The always entertaining Dave Mustaine.

[metal evilution]

As taken from Blabbermouth.net:

MEGADETH mainman Dave Mustaine recently talked with PrisonPlanet.com's Alex Jones — a syndicated radio personality and conspiracy theorist — about his own personal awakening to the new world order, his recent conversion to Christianity after formerly dabbling with occultism, and how is he now using his music, namely MEGADETH's recent critically acclaimed album, "Endgame", to educate his fans and the general public about the conspiracy behind the march towards global government.

Mustaine explains how the artwork featured on the "Endgame" album symbolizes the enslaved masses being driven towards oblivion, and how America is disintegrating as a country, a fact which has forced Mustaine to prepare to move to Canada as a safer haven.

Mustaine and Jones cover a plethora of subjects in the interview, including the primary reasons behind the assassination of JFK, and the meaning of some of Mustaine's songs, including those influenced by his training as a stockbroker. Mustaine discusses how he has tailored his art towards what eminates from his conscience rather than what is demanded of him from record labels and huge corporations, a compromise that the vast majority of people in the music industry constantly make.

Mustaine tells Jones that the purpose of his music is about showing his fans how to become better people, by thinking more deeply about the world around them and what their own purpose in life really is.

On how MEGADETH's current "Endgame" tour with MACHINE HEAD, SUICIDE SILENCE and ARCANIUM is going:

Mustaine: "The tour's been going really great. MACHINE HEAD is a great band. Played them on my [radio] station [Megadeth Radio]. And SUICIDE SILENCE is a new band that a lot of people are finding a lot of interest in. And the guys in the opening band, ARCANIUM. Very interesting band, too. I like the frontman. He's very timid backstage. But when he gets out on stage, he really — besides the fact that he looks like he weighs about 80 pounds — he really has got a great persona, and I was surprised. So I think that band's gonna have some good things... if he eats a couple of cheeseburgers. [chuckles]"

On how the "message" from MEGADETH's albums is getting out:

Mustaine: "I had a guy from the UN [United Nations] actually call me up... Well, not call me up, but he said something about [MEGADETH's 2007 album] 'United Abominations', and this shows you how pea-brained this guy was. At the very end, after he tried to discredit me, he says, 'Besides, I'm a METALLICA fan anyways.' And I thought, 'What a twat.' 'Cause, I mean, I am part METALLICA, so what are you saying?! That's like going up to somebody who is mulatto and saying they don't have white or black in them. I am part METALLICA. So for him to say that, it just shows you why most of the people up there don't know what they're doing, 'cause you have people that are representing stuff saying childish things like that. That's sandbox mentality. You know what I mean?!"

On what he believes the "endgame" is:

Mustaine: "Well, me as a Christian, I believe that it's a one-world government, one-world currency. It's part of... My belief — and I said so in [MEGADETH's classic song] 'Holy Wars' — is that it's part of the master plan. It's what I believe. I ascribed to that when I became a Christian. I know that there's gonna be a cataclysmic ramping up of all of these things we're seeing right now, and it gets worse and it gets worse and it gets worse. We're watching our country disintegrate right now, and it's scary. You know, when I start thinking that I'm gonna be moving with [MEGADETH's Canadian-born drummer] Shawn Drover back up to Canada, that's scary. And that's what 'Endgame' is all about — it's about educating our fans and showing them a little bit about what's going within the previous administration and that things haven't changed at all; it's just more of people being run by the people who have the money."


Part 1:



Part 2.

 

[Stormster]

Damn straight. What do you think this climate change thing is all about? People with money who want a world governance are just using climate change to scare people and give us less power, making it less affordable for the standard family to be able to afford the luxuries of daily life. This is another way to make the rich have control of everything, and make more of the population poorer. It's fucked. Kevin Rudd is fucking using climate change to get his arse into the UN. As if this fuck gives a shit for Australia. Why do you think he wanted to RUSH in the Emissions Trading Scheme before Copenhagen? So the fuck gets a pat on the back from those within the United Nations. I am just starting to get educated on this issue, but all i can say is that if you have doubts, tune into 2GB (87.3 on your AM dial) radio at 9PM weeknights and listen to Brian Wilshire. This guy has been talking about the idea of world governance for a very long time, and he presents a very strong fucking argument.

