[Seth]

Seth, once again I'm not looking for your sources, I'm looking for clarity on your opinion. Certainly you don't believe all of the information on these conspiracy websites you cite. If so, you'd be guilty of the same type of carelessness you accuse skeptics of. I'm looking for YOUR opinion, not someone else's. CLARITY, not agreement.

I'll use the quote just to keep it organized. You're right, I don't believe all the info on these(referring to the ones posted within this thread) conspiracy websites. A lot of it is a waste of cognitive thought. My opinion, clarity on the matter, will require a lot of dialogue, but i'm willing to give it a go....in just a bit.

As for flouride and vaccines, I agree they have detrimental effects, but you have not proven that any of their effects were intended or that they even have an affect that could be deemed advantageous for any organization, not matter how maleavolent. Sometimes actions have unintended results, like the vaccines and autism, which the argument (and I agree with it) is that autism rates are increased by a PRESERVATIVE in the vaccine to stabalize shelf life, which is no longer widely used and without preservatives they would never make to the third world before spoiling, and even more of these poor people would die. If the goal is to kill and/or control the third world/poor, why would we use preservatives in vaccines at all? Moreover, why would Pharma companies send billions of $ worth of vaccines to Africa at no charge (GloaxoSmithKline as an example)? I'll answer it for you: They wouldn't.

Actually thimerosal is still being widely used. They've knocked it down to micrograms in children's vaccines. However, children are recieving upwards of 130 vaccinations during their childhood years now. Not 130 seperate shots, many are administered at the same time, but there is reason to believe that despite the decreased amount of mercury, the buildup caused by successive vaccinations is still dangerous. If one subscribes to my way of thinking then it wouldn't be farfetched to acknowledge the very real existence of nanotechnology and the ability to inject it in the context of a vaccine. Now, I wouldn't say that there's no reason to view vaccinations as maleavolent because, a)Thimerosal is not needed to control microbacterial growth. The chance that a vaccine will get tainted is still there, but it is a money saving measure first and foremost. There are different ways of packaging to reduce needle contamination(ie seperate vials per vaccination). Also, the majority of flu vaccines administered aren't even beneficial to the recipient. Scientific studies have shown that less than one percent are effective. Kids have died because of tainted vaccines, but the knowledge that mercury is harmful was there, in the 1970's. Now, I would suggest that during the 90's(when I was right in line to recieve vaccinations) there were 'crazies' warning about the dangers of the injections. At the time they were crazy, it was the 90's...the FDA didn't start doing anything until 1999. Before that, when there wasn't enough credible lobbying to make a change, vaccine 'warners' were treated as being nothing more than conspiracy theorists who had no backing to their claims. I remember this, I was there, still just a child, but the anti-vaccine voices were around but completely discredited. As far as vaccines for third world countries(and the need to preserve)...well pharmaceutical patents make it hard to develop cheap, effective alternatives.....much like the AIDS medication patents and the ongoing legal dilemma between countries like india, brazil, etc who have been producing their own generic brands which have saved many lives. If my memory serves correctly I believe Thailand is the only country which has passed laws allowing for patent 'infringement' in order to save lives in regards to AIDS treatment...i might be wrong on this but I'm pretty sure it was Thailand. Anyway, point being, it's a shelf life issue, making it a money issue, not a life saving issue for big pharma. oh, just remembered this to add, What about sunscreen. Here's an industry created out of thin air in the late 40's/50's that, in general, contains many unnapproved FDA chemicals which, by themselves wouldn't be a big concern, but the product is marketed as a preventative measure against cancer. HAHAHA. It blocks out the rays which the body needs to create vit D, which is one of the strongest cancer figting agents we know about(more recent awareness about the VITAL role vitamin D plays in preventing cancerous growth) I'll link you to many sites, doctors, etc if you want, but a google search will do just as good. Now, look at the political environment that allows for this type of lie to continue. Sure, exposed skin under the sun will cause free radicals to happen and melanoma might occur as a result..or whatever skin cancer it is. The best way to prevent sun damage is eat lots of tomatoes(fights the detrimental affects of the UV rays) and clothe properly under intense sunlight. It's common sense. You wouldn't play with a ball of mercury in your hand, because skin is permeable. Yet, mothers every where slather the sunscreen on their poor kids because doctors all over mainstream media tout the benefits. Want to know what the FDA says about sodium laurel sulphate? It's in pretty much every shampoo and body soap product you could find in a supermarket. Want to know how it affects children? Well, for some reason they won't talk about it on the evening news....just like they won't talk about how using sunscreen actually increases your chance of developing cancer as it effectively inhibits your body's ability to heal. Hey, check out skin cancer rates and find out just when it started becoming an epidemic in western cultures. You'll find the advent of sunscreen is creepily in line with that of dawning skin cancer rates. One example of disinformation being fed through mainstream corporate info hubs(CNN, Fox, Global). It's not so conspiracy'esque' once you find out more. I'd like to clarify that I don't view vaccines solely as a way to 'hurt' the population. I believe in the benefits of vaccines to save lives. I just don't trust pharmaceutical companies based on their past and present actions...and on their ability in the future to continue their lack of regard towards the general public's health.

