Wouldn't it be cool if everyone at WMG slowly suffocated to death?

+19

IT SAYS BMG YOU F*GGOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-8 [show comment][hide comment]

I don't care, I'M talking about WMG you little limp dicked computer nerd

+15

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/queens/2009/08/23/2009-08-23_rapper_schools_record_label_qns_ma_makes_warner_music_foot_bill_for_phd.html

OH YEAH I REMEMBER IT SAYS WMG ON A BUNCH OF THEM!!!!!!!!

-5

how about using a link shorter?

Wouldn't it be cool if this YTMND made sense? Why would the audio be unplayable on YTMND.com because of the people that started up YouTube???

-13 [show comment][hide comment]

...and furthermore, why would the people that started up YouTube and then sold it to Google for pockets of cash reflect Google's current policies of YouTube?

-5

because its a joke CrazyRay you dumbass

+6

...but it's not really funny...it would make sense if Google bought YTMND

-7

Someone will explain the joke, and CrazyRay will then understand the point of the site, but undoubtedly will keep his vote a 2 out of spite

Oh, I "get" the joke...only it's stupid and makes no sense...(1) The originators are not the ones going copyright-Nazi on stuff, that would be Google, it is also why they sold YouTube to Google because it cleared them from many lawsuits...(2) The part of it being disabled on YTMND is stupid because this is not Google...now, if he would have made it look like a YouTube video playing on the screen, we'd have a different story, then it would be amusing

-3

sound doesnt work AT ALL. iunno why. i have latest netscape... 1'D!

+8

LOLZ DATS SILLY

i was about to 1 this until i realized the joke

+5

Lick the N-U-T-S, Sony-BMG. Lick them while they are still hard. A little rusty, you say? Then you may be licking them a little too hard.

OMG WEAR IZ TEH SUOND

Oh god damnit my speakers are broke again aren't they?

try this: bow bow bow bow b-bow bow bow bow bow bow b-bow bow bow bow bow b-bow bow bow bow bow b-heeey heey deet doot deet doot deet doot deet doot deet doot deet doot deet doot deet doot deet doot deet doot deet doot deet doot deet doot deet doot deet wautis luv, bay-b doe huurt mee, no mo deet doot deet doot deet doot heeey hey ohooowhoaooaaooowhaohwhoa, aaw-haaw

+3

YouTube is owned by Google, and Google is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations => YouTube is NWO.

+7

I am choosing to read this comment as a joke, because it's funnier that way.

+6

What is a joke? That YouTube has been bought by Google? Or maybe that the bosses at Google attend CFR conferences? I'm afraid both of these are facts.

-2

No, the "youtube is NWO" part. But regardless, I was just messing with you.

+1

Become the change you want to seeeee!

-2

"youtube=corporate sellout" is more accurate methinks

Yes, corporate sellout to the NWO of which Google is a part.

-2

www.infowars.com

+2

Yeah, I forgot, thanks! :-D

So what authority would they have to do with the audio on YTMND? This site makes no sense

-3

Um, I believe the sound on this site was taken out (or rather: not included) by its creator on purpose..

-1

I know...in reference to the site; why would YouTube block out audio on other sites...and what do the guys who started YouTube who sold it to Google have to do with Google's policies regrding YouTube?

-1

Two words: selective enforcement!! Same reason why the Alex Jones channel on YouTube was closed (though they have put it back since then).

This isn't YouTube

-1

THIS! IS... [Sean Connery cuts in] You're the Man Now Dog!

-2

Alex Jones is a psycho, sorry.

+1

So you're saying a cold blooded psychopath mad scientist Obama's science tzar John P. Holdren who calls for a planetary regime (his words) to carry out mass sterilisation and compulsory abortions but walks out in a nice suit and talks with a calm, soothing voice is perfectly normal, while the man who fervently works out every day to expose the globalist crimes and puts his life on the line so that as many people as possible be alerted to these issues is insane...?

-1

Yeah...you watch too much NWO stuff.

+1

Please watch Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement; it's onYouTube... There's no time... We have to beat those bastards!!

-2

I think you need to watch more alex jones wisdumcube and it might add some more wisdum to your cube

Nicely put.

