All I know is I would never trust so much power to be in the hands of so few.
Guaranteed eventually it will be abused, and when it does get to that point...oh man...look out.
The sheer scale of that is worse than anything imaginable thus far imo...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
No one has any opinions on global government, huh?
global gov't can be very dangerous or very necessary, depending on how its run.
Unfortunately it needs the cooperation of the world's empire in order for it to function properly. The UN has shown the world's superpower won't play the game, and so any world gov't idea, however benign in its charter, will end up innefectual in comparison to the US empire.
global gov't can be very dangerous or very necessary, depending on how its run.
Unfortunately it needs the cooperation of the world's empire in order for it to function properly. The UN has shown the world's superpower won't play the game, and so any world gov't idea, however benign in its charter, will end up innefectual in comparison to the US empire.
Thank you.
I think you just demonstrated the point quite nicely.
Even if the intentions were "bening" as you say, the very fact that there are greedy selfish people in this world who would inevitably find their way into the ONE government the world would have ... that very fact dooms the system, no matter how bening the intention.
Kind've like communism, right Commy?
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Thank you.
I think you just demonstrated the point quite nicely.
Even if the intentions were "bening" as you say, the very fact that there are greedy selfish people in this world who would inevitably find their way into the ONE government the world would have ... that very fact dooms the system, no matter how bening the intention.
Kind've like communism, right Commy?
true. I should note I am not supporting communism, despite the name.
But I believe we can get a gov't to work. A true democractic system with an educated public is a very good thing. but that's the thing, you gotta have people educated and involved to prevent the corruption that inevitably comes with power. it really comes down to a free press and an educated people.
But I believe we can get a gov't to work. A true democractic system with an educated public is a very good thing.
But they don't want a "democratic" "One World Government", Commy.
Thats the other problem.
Even if you were naive enough to think that having no escape and no choice in your governance (no where to run) ... even if you did think that World Government was some great idea, why on earth would you accept the rule of an unelected scientific elite?
Should the people not have a significant say in their own rule?
???
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
The above statement is a pretty big perversion of what the clip presented suggests.
Hillary Clinton is speaking in praise of a man who just received an award for GLOBAL GOVERNANCE, presented by an introductory speaker who explicitly says the words "WORLD GOVERNMENT"
That has NOTHING ... NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING to do with "multilateralism" or "international negotiations"...
From what he says throughout that clip, it has EVERYTHING to do with this. You are too caught up in the names and what ill content you can arguably fill into those names, and what others have said about those names.
What he is specifically about is setting up the world court for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and the need for all nations to give up some sovereignty in favour of international cooperation for peace. Aside from that, he talks vaguely about peace and why war sucks.
Why the hell are you so unwilling to concede that what is being directly discussed in NO uncertain terms here is the attempt to get the ball rolling on WORLD GOVERNMENT!
Cronkite's entire fucking speech is about this.
He is talking about the HUGE undertaking of convincing the world and the hard sell to Americans specificaly of getting them to concede soverign rights in order to build a WORLD GOVERNMENT.
This isn't some stupid fucking policy negotiation at a round table.
They want to set up WORLD GOVERNMENT, Dan.
But in 10 responses, you have only half admitted this a whopping one time.
What gives?
Where have I been unwilling to concede that they want a form of "world government"? I just say that just because those words are used, dont make all your assumptions about them correct. I also outlined why "world government" is a very unprecise concept which is a very heterogenous mix of tendencies, policies and opinons. Among which there is no visible "one way" among them which you seem to outline.
And yes, this crowd is about international law, and getting a rule of law between the nations as well as within them. This organization makes no secret of it. I just state again that this isn't at all ominous in itself. Even if they can be said to be for a "world government", I see little or no connection to what you have posted before, in this speech.
Pushing for international rule of law, is not the same as puching for world nazi police-state government. As I said, I am not impressed by this clip's evidence value.