You continue to state truths but then make the mistake of trying to tie them together with some vast intelligence behind them, but with no causative proof to back up these claims, just more heresay and correlation.

In the end this is pointless. You're a faithful believer, and I'm a skeptic. But I'll leave you with this last point:

You have stated that the goal of the conspiracy is obvious: reduced population and eugenics. You have also stated that it is old, over a hundred years if not longer (perhaps the Bavarian Illuminati?), and is run by incredibly powerful world elites that own/control virtually every major corporation, and even complete markets from your statements about the Rothchilds.

SO IF THEY ARE SO POWERFUL AND THE CONSPIRACY IS REAL, WHY HAVE THEY FAILED SO MISERABLY?

The reason it's failed so miserably is because you believe that it could be otherwise...or that people are completely gullible. Point: American's would not have accepted the Patriot Acts unless 9/11 occured. FACT. it wouldn't have happened...why? Cuz there was no reason to take away the rights and freedoms until a terrorist attack like that of 9/11. What I'm saying is that, it takes generations of gradual change...removal of basic rights, before a population will accept a more 'complete removal' of our instituted rights and freedoms. This is scientifically backed. If you call a proposed law something like, The Patriot Act, instead of a more fitting title of say, Removal of Rights and Freedoms in Light of Possible Danger then, right there, a huge portion of the more gullible population won't ponder the ridiculousness of it all. Now, apply this type of 'maneuvering' to more aspects like, the UN, the EU, and etc. You see, free trade was fed to Canadians as a way of equalling trade, making trade easier. In fact, it's resulted in the breakup of our natural resources industries. Free trade is here in north america, but somehow(and despite numerous WTO court decisions) the united states has been allowed to put tarriffs on the softwood lumber industry. It basically set the crippling stage prior to the housing collapse in america. Whats left is a dwarfed industry, leaving retail jobs(created because of outsourcing) which keep people on the 'barely making enough to eat properly) range of demographics. illegal immigrants 'doing the jobs that americans don't want to'. Well, if it wasn't for politically enabled corporations delivering slave labour wages then Americans would be willing to work. There wouldn't have to be a black market. Do you believe outsourcing is in the best interests of American and Canadian workers? What about the possibility of a financial recession triggering a global meltdown of the system...gasp, it's happening. And guess what, China's laying off factory workers by the millions. Americans, no longer able to afford the plastic stream of crap coming in through the ocean ports(extenuating oil dependency and further damaging the planets environment) are left with shitty, $8/hour no-benefits labour. unskilled generation. This didn't have to happen. Governing bodies couldn't intervened, just as they're doing now to 'save' the economy. I won't start about the UN's hypocritical stance towards genocide, human rights, etc. There are think tanks working within the UN who do come up with great ways of righting all these wrongs. Don't get me mistaken, I acknowledge that there are countless people working within the system, trying to make a positive difference. What I'm saying is, that if you look at the origins of the CFR, you'll see that the decision making positions of such entities as the UN, ya, even UNESCO, well they're not made for the benefit of all those living in the world's nations. Sorry this is a bit of a rant, but it falls under what you said. If, for some unexplained reason, you don't believe that certain 'elite' families such as the Rockefellers and Rothschilds don't sway world markets for their own benefit, then well, I'm afraid we're living in different worlds. One small example: Standard Oil and GM buying out the rail car industry in america(and effectively ending