People call Mustaine a looney, but they're just not capable to think outside the square. We're being played, more than ever before, by the fuckers in power at the moment, and the quicker we vote out these Labour fuckwits the better. I voted for them when I was 19/20 years of age, when i was stupid and relied on the likes of channel 7/9/10 and papers like the Daily Telegraph to inform me about political issues. Heck, I remember Rudd trying to ban something to do with Internet in Australia. It's just to fucking control us. Fuck. The ETS and Climate change pisses me off to the fucking shithouse. Rant Over. Mustaine is a smart man.

 

[MotherEel]

People call Mustaine a looney, but they're just not capable to think outside the square.

Ok, so you're thinking outside the square by swallowing the shit that Mustaine is spitting? And he's getting it from some other person right?
I'm assuming you're getting your information "education" from sites like infowars or educate-yourself.com right? You don't think those guys have an agenda?
None of it makes any logical sense!! I'd put it to you that running out of oil, which is a finite resource, so it will run out, regardless of the pollution it does, is a thing to be avoided. If climte change is the thing they are using to get us away from such a thing, then why not? Don't you think that maybe oil/petrol companies are pushing this rhetoric to keep you guys onside? They've got money, serious money and their interest is invested in keeping you consuming what they are selling, they don't want you to go greener. There's nothing in it for them unless they reinvest their energies. Say that we're not contributing to the world's warming climate, wouldn't it at least be better to have less pollution? Who loses out then? The petrol companies, fuck them.

Most of channel 7/9/10 are into whatever gets the public watching. They are mostly apolitical and know that whoever is in power is the guy the audience will generally hate because they see that party as the problem with the country. Why would a countryman, Lib or Lab, want to destroy their own country?

Tell me what's ultimately wrong with a world government? Who loses? How? What's the difference between this and any religious aim? Aren't all religions trying to get all people under their banner?

 

[Stormster]

Ok, so you're thinking outside the square by swallowing the shit that Mustaine is spitting? Yes.

And he's getting it from some other person right? I'm not sure, you'd have to ask him, but I assume he gets it from a variety of sources.

I'm assuming you're getting your information "education" from sites like infowars or educate-yourself.com right? Nope, 2GB and analysing the way in which Rudd and Penny Wong dodge the issue of the climate gate emails.

You don't think those guys have an agenda? Of course, everyone has an agenda.

None of it makes any logical sense!! What doesn't? The idea that climate change is no way near as bad as the government is making it out to be? From the sources i have been listening to, they present pretty good arguments. E.g. sea levels will rise due to the movement of tectonic plates, not climate change (atleast not as drastic as the government says).

I'd put it to you that running out of oil, which is a finite resource, so it will run out, regardless of the pollution it does, is a thing to be avoided. If climate change is the thing they are using to get us away from such a thing, then why not? Does nuclear energy need oil?

Don't you think that maybe oil/petrol companies are pushing this rhetoric to keep you guys onside? They've got money, serious money and their interest is invested in keeping you consuming what they are selling, they don't want you to go greener. There's nothing in it for them unless they reinvest their energies. Say that we're not contributing to the world's warming climate, wouldn't it at least be better to have less pollution? Who loses out then? The petrol companies, fuck them. - I dont think the oil companies are of biggest concern here. Either way, they will fucking get their money; we need their oil as you said. And if/when we dont, they have enough money to reinvest their energies. But granted, I am new to this discussion, and oil hasn't really enetered the arguments that I've seen as yet. But, when u ask wouldnt it be better to have less pollution, I say no, not at the cost of a world government, and not if we're going to make science a fucking mockery and fudge results.

Most of channel 7/9/10 are into whatever gets the public watching. They are mostly apolitical and know that whoever is in power is the guy the audience will generally hate because they see that party as the problem with the country. Why would a countryman, Lib or Lab, want to destroy their own country? I agree. The television networks, along with the newspapers, are fucked. They present climate change as real, without ever touching on the other arguments against it. But when you ask why would a politician from this country want to destroy it, well, did you not just pose the question earlier that people have their own agendas?

Tell me what's ultimately wrong with a world government? Give me time to read up on it, but from what I have heard, it will take away some of our freedoms and our culture. I know thats a generalised answer, but as i said, I'm only new to this issue.

Who loses? How? What's the difference between this and any religious aim? Aren't all religions trying to get all people under their banner? You'd have to ask them mate. World governance, climate change, it is similar, you're right. I agree. Good to agree for once isnt it?

 

[MotherEel]

Thanks Stormster, I was afraid I was coming across as angry, and I really wasn't. I'm mostly curious. I've read a fair bit about all this. It seems like it's all the hubbub created from the 50's, with Radio then TV being mind control.