As a sidenote I might add that I am sceptical to much the same people you are. But instead of fearing the capitalists' socialist conspiracy scheme, I find it much more sensible to fear the capitalists in general, and what their resources enables them to do. Thus, I see a "return to the constitution" to be a quixotic band aid that wouldn't change anything, because it wouldn't change the fundamental ownership problem where one individual in principle legitimately can own the entire world. I see much more sense in a classic class struggle view than in a highly unlikely, far-flung and nearly omnipotent conspiracy. And in the classs struggle view combined with general social theories and empiry on how the world operates makes a lot more sense, and requires no direct conspiracy, only that people make arrangements for themselves and theirs, and that the structure in general favours a moneyed elite on the top that reap the benefits of the others' labour. If it is the power of the elite you fear the most, then an opposition to the current capitalist system is pretty mandatory.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
From what he says throughout that clip, it has EVERYTHING to do with this. You are too caught up in the names and what ill content you can arguably fill into those names, and what others have said about those names.
So sounds like you are taking the ANTI-SEMANTIC view by basicaly saying, "it totaly makes no difference what is said. Just pretend what is said is not said, because they are just words."
What he is specifically about is setting up the world court for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and the need for all nations to give up some sovereignty in favour of international cooperation for peace. Aside from that, he talks vaguely about peace and why war sucks.
Actualy, what he specificaly says is that a World Court is a very important FIRST STEP towards a world government. Go back and listen again. A FIRST STEP. He then goes on to say it is going to be a hard battle. A VERY hard battle, and that people will need to give up soverignty, and that the fight will be tough. But that the court is just a FIRST STEP. And rightly for the reasons i outlined. Because it is the MOST IMPORTANT step! Because a World Court can subvert ALL national law. Whether what he talks about here is specificaly relegated to war crimes and human rights or not. A World Court would have preeminence over (and would subjugate) ALL national law! A FIRST STEP!
Where have I been unwilling to concede that they want a form of "world government"? n
I'm pretty sure in several other posts on other threads you have denied that such "conspiracy" even exists. If you now accept that there is a contingent for this, great. We are making progress.
I also outlined why "world government" is a very unprecise concept which is a very heterogenous mix of tendencies, policies and opinons. Among which there is no visible "one way" among them which you seem to outline.
Wow.
NO.
It is NOT an "unprecise concept".
The "CONCEPT" of "WORLD GOVERNMENT" is JUST THAT!
"WORLD GOVERNMENT!"
The only thing "unprecise" is how exactly the best way, or (even more "precisely") through WHICH INSTITUTION, is it best to BEGIN IMPLEMENTATION of such "concept".
If you pay attention, you would know that at Davos this year this was a BIG part of the discussion. Go listen to Daniel Estulin on Alex Jones (alexjonespodcasts.com) from Friday of last week. They are actively engaging the elite class in discussions on how best -- through which institutionalized means -- to implement world government. So yes, publicly now they are having discourse on how to implement such a governing body. But the CONCEPT is NOT "unprecise" ("imprecise").
And yes, this crowd is about international law, and getting a rule of law between the nations as well as within them. This organization makes no secret of it. I just state again that this isn't at all ominous in itself. Even if they can be said to be for a "world government", I see little or no connection to what you have posted before, in this speech.
So you see little or no connection between active discussions about "world government" and my previous posts about a faction of humanity actively seeking to impose world government? That is odd.
You mean you disagree that a powerful segment of that elite (Rokefeller in particular) seem to have decided that a model based around what Mao implemented in China is the best model for such government? Okay. But quotes from Rockefeller himself disagree with you. So, what is YOUR argument?
Pushing for international rule of law, is not the same as puching for world nazi police-state government
No, pushing for "world government" is pushing for "world government". You are more than free to debate what the contextual connotation of such denotation actually implies. However, again, quotes from highly influentials of the class of people actively pursuing this "world government" concept seem to indicate you are wrong.
I find it much more sensible to fear the capitalists in general
I dislike hinging any argument around the terms "capitalist" or "capitalism".
Do you dislike the idea of "free markets" specificaly?
You feel that socialism (in whatever form you please) is preferable? Even if you do, that seems some what irrelevant given that what we are discussing here is the fact that the controlling elite of this planet have a push on for an UNdemocratic Scientific Dictatorship formed under the cloak of a "Peoples Republic". Do you think the people of China are "Free"? Do you think that is a preferable model? How do they handle pollution? Will it work better for the world? What about human rights? What about free will? What about political dissent?
???