it..illegally). Since then the market's been on the same course to benefit oil profiteers and automotive revenues, who cares about the environment. The biggest joke of it all is that now, in the last year or so of the Bush administration, they've turned around and it's all green this and green that. bullshit. You can accurately judge somebody based on their actions. I'm not even saying that the bush administration is geared towards environmentalism, or that it wasn't being preached by those in power(gore as VP) long before this recent 'awakening'. What I'm saying is that it suits a political purpose which I believe will receive more light as we move forward in time. I'm waiting to see what Obama's solution is going to be. Words are meaningless in the mouths of politicians. It's double speak and it's sad that wide populations of people have bought it up. The supposed green revolution underway is a farce. The Inconvenient Truth isn't all that truthful(do you want me to elaborate or have you seen Al Gore for what he is?) Hockey stick graphs showing the world on the verge of global warming armageddon. Paaaalease, there's a whole lot more involved, not saying that greenhouse gases aren't making a difference, but to initiate a carbon tax(residents of BC know very well) as the answer is a joke. It further removes the ability of lower income tax payers to maintain...well sanity. It's hard to function when the house is always on the verge of being repossessed....what's even more funny is that the main polluters can buy their dispicable behaviour, without changing. So, well, we're left with a crippled economy, because middle class america fuels the free market. They have the buying power. Why, after big oil, wallstreet, detroitwheels have made so much money off of hurting the environment, should the average taxpayer take the responsibility. It's a sad joke. It's even sadder that the bailout process is beint touted as the only way. It isn't. Just another step towards hyperenflation, and a destroyed american currency. I see it as a step towards a unified currency here in NA and eventually a cashless society, which would effectively create an easily controlled society where one has to obey or the ability to buy and sell is removed. It's a scary scenario but that's where this financial mess is headed. Great, all just a natural repercussion of the free market working as it should, free of political buyouts and scandal. I know you know that political moves are fueled by money. Have you read Confessions of a Corporate Hitman? I'm not saying there is no accountibility in polititcs. There is. That's why it's taken so long and why 'they've failed so miserably'. It's not failure. Things are right where they're supposed to be. When you have unprecedented foresite into the economic shifts on this globe, patience is easy. Market anaylysts(fringe wackos with no understanding of how the free market operates) were predicting the inevitable collapse of the current system, decades ago. Not something that bernanke saw a few years before the housing bubble burst. No. Decades. They weren't given a mainstream voice unfortunately so there was no public move to right the ongoing wrongs which we're only beginning to feel now. Do you really believe that if a cure for AIDS was around that they'd be sticking it in every brownskinned sick in Africa? Why would they? Did they send free vaccines to Africa out of the kindness of their hearts? or is it image management. The answer seems obvious to me.

The world population has SKYROCKETED in the last 100 years, and the world's standard of living and average quality and length of life have all increased. Economically, we've seen the birth of the middle class in the same time period, which only undermines the power of the global elites as they decentralize wealth. We are also a more diverse people than ever in the history of our planet, with previous racial prejuduces and religious barriers prohibiting this breaking down over time, and the rate of birth of mentally challenged is increasing going against the turn fo the century eugenic/Fabian beliefs.