-2

Listen to this wisdum, wisdumcube!

-2

then why doesn't YouTube shut-down all the "OMFG NWO IS COMING!!!1" videos on their own site? They shut-down all the other videos that contradict their political and economical needs.

+3

NWO is Northwest Orlines, right?

+2

Maybe because NWO is just a fear-mongering conspiracy theory?

+1

actually they have been shutting them down left and right. Also how is it any more fear mongering than a rainbow colored terror alert system?

They have also been caught censoring the view counts of many NWO videos. For instance, there was 1 video (I think about the Iraq war) that quickly got over 200000 views, and suddenly the view counter stuck for like 5 months, even though people were rating and commenting on it.

-1

How is it more fear-mongering? Gee, I dunno, maybe because the theory totally undermines the very foundation of our government and infrastructure. Terror alerts are just designed to make us slightly xenophobic in order to give the government enough leverage to carry out illegal and invasive conflicts with particular ideologues that don't agree with our imperialist agenda.

Put more wisdom into your cube! NOW!

-1

maybe later

+2

Yes it does. But where does the line between fear mongering and an unsavory truth begin?

+1

Truth is ugly. Get over it. You can't just perfume it.

-3

Uncircumcised, have you actually read Holdren's book, or are you talking out of Glenn Beck's ass?

+1

Glenn Beck is a disinfo agent. Here you can see scans from Holdren's book: http://www.infowars.com/obama-science-advisor-called-for-planetary-regime-to-enforce-totalitarian-population-control-measures/

-1

Truth is ugly, but it is not absurd, and it has to be evidenced. Fear-mongering has nothing to do with the truth usually. For example, "terrorists" aren't actually a significant threat to our national security, our government simply knows that they are an obstacle to the resources and territory we are after as an empire. Fear-mongering is a tool of manipulation, not a tool of truth.

-1

Unlike established first world democratic-like governments, extremist groups act independently, and cannot be coerced easily. So we remove them, and replace any regime with a puppet government that is easily coerced. It's like colonization except we only own them economically and politically, not geographically. This isn't the same thing as NWO, which includes 9/11, Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. If Alex Jones was telling the truth he wouldn't be so insistent on marketing and profits.

-1

You see, everything that Alex Jones says is either inferable on your own without super secret knowledge, or is just an unsubstantiated extension of that. He feeds off ignorance, and fills the gap of knowledge with his scare tactics. Fear is a very good tool you know. That is why the government uses it, and Alex Jones uses it. He is a very good at what he does: conning people into buying his products by getting people to believe in his cause, and attracting ad revenue to his website by stirring controversy.

-1

You make a lot of valid points and I agree with a lot of that. But how do you explain the complete media black out of the bilderberg meetings, or for that matter, any intelligent media coverage at all. All the major news networks are essentially full of talking heads and the closest thing you get to real news on the TV is from shows like the daily show and Colbert Report, and I use the term closest very loosely. Also Rockefeller and Kissinger have both openly admitted in their memoirs that they are actively

+1

working to create a one world government. And do you really believe that Osama Bin Laden and 19 hijackers (half of whom were found alive after) with boxcutters conducted 9/11? Bin Laden said himself after the attacks that he wasn't responsible but the US media still says that he admitted to them. Conspiracy has become an ugly word. Conspiracy theorists are considered by most to be kooks. But if you look deep into what has and is happening, you may find that they aren't as crazy as people make them to be

+1

The fact is trying to convince someone of the reality of the NWO on a thread like this is pointless. All one can really do is point someone in the right direction. I didn't really think it was logical either at first. I saw one piece of information and thought that can't be, and did some research only to find that it was. While doing that research I came across more things along the way where I also thought,"No, that can't be true." Then I checked more sources only to find that it was.

Why don't we get intelligent media coverage? It's pretty simple, and it doesn't involve any conspiracy theories. News programs aren't really news; they are entertainment. On top of this, their budget comes from private sources with their own agenda. The only public broadcasting station we have in the U.S. is PBS, and it is hardly a match for corporate-run networks. The media either tells you what you want to here or what is most profitable to their benefactors. That's it. Watch BBC and see the difference.