I see much more sense in a classic class struggle view than in a highly unlikely, far-flung and nearly omnipotent conspiracy. And in the classs struggle view combined with general social theories and empiry on how the world operates makes a lot more sense, and requires no direct conspiracy, only that people make arrangements for themselves and theirs, and that the structure in general favours a moneyed elite on the top that reap the benefits of the others' labour. If it is the power of the elite you fear the most, then an opposition to the current capitalist system is pretty mandatory.
This is where i think we come nearest to agreement, save for the last sentece.
If an entire class of people ... or at least a core group of the uppermost class ... the most elite of the elite ... are actively engaged in a plan to bring the world under one government ... but they are doing so without the discussion or involvement of the people themselves, well then dan -- my friend -- that is nearly the definition of conspiracy. The fact that sometimes some small portions of this discussion essentialy leak in to the public domain is not a negation of the idea of a conspiracy, it is only indication that they still live in the same world as us and sometimes information comes around. Further, if the public face of their private plan differs radicaly from the actual intention, then it is STILL a conspiracy, regardless of what is said (or what debate, if any, is held) in public.
So i'm not sure where i see a difference, other than in pure semantics, between what you are suggesting and what i have said. Yes, of COURSE, this is a class struggle. DUH! That is why i repeatedly say, "the elite"!
However, again we are going to have to clash over the whole "capitalism" ideology.
Personaly i think that a free market, (with VERY limited government intervention to prevent monopoly\duopoly, singular control or other very limited issues of universal harm) is the ONLY way to ensure true personal liberty and global prosperity. When humans start running out of oil in earnest, i think you may agree. Unfortunately oil is subsidizing the elite, and this false "globalization" (funded by cheap oil) is weaking the local culture of the world significantly.
I don't think any of us will ever see a world government. I'm not a fan of world government per se. I also think 'world government' isn't inherently evil.
I am interested in this, though. And I'll try and follow what is going on, but right now, I'm not convinced that this is a real threat because I feel it's unlikely to really happen.
Bump for the kids.
World government. They want it.
It's coming.
Don't lie to yourself.
You may wake up and find out the nightmare is a reality.
Who is they? Besides Hillary and Cronkite.
Hu Jintao? Zubkov and Putin? Chavez? Castro? Ahmadinejad? How exactly would a "world" government work without every country's co-operation? This is a genuine question.
you had questions about how the global one-world government deal is going down, there it is
Who made these videos. Where did they get their information? It doesn't cite any sources, for all I know it's pure surmise, a biased or mendacious opinion.
And which of these videos should I be watching? The first three are about 9/11.
Who made these videos. Where did they get their information? It doesn't cite any sources, for all I know it's pure surmise, a biased or mendacious opinion.
And which of these videos should I be watching? The first three are about 9/11.
the first one is a good synopsis of the whole series
Hu Jintao? Zubkov and Putin? Chavez? Castro? Ahmadinejad? How exactly would a "world" government work without every country's co-operation? This is a genuine question.
THIS is how it happens, and works, Collin.
YOUR GOVERNMENT LEADERS BETRAY YOU:
22 Hours Ago (March 7th) HOT OFF THE PRESS:
Prime Minister Gordon Brown's decision to reject a referendum on the new European Union Reform Treaty (Treaty of Lisbon) should be viewed as one of the biggest acts of political betrayal in modern British history. Despite a rebellion by 29 of its own backbenchers, the Labour-led government defeated a Conservative proposal to hold a popular vote on the Lisbon Treaty by 311 votes to 248 in the House of Commons on March 5. Brown's refusal to support a referendum represented a stunning reversal of the government's 2005 manifesto pledge to hold a plebiscite on the European Constitution [...]The Commons vote flew in the face of fierce public opposition to the Lisbon Treaty and mounting calls for the British public to have its say.[...]The new Treaty poses the biggest threat to national sovereignty in Europe since the Second World War[...]
YOUR LEADERS TELL YOU "FUCK OFF, YOU GET NO SAY IN THIS!" ... "I have been given my 'orders' to sign, I will sign, and you will FALL IN LINE!"
This article is so important, its getting it's own thread.
But its here because its amazingly relevant to this discussion.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I am tired and half drunk on Ezra Brooks fine sipping bourbon.
Peace to you, Dan.
Thanks for playing.
You are one of the brave, the very few, willing to even discuss such issues.
For that i salute you, whole hearted.