 

[metal evilution]

Wow an actual semi intelligent thread has developed here.

Should i insert a dick or fart joke to bring it back to usual M.E. standards?

 

[MotherEel]

I figure we should keep going yeah?

Nope, 2GB and analysing the way in which Rudd and Penny Wong dodge the issue of the climate gate emails. You should look those sites up I mentioned, you might find them interesting if you've got the time. The problem I have with them is, like everything else, they use strong language to make you pick sides and the insist you buy something or other for some reason. Heard about Chemtrails? The educate-yourself site has some copper poles in a plant pot to encourage Sylphs or some dumb stuff like that. They aren't cheap.

Of course, everyone has an agenda. 2GB needs listeners. This kind of program, like the shock jocks etc, strikes me as a way of getting people listening. It's got us talking about it, doesn't it? I'm now keen to listen, just to know what you're hearing.

What doesn't? The idea that climate change is no way near as bad as the government is making it out to be? From the sources i have been listening to, they present pretty good arguments. E.g. sea levels will rise due to the movement of tectonic plates, not climate change (atleast not as drastic as the government says). So are any of the sources experts in the field of geological or any other field or climate science? In the local paper we've had many people siding up with or against the climate change debate, as far as I know they are probably less informed than either of us. I really know shit all. I do know that it comes across that most experts, I believe a percentage quoted worldwide is 97%, are concerned about the trend in climate. I figure they'd know. However, I do know that science has it's downfalls, because they it is involving people, people are egos. Einstein ran into a lot of politics with his theories, he was the minority.

Does nuclear energy need oil? Nuclear Energy has all its own problems. The waste is tough and expensive to dispose of. It takes millions of years to degrade and who knows what effect having so much more radioactive waste would have on so many things in the environment. Could be far worse than lead in the food cycle. The other issue is that Nuclear Energy is really only for the developed countries (resource and expense wise), sure we're one of them so we'd be fine, but that'll create so much more resentment in the world, who needs that? Then there'd be the potential for so much more plutonium, nuclear weapons and then warfare, that's not all likely to happen, but possible.

And if/when we dont, they have enough money to reinvest their energies. But granted, I am new to this discussion, and oil hasn't really enetered the arguments that I've seen as yet. But, when u ask wouldnt it be better to have less pollution, I say no, not at the cost of a world government, and not if we're going to make science a fucking mockery and fudge results. That's right, they have enough money now, I don't think it's a problem for them to get into the reinvesting now. I'm asking you what you think though man, not what you're hearing etc. You can look into these things and inform yourself. That's why I was asking about the world government, which I don't see how changing our dependance on oil leads that way, but what you think is bad about such a concept, not what you're hearing as to why it's a bad concpet. What results are being fudged? By whom? How do we know this?

Give me time to read up on it, but from what I have heard, it will take away some of our freedoms and our culture. I know thats a generalised answer, but as i said, I'm only new to this issue. You could argue we dont really have any culture anyway, we're a bastardised version of UK and US with a little bit more alcohol related violence thrown in. As far as I see it, we've only got so long on the planet and having all the countries fight each other isn't working. That's had its time, it's been thousands upon thousands of years fighting over pointless things (well some would argue less pointless, but killing is killing).

You'd have to ask them mate. That's the thing though isn't it? You can ask almost anybody anything and then even if they are answering you honestly, you might not believe them, so you think they are lying, then pass that on. Things then spiral way out. You can see, right now, though, and read that at least the major religions are always on about having conversions and being weary of those who don't believe what you believe etc.

 

[Stormster]

To respond to a few of the things said. Dave, I ain't semi-intelligent, I'm a dumbarse. I'm pretty much spewing out what the skeptics are saying. But in my opinion, i think being a skeptic is a good thing. We can't just let governments run us into the ground. Again, as Tony Abbot put it, the ETS is an Emissions tax, and supposedly it will take money from us and give it to poorer, under-developed countries. I say "supposedly" as I am unsure what the real political intentions are behind the ETS. However, if this is true, why the hell do Australians have to pay tax, which will then go to other countries? I know it's slack, but honesty, we have homeless people on the streets. I recently heard that the Government is lowering its funding to schools that develop skills with Autistic children (I'm doing Psychology so this is my sort of interest area). Im know I am jumping around to irrelevant issues, but my point is we're not even taking care of people in our own backyard, why take care of others? Another reason why I don't agree with giving poorer countries our money is because we have no idea what will be happening to such money when it is overseas. Corruption is everywhere, and how can we police where our funds go? Who will police it? It honestly saddens me that people will vote for Rudd because he gave us $900.