Speaking of Bin Laden, if you killed people, its not very likely that you would admit to it unless someone could prove it. No one wants to deal with those consequences, so they lie. Regardless, how does 9/11 being a conspiracy feed into the whole picture of the entire world becoming a international totalitarian entity? People can only be manipulated to a certain degree. Any sign of real global fascism, and the regime would lose influence. It is simply not sustainable, because there are just too many people.

Allow me to elaborate. There are 6 billion people on earth. Each have their own customs, cultures, desires, language, histories, prejudices, etc. Appealing to every one of their sensibilities at once is impossible. Even through the vessel of smaller governments, there would be insurmountable barriers in place. Not enough resources for control, organization would fall apart because as soon as you give or take away enough power (more for overseers, less for public), there would be an internal conflict, etc.

Why else are the most oppressed regions in the world also the most chaotic and lacking in government control? Why else are there so many insurgent/independent groups, and freedom fighters fighting? There is no balance. There is no unity. Our society exists and functions the way it does because we have a common goals, interests, desires. If something oversteps its boundaries, society falls apart. An international coalition of oppression would be too complex. I think you underestimate the wills of the people.

I would like to rebut a few things there. I've tried reading bbc, it seems to me like a slightly better british version of cnn. Bin laden has claimed responsibility for several terrorist acts, why deny involvment with 9/11? 9/11 was the beginning of the dissolution of american rights and the emergence of a police state. For the NWO to come to be America as we know it must be disarmed and destroyed. As for controlling 6 billion people, they could never do it. That's where population reduction comes into play

see (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones). With the population dropped to 500 million and verichipped they would very easily be able to control the population. Especially with technology advancing exponentially at the rate it is. The world is becoming very orwellesque. The british government is actually trying to pass a bill to install cameras inside the house of every family's home. A us firm is developing robots that feed off of dead biomass. We've got invisibility in the beta stages.

My point is with money, power, technology, and some evil, creating a world government is very possible. Once the herd is culled, disarmed, and dismantled controlling them through brute force isnt all that hard.

"Once the herd is culled, disarmed, and dismantled controlling them through brute force isnt all that hard." That's a BIG what if situation. It would not be easy to exterminate the majority of the earth's population. The biggest organized genocide in the history of humanity only killed tens of millions of people, and that was not something easy to orchestrate. You are overestimating the power of evil intentions. The only real threat is a nuclear war, but the world seems to be moving towards diplomacy.

Or rather, most of the world is moving towards diplomacy... Still, I think corporations value their huge consumer bases too much to allow for genocide. In addition, what makes you think we have enough resources for this kind of thing? You need to indoctrinate the public with all forms of media, and so far nothing in the media suggests that we are being desensitized to genocide or government control. There is still a significant amount of polarizing positions in the media.

If you are trying to homogenize culture so the masses will be easy to herd, you should not introduce ANY perspective into the media. There is currently too much variety for organized obedience. The population is way to aware of their surroundings. Also, don't forget that we would have to somehow develop a bunch of methods of extermination that would not alert the majority to the oppressors' true motives. We still don't have the technology for this. Once someone develops mind control, I'll be scared.

TL;DR LOL, but no seriously the biomass-eating-robot thing is ridiculous: it's biomass as in plant matter, not DEAD PEOPLE OMG MATRIX

+1

Well the US and Russian governments had worked on mind control in the 60's. I believe that was project MK ultra and it was a big failure. I don't think the mind can ever really be controlled, only influenced. However look how fast the german government got the people to condone genocide durring WWII. Also I think nuclear war isn't likely and fortunately we are coming really close to having a good enough interception system to stop that. I think the way population reduction will be done is through a biologi-

cal weapon. It doesn't destroy the earth or it's resources. Also wealth and economy are more ideas than they are a physical concept. Reducing the population wouldn't hurt the people in charge. It may mean the difference between wiping their asses with 100 dollar bills or 50 dollar bills but its all inconsequential.

Also to andy, how different biologically do you think dead human waste and plant waste is? If they can develop the something that can convert dead plant biomass into energy, I'm sure they could use the same technology for animals with a slight tweak.