What I learned last year in my sociology classes is that wealth isn't moving in towards equality, but it is currently heading in the opposite direction, whether you live in a puppet gov run third world country or in the developed part of the world. Standards of living have improved, sure, unless you live in Africa. And let's be frank about a few things, minimum wage is slave labour. It isn't the american dream and min/wage isn't just for the unskilled ignoramous' who can't do anything else. It's what's left when your company goes under or the small business your family's been running for decades can no longer compete with wallyworld or target. You're right about skyrocketing world populations. It's viewed as a problem by the UN. A little fact, if America(and everyone else) gave up it's self indulgent, deadly diet of beef..meat in general, there'd be enough food for the entire world's population. There's an argument that the world can only sustain around 8 bill. some say 11, whatever. The truth is, the amount of plant protein that would be freed up if the meat industry shrank, would be more than adequate to keep people nourished. Not only nourished but fed healthy. Healthy=less disease outbreak. There's nothing healthy about red meat these days. Market meat is the reason why girls are hitting puberty at age 8 and 9. I've read sickenly hilarious articles which attribute the younger puberty mark as a development in the human species, making for a stronger population. ha. You know what they feed market livestock,? GMO and hormones. They know it's fucking with children but it's meat and it needs to be grown fast. I'm basically saying that increased population doesn't need to be the problem that it currently is. 20% consuming 80% of the wealth doesn't need to happen. It's perpetuated by the so called freely elected governments of the world's states. For fucks sake, america, the beacon of democracy, gave us the choice between Kerry and Bush in 2004. Think about that for a while and tell me we have fair representation. I'm not even blaming the 2 party system. I'm saying the electoral process as it's practiced AT THE PRESENT TIME is a farce. As much as I would love it if Obama was the guy that so many think he is, he isn't. He's perpetuator of the current wealth unbalance, and he'll continue to be. Look at his stance towards Israel and the current situation regarding Hamas combatants. Israel is right now bombing the shit out of gaza. Why, oh, because a few Hamas were firing into israel. They broke the treaty. That's their grounds for 'war'. It's ignorance of the facts that allows the Israel/Palestine conflict to continue. http://www.counterpunch.org/
Anyway, the market feeds demand right....so more beef for everyone...

This New World Order of your has done nothing but FAIL FAIL FAIL regarding every one of their goals!! Even if there is a conspiracy, why should we care? Its obviously run by incompetent morons who couldn't tie their shoes, much less control the world.

But I guess thats all part of the greater plan, huh?

None of this makes sense. These goals of the NWO you state are either unrelated or contrary to the actions you claim they've taken to achieve them! Even bioengineered foods and preservatives have done more to SAVE the lives of the poor by fighting starvation through abundance than to kill them slowly through poor nutrition!

Bioengineered foods saving lives by fighting starvation. I'm sorry but that's a baseless argument. There wouldn't be the starvation to eliminate in the first place if it wasn't for the very same companies who generated the poverty lead starvation to begin with. I believe that, as western citizens we have a hard time understanding just how fucked up most of the world is because of the 'non-involvement' of western governments in the free market's rape of the third world,, the way we're constantly told how companies like monsanto are trying to create a better living climate for all,, you've seen the bogus shell commercials which always show the company as being some sort of hippy happy environment loving entity. It's like saying a company that just laid off half it's workforce for financial gain is nice and thoughtful because they gave the unemployed a years supply of kraft dinner. Also, I'd like to point to the studies which have shown GMO soy crops to actually produce less yield than heritage soy crops...i just don't have the time right now to find them. I'm in a bit of a bind as I need to keep busy making money for tuition and this month's rent. ...it really is a dilemma of mine lol. But I like discussing this with you prof cuz you are, for the most part civil. Now, if I'm going to really start clarifying my personal beliefs in regard to 'conspiracy theories' then we're gonna have to get real deep and serious here. It involves a lot of Bible theology that I would love to discuss with you if you want. it involves my awareness as to the real antichrist, it's role in world history up till this point, and how it all fits in with the religious and political movements that are happening in present day. It could be offensive to some as I do believe the Bible's very clear in it's symbolic interpretation of prophecy found throughout the Bible. The angle that I'd be coming from however is extremely doctrinal in that one would have to know much about the 'investigative judgement'(both the arguments for and against it's validity), hebrew language-interpretation, canotized scripture, church history, ecumenical movement between denominations, the basic differences between protestant and catholic belief structures(as well as how these same beliefs transcend pigeon denominational thinking and apply to world religions) the 'ingredients' for endtime events and all that. I'm interested in this stuff because it claims answers. Based more in historical fact than winks and nudges, sloppy correlation between what we know and what is speculation. If you want I'll discuss these with you. I find that when it comes to this, denominational differences are stereotyped and quickly dismissed as just another belief structure, differing in regards to inconsequential matters. I believe my stance is unique despite the religious environment we(in our society, nation and world) have been raised in. That's what everyone says about their religion right? ha so it might not work, but if you really want to know what I believe, painfully clarified, then I'll do my best in the following days to do it. It'll be more periodical than our previous discussion in this post because I'm coming up on some really busy times and I'll be lucky to have any spare moments for forums and the like.