Well, if you keep it to the point and dont go so heavy on the ranting, I might play again sometime. (You might want to reconsider posting while sipping bourbon....)
Thought I'd just finish this off. I havent had much time to check the forum for the last week. Just started in a full-time job, and also have to close off my 3 part-time jobs these weeks. I'm really busy these days. But I might return at some point over easter to talk sense to you.
Just a few final general remarks from me.
Political organizations does not equal conspiracy
Promoting stronger international treaties and organizations and advocating a stronger UN, does not equal promoting a China-modelled global police state.
An individual, perceived to belong to a group, does not necessarily speak for that group as a whole. Particularly when it is hard to pin down just who that group really is. I do not speak for all Norwegians, sociologists nor socialists, even though I belong in all those groups. Even if my last name had been "Marx" or something.
Quotes out of context can actually be more misleading than direct lies.
Keep these in mind when doing research and reading off web-sites. Use me as that inner voice applying a critical filter. At least until I am again able to post at length.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Promoting stronger international treaties and organizations and advocating a stronger UN, does not equal promoting a China-modelled global police state.
See,
this is the part that i have a major disagreement with.
I keep providing you with video and quotes showing major player involved in sponsoring what THEY call, by name, "WORLD GOVERNMENT",
and yet you repeatedly, i mean 4 or 5 times in this thread alone, diminish that statement by refering to it as "international treaties" or "multilateralism" ...
my point is that, while they MAY reference some of those things in their speeches as a MEANS to an END ... what they are CLEARLY and EXPLICITLY discussing is "WORLD GOVERNMENT".
And yet, time and time again, you seem to want to duck and dodge that very touchy issue ... the issue at the crux here ... and prefer to pretend like they are merely talking about advancing the issues of greater coordinated policy.
The other thing that really gets my goat, is you constantly insisting that i am, "taking quotes out of context", and yet you just couldn't get any more contex than what i am providing for you here.
A guy getting an award for "GLOBAL GOVERNANCE", by an introdutory speaker who says outright, "WORLD GOVERNMENT", and a guy who goes on to accept his award and talk at length about how setting up a world courd is the first and most difficult and very important step in achieving this aim ...
... and yet you step up here and say its all out of context?
Well, what in fucks name am i missing then?
:(
ps. oh. good luck at your new job mate.
3 part times? yikes! good riddance to that shite.
and peace back at yah.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
The argument is not about whether they're talking about some kind of world government. What is very much up for debate is what they mean by it. And from what I heard in the clip, their, or at least Cronkite's, definition of what they wanted to do and why does not add up with the view you want to credit this clip to. Their "world government" does not necessitate the "world government" of you and AJ. They are just words, and very broad ones at that. "Government" is a value-neutral word from the outset. What kind of government that one wishes for is the crucial part. And, here in this clip, I was hard pressed to find anything sinister in character. Unless any international cooperation is to be regarded as steps towards totalitarian police state.
And, no, you are not quoting out of context right here, I said "general remarks", referencing the larger conspiracy web you want to make out. (As far as I can tell from previous threads) And previous random quotes from random guys at random times (As far as I can make) to "prove" the super-conspiracy. It's not hard to find some people, one can call elite, that at some time expressed authoritarian sympathies, particularly in the 30s when such a view was more common and accepted, in the wake of failed democracies.
Now, while this clip ARGUABLY can be interpreted in your direction, that may be. But it requires maximum ill will in interpreting what is said, and many connections requires acceptance of the conspiracy theories to work and to make it all have a sinister character. I saw the clip, heard all that he said, and was not impressed into your direction of interpretation.
One question though. In your view, can a political organization, forum, club whatever legitimately work for "world government" if they are open about it and working through the democratic process? Without being a "conspiracy"? This is why I emphasized the "political organization does not equal conspiracy" bit. Cause if so, any campaign, party, activist organization or what have you will likewise be conspiracies. Are you conspiring to get Paul elected president?
It's great to question the authorities and official accounts of events, as they tend to leave things out, and be a bit vague around the edges. The remedy, however, isn't believing fully in sensationalist theories by people who have sensationalism as a living. The former doesn't always lie and the latter isn't always right. You have the authority criticism going. Now just a little criticism of the opposite here would be welcome for a remotely balanced view.