"However look how fast the german government got the people to condone genocide during WWII" Yes, it was rather fast and yet the deaths were low relative to the numbers that died in the war and the total population of humans on earth. Causing an all out war would be more effective than systematic genocide. Biological weapons can be fought against using vaccines and antibiotics. The main issue with biological warfare is that pathogens are not easy to control, making it ineffective for smart genocide.

"It may mean the difference between wiping their asses with 100 dollar bills or 50 dollar bills but its all inconsequential." The amount is not inconsequential, as long as you have a monetary system. I suppose if everyone became workers who recieved no standardized compensation, then it may be in consequential, but then what decides, who gets to be part of the elite and who gets to be part of the slave class?

I hope someone else reads this, because I probably put more work into writing this than I'd care to admit lol.

lol at you going through your entire life never realizing what a complete moron you are

-1

That means a lot coming from someone who has to downvote my comments to feel better about himself.

http://www.infowars.com/the-population-reduction-agenda-for-dummies/

Let me get this straight: slowing population growth = population reduction now? People are concerned about overpopulation because there are a dwindling number of resources for a growing number of humans on earth. This is not a sustainable option. Slowing only implies more abstinence and contraception so each child that is born in an impoverished situation can have proportionately better lives. It's nothing dramatic like genocide, and I would say "Eugenics" is a hyperbolic description.

But will you be saying the saying the same thing when they sterilise YOU?

-1

TALKING ON THE INTERNET

+1

http://arnolddebate.ytmnd.com/

+1

yeah, I put alot more into this debate than I had originally intended to as well. But thanks for being an intellectual and not just saying "OMG you think nwo is real u stupid." Slow gradual population reduction over time will probably be necessary at some point but not quite yet. I think nature has always been pretty good about keeping it's populations in check. As it stands we could give everyone in the world an acre of land in australia and the rest of the world would be completely unocuppied.

+1

Overpopulation is not about having a lack of land geographically for humans to settle on, and no one would want to live in those conditions anyway. Overpopulation is about the dwindling of important resources in comparison to the growing population. It doesn't matter if we could give everyone in the world an acre of land in australia, the bottom line is that if we don't have enough fresh water, or food, we can't survive. Nature keeps populations in check but when was the last time we lived by natural means?

But what about State Memorandum 200 where Henry Kissinger called for reducing third world population by means of food scarcity? Do you agree with him? And I'd imagine you also agree with the preachings of Dr. Pianka who has been calling for reducing the population by 95% by means of viruses (and received standing ovations, by the way...)? And again, if the answer is "yes", why won't you contribute to the population reduction and kill yourself?

Of course, I don't agree with population reduction. I am not exactly an expert on eugenics or NWO theories so I don't know a lot of the people you speak of. I am merely suggesting that NWO is an improbability. From what I've read of State Memorandum 200 so far, I see nothing that suggests reduction, only conception. The rate of population growth is something like 80 million people per year. We are nearing 7 billion. The growth is slowly declining but there is no chance of a reduction anytime soon.

Please, watch Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement, the definitive expose on the elites and their plans... Please... Nothing is more important... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jM6US0Qk5_8

What is I don't know how to edit ID3 tags

+3

Funny joke, but how could I ever 5 something without audio?

-2

http://thelaziestsite.ytmnd.com/

Actually...it does have audio, listen to it at full volume

-1

5 for copyright

OIC

what is the only "what is" site I've liked in years for 400, Alex.

see what I did there?

+3

BUTT.

clever girl

+2

Let's hope YTMND doesn't become just like YouTube is with the copyright stuff.

+2

It won't because it's not owned by the NWO.

-1

Clever

ohohohohohoho.

It's a series of tubes.

What day is it?

the blue link doesnt work when i click on it@!>#$%!?#@!?#$

I was expecting 15 seconds of silence then EAR RAPE!!!

F

T

W

The intentional muting takes the cake.

booo, BOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Hell yeah.

Well, You got me.

Y'know if you edit in silence for the first 20 seconds or so of the video, youtube won't catch it.

the guy in the back is jerkin' off