This is the only part I disagree with. No matter how much a government censors, controls, and bans, they can never EVER take away a person's ability to think freely. Although we may not be able to speak our minds, our freedom of thought is something that cannot be taken away. It is the only true freedom we can always have.
At the moment this bares some truth. But as technology advances and science continues to thrive (and it will), they will eventually create a device or substance that controls you.
Such things are already in circulation and, thus, deemed normal and a part of our everyday lives. Look at anti-depressants; pills designed to stop you thinking bad things and instead be unnaturally happy.
With that being said, in the coming years oil will not be the most prized resource on our planet. It'll be information and how we can transport it safely and securely without compromise. It'll create a lucrative underground economy, no doubt, because where there is demand, there is always a supply.
Anti-depressants don't make you unnaturally happy. The way they work is based on the brain's chemistry. They raise the levels of norepinephrine and serotonin in the brain, which are low in depressed people. That being said, anti-depressants help to bring a person out of depression and back to a normal level of functioning.
The YouTube video that was linked to a few posts back seriously lacks context. I read quite a few of the comments on the video and there were a few that mentioned that the 37 second clip is actually referring to attempted attacks on the World Trade Center from several years before 2001. To be fair, not having seen the whole speech, I don't know how accurate those claims are. But without context, anything can be misleading. Is there a video of the entire speech?
Being an idealist, I guess my view isn't so glum as some of yours are. I do try to stay realistic though, but it's not always easy.
I'm not trying to offend anyone on here, so I apologize in advance if I do, but I think the whole New World Order/Freemason/Illuminati/etc. thing is way too overblown. Considering how many countries have vastly different religions, ideologies, and ways of thought from each other, and that a few of them seem to be directly opposed in their extremist forms (i.e. Christianity and Islam, democracy and dictatorship) and that several religions/philosophies are mutually exclusive (i.e. Judaism, Christianity, Islam) while several others are open to incorporation of other philosophies (i.e. Buddhism, Daoism, Confucianism, Shinto) it seems rather far-fetched to assume that there is one very small group of people who is able to decide the fate of the billions of unlike-minded people on this planet.
Strictly speaking about American politics (because that's the only one I know anything about) I do think that money and power have far too much influence, and that should be checked. If I remember correctly, there are some checks on it, such as not allowing a certain type of donor to give an unlimited supply of money to a candidate, but they're not very effective. Something that I think should have been in place from the start is term limits for congressmen. Being in power for as long as many of America's congressmen have, that power starts to become ingrained in who they are, and it detracts from their purpose of making laws that benefit America as a whole. I also think that new congressmen shouldn't be allowed to have political, legal, or corporate backgrounds, because many people from those types of backgrounds who are able to run for congress have already had a taste of power. They should be well-educated, open-minded, have a good understanding of current events and how history has affected and determined them, and be dedicated to doing what is best for everyone and everything. The previous sentence was intended to cover the possibility that what may be best for America may not be what's best for other countries or the environment, because I don't really want to get into a discourse on all of that right now.
