, phone conversations, satellites etc. etc. This is nothing new.

Are we supposed to believe everything that these paranoiacs put in front of us because of that ? I personally don't care, although many do. But not enough people care to change things, clearly. It doesn't mean everything else stops.

[GostHacked]

We're discussing a non-issue called Agenda 21, which is causing controversy because a cabal of media charlatans exploit ignorance about government and worsen the situation for their own gain.

I've posted a couple vids if you want to take the time to watch them. I would help to understand the scope and scale of Agenda 21.

I know people won't take a couple hours out of their time to actually educate themselves. But they will spend a couple hours watching idiodit TV shows.

[Michael Hardner]

I've posted a couple vids if you want to take the time to watch them. I would help to understand the scope and scale of Agenda 21.

I know people won't take a couple hours out of their time to actually educate themselves. But they will spend a couple hours watching idiodit TV shows.

Honestly, I am highly suspicious of arguments that can't be made without the trappings of film: dramatic music, dire narration, and the like.

A factual argument can usually be made in words and perhaps a table or graph or two. But I'll try to check out your movie later today if I have time.

[GostHacked]

Honestly, I am highly suspicious of arguments that can't be made without the trappings of film: dramatic music, dire narration, and the like.

Um, like every documentary out there? Like every TV show out there? Like every news cast out there? But you are not suspicious of those ones are you??

The first one is a lecture type setting, no music, just a man with the UN documents laying it all out. The second one is from the John Birch Society, not sure what kind of weight they hold with anyone, but it shows the same things as the first one, just shorter.

A factual argument can usually be made in words and perhaps a table or graph or two. But I'll try to check out your movie later today if I have time.

Give it a shot!

[Michael Hardner]

Um, like every documentary out there? Like every TV show out there? Like every news cast out there? But you are not suspicious of those ones are you??

Not every documentary out there is like that, no. In any case, I don't rely on them for evidence as much as the printed word.

[Michael Hardner]

Do you realize that the first video is AN HOUR AND 23 MINUTES LONG ? I gave them two minutes and the guy told me a story about some little old lady who was arrested for watering her lawn:

http://shazgood.wordpress.com/2007/09/19/betty-perry-a-lawn-unto-herself/

another one in Oak Park:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/15/julie-bass-front-yard-gar_n_899723.html

I don't care about these cases and I am not so bereft of things to do that I can listen to an unnamed lecturer try to tie these ridiculous cases to some global conspiracy. I can usually write a post in 1-2 minutes that contain the facts of my argument. If these guys need me to attend in person or watch a video for an hour and a half, that might explain the types of followers they have.

The second video is only 20 mins long, so the two minutes I gave them should have got through 10% of the arguments. But the 1st minute was a lushly shot introduction with almost no ideas or examples.

I cut out at 2 minutes to the shot of a waving flag and an eagle caw a la Stephen Colbert....

I spent exactly 1 1/2 minutes on the wikipedia page for John Birch and about 30 seconds on the JBS site itself. Yes, they have a Conspiracy Section:

http://www.jbs.org/sitedev/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=23:conspiracy&Itemid=333

By definition, a conspiracy is when two or more people work in secret for evil purposes. The John Birch Society believes this definition fits a number of groups working against the independence of the United States. Extensive study has shown us that history is rarely accidental.

So instead of spending almost TWO HOURS of listening to dull and addled conspiracy-minded senior citizens, or lushy produced far-right propaganda, you can spend the same amount of time reading and find out exactly who is force feeding this sewage to the gullible. You don't even need to look for the conspiracy in this stuff, it's right in front of your face. But I guess that's not as much fun.

[betsy]

It`s paranoiac bunk. There`s no evidence of a secret cabal of world dominating controlists. There are, as always, initiatives to make government work towards certain goals. This is as advertised.

Of course you won't see any clear evidence! How will you see any evidence if you think you are doing something for the good of everyone? ....or the environment?....or doing something to eliminate poverty? As a regular citizen, of course you won't suspect anything.

There`s no agenda for mind control, except those that are making these up to get attention and money. They`re the rust of democracy IMO.

Mind control does not have to be like the ones we see in sci-fi movies. "Getting used to being told what to do, how to live your life, etc..," is a kind of programming. It becomes routine. Register this-register that....is information-gathering.

You're asleep MHardner if you think there is no such thing as"Big Brother" in our current situation.

Edited December 19, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

The two classes of monitoring that I have heard about are either for marketing/advertising or for anti-terrorism and security.

Don't ever kid yourself that all those information about you is used only for marketing/or anti-terrorism and security purposes. Those information can be used for other reasons as they need them.

[betsy]

I am aware of all the facts and have made my own decision. You haven't responded to my assertion that the Glenn Becks, the Alex Jones of the world are making money off your fears.

That's not what is being asserted, though. It's a whole range of stupid lies - from FEMA camps, and vaccine hysteria to whatever the latest fad is: according to the OP it seems to be Agenda 21.

I'm not attacking character I'm stating the facts. Who's the naive one, the one who understands the risks or the one who is shelling money out to buy "Loose Change", conspiracy books and all manner of similar lies ? You seem to be insulted that I'm implying that these people are being duped - when that is exactly what you're saying to me.

The difference is, I know what the issues are and what the risks are. The people who listen to these charlatans have no idea what damage they're doing to faith in institutions. And for what ? Glenn Beck personally shills for apocalypse-defying gold coins, and is making a small fortune being prophet for profit.

But I'm the naive one because I don't care if the government pats people down at airports...

Well I hope you aren't one of those buying into the hysteria of climate change and reading up books by Al Gore and that fat guy who did fahhrenheit something.

I can't remember your stance on that (climate change). Do you believe Al Gore and Suzuki or not?

[betsy]

Ghosthacked mentioned about a police state. One of the reasons why there are those who oppose gun registry is the simple fact that it is indeed gathering of information. They'd know who are, "armed citizens."

Some movies that show the grabbing of powers are not far-fetched. They are mostly inspired by real incidents.

Edited December 19, 2012 by betsy

[Guest Manny]

You're asleep MHardner if you think there is no such thing as"Big Brother" in our current situation.

Shhhh....

[Guest Manny]

Some movies that show the grabbing of powers are not far-fetched. They are mostly inspired by real incidents.

Clearly. As I stated earlier, it's proven in history. Called "subterfuge". Here's the definition:

Noun

• Deceit used in order to achieve one's goal.
  
  
• A statement or action resorted to in order to deceive.
  

In fact, deception is inherent to the very nature of politics.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Manny

[sharkman]

So instead of spending almost TWO HOURS of listening to dull and addled conspiracy-minded senior citizens, or lushy produced far-right propaganda, you can spend the same amount of time reading and find out exactly who is force feeding this sewage to the gullible. You don't even need to look for the conspiracy in this stuff, it's right in front of your face. But I guess that's not as much fun.

So you went in expecting to hear conspiracy nutters and, surprise surprise, you got conspiracy theorists? Go back to sleep, everything will feel as right as rain in the morning! Whatever's going to happen doesn't need belief or doubt for it to happen.