MotherEel (Nathan, I believe), you did come across as a bit pissed. Some of my comments back to you were sarcastic, and I apologise now that I know you were simply debating the issue with me. I guess my opinion on the matter is that no, I don't know if the climate gate emails are real or not. I can say the same for the statistics that support climate change. You never know these days, theres so much shit going on (corruption, money, power, etc.). My opinion, based on what is going on around me, is that I am not a climate change skeptic, but I am even less of a believer. I'm not sure whether I will go as far as to say I am totally against a world government, I know hardly anything on that issue, but to me the weather isn't changing. Some days are hot, some days are cold; what can you do? I read a climate change skeptic paper on recent temperatures. From 2000-2008 I think they said that temperatures dropped. They provided graphs and everything, so I am pretty sure it would have been from an official weather organisation, otherwise their argument would have been blown out of the water. These temperatures were not explained by the carbon driven global warming belief, that carbon increases the world's temperatures consistently. They explained that carbon did attract sunlight/heat (something like that), but once carbon reached its threshold in the atmosphere, additional carbon had such a small effect that temperatures wouldn't increase. This argument sounded plausible, and fits better with the results spoken of above (temperature falling from 2000-3008) than the global warming argument.

EDIT - One other point i forgot to mention is that the belief in global warming offers a lot of job opportunity (installing solar panels and stuff like that). I can understand why the government would push for something like that. More people in work, the more they spend; it was supposedly why Rudd gave everyone $900. My brother made a good point the other day (being a mechanic he would know), and that was that new cars aren't made to last. In 15 years they're all on the scrapheap, whereas cars from the 60's and 70's were made to last, the only problem is finding parts. This is like everything, not just cars, and reiterates my point about keeping people in work. The government needs people in work to keep the economy going, so climate change may just be another way of doing this, or one of the many benefits

By the way, apparently the Ozone layer (and the belief that Australia didn't have much of an Ozone layer) was bullshit too? Not sure about that, but I've heard it here and there....?

In conclusion, I am sure man has had impact on the environment, but I am of the opinion that a lot of it is natural too. I have always been crap at debating cause I go into arguments without knowing a lot on the issue, but I'm proud of the fact that the two of us can have a decent conversation about this. I'm also proud that i remembered stuff about the issue after I read up on it a bit. Sorry if I didn't answer all you queries; I wasn't really intending too lol. You're a smart man though, a fair chunk smarter than I. We're both smarter than Dave though

 

[MotherEel]

HAHAHA! I always come across angry in text. Something I must work on!

Abbott is calling the ETS a tax because it gets people on side. Who likes more taxes? Nobody, which is fine, because it's not. I've read a little on the economic side of things related to this and basically the only real way that it effects anybody in the pocket is buy companies re-couping the cost of their emmisions offset.
There's a bonus though, companies who are 'greener' (I cant be arsed thinking of a better term - more carbon efficient?) can then use their offsets to trade or sell as an asset to companies that aren't so good. Like what you were saying with the more workers thing, it moves the economy.
Rudd gave the $900, Howard gave tax cuts. Tax cuts tend to benefit the rich, $900 is $900. Tax cuts take away from the revenue that can be spent by the government on anything that they deem necessary (or if they want to waste it, so be it - bummer), $900 puts us in debt for a while, like you go in debt for a house or car, but then lets you deal with it all later. Much of a muchness.
I dont think the ozone layer or lack thereof was a bullshit thing, it hasn't been mentioned in a while, obviously not much interest in the general public. If it was though, it worked to get people to 'slip, slop and slap'... so much so that some people had a vitamin D deficiency from lack of sunlight. It also decreased the amount of CFC related products. Maybe it has repaired itself or something. I'm keen to look into that!
I've heard of that paper, 8 years isn't that big a time to test weather wise. The problem, it seems, with trying to prove the world temperature is moving up more than it should be (you'd have heard of the fact that the world moves in and out of its orbit around the sun and cools or heats accordingly, yeah?) is that you'd need hundred or thousands of years to show the effect. Nobody in the early eras of humanity would be interested, nor have the same terms to measure the weather relevent to what we do now.
I think Dave is smarter, he's letting us duke it out and he'll just assume the throne when we're tired out.