(edit) ps: thanks for the good wishes. It's gonna be good not to have to juggle so many small jobs, and get a decent regular pay-check. My new job is with the government employment and welfare agency.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
The argument is not about whether they're talking about some kind of world government. What is very much up for debate is what they mean by it. And from what I heard in the clip, their, or at least Cronkite's, definition of what they wanted to do and why does not add up with the view you want to credit this clip to. Their "world government" does not necessitate the "world government" of you and AJ. They are just words, and very broad ones at that. "Government" is a value-neutral word from the outset. What kind of government that one wishes for is the crucial part. And, here in this clip, I was hard pressed to find anything sinister in character. Unless any international cooperation is to be regarded as steps towards totalitarian police state.
And, no, you are not quoting out of context right here, I said "general remarks", referencing the larger conspiracy web you want to make out. (As far as I can tell from previous threads) And previous random quotes from random guys at random times (As far as I can make) to "prove" the super-conspiracy. It's not hard to find some people, one can call elite, that at some time expressed authoritarian sympathies, particularly in the 30s when such a view was more common and accepted, in the wake of failed democracies.
Now, while this clip ARGUABLY can be interpreted in your direction, that may be. But it requires maximum ill will in interpreting what is said, and many connections requires acceptance of the conspiracy theories to work and to make it all have a sinister character. I saw the clip, heard all that he said, and was not impressed into your direction of interpretation.
One question though. In your view, can a political organization, forum, club whatever legitimately work for "world government" if they are open about it and working through the democratic process? Without being a "conspiracy"? This is why I emphasized the "political organization does not equal conspiracy" bit. Cause if so, any campaign, party, activist organization or what have you will likewise be conspiracies. Are you conspiring to get Paul elected president?
It's great to question the authorities and official accounts of events, as they tend to leave things out, and be a bit vague around the edges. The remedy, however, isn't believing fully in sensationalist theories by people who have sensationalism as a living. The former doesn't always lie and the latter isn't always right. You have the authority criticism going. Now just a little criticism of the opposite here would be welcome for a remotely balanced view.
Peace
Dan
it depends on who the government is for. if it is for the people, the working class, by all means it should be implemented. If it is for corporations and the elite, then obviously we should fight this.
it depends on who the government is for. if it is for the people, the working class, by all means it should be implemented. If it is for corporations and the elite, then obviously we should fight this.
Its getting pimped by Rockefellers, Bush's, and all other sorts of scum. Its obviously not for the people.
it depends on who the government is for. if it is for the people, the working class, by all means it should be implemented. If it is for corporations and the elite, then obviously we should fight this.
Its getting pimped by Rockefellers, Bush's, and all other sorts of scum. Its obviously not for the people.
Well, Bush sure as hell wanted no part of the international court though. Shouldn't he be all over that if world government was his major concern?
(edit) In fact, many would say that the Bush presidency has been an alltime low when it comes to doing things muiltilaterally, and have largely not given a fuck about what anyone else had to say about anything. That doesn't sound like building world government to me.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Well, Bush sure as hell wanted no part of the international court though. Shouldn't he be all over that if world government was his major concern?
(edit) In fact, many would say that the Bush presidency has been an alltime low when it comes to doing things muiltilaterally, and have largely not given a fuck about what anyone else had to say about anything. That doesn't sound like building world government to me.
Peace
Dan
Well i would counter this quite vehemenently.
1. Commy's assertion is that if World Government were built for and by the people, then it is a good thing. I would argue that, as |America sits here dying, there are pretty much NO governments in the world truly run for and by the people, despite what you may want to say about socialist countries around the world. I would ALSO add that the clearly documented record of quotes indicates that the "global government" advocates clearly do NOT want a democratic process. They want a scientific elite making the decisions. Case in point, the UN is not a democratic institution. There is zero accountability to the people of any nation. Any voting is done strictly within the institution itsself. Further, how can you possibly sit there and even pretend like these aims are being persued through the democratic\political process when we have old Gordon Brown telling the British public to go fuck themselves just this week, that he will be signing them in to the European Union (by treaty, see below) WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT! How in fuckssake is that democratic or THROUGH the political process? That is direct SUBVERSION of the political process. Its in your face! Undeniable! ALso. Lets talk about SPP\NAU, how much in the public political process is meeting with leaders behind closed doors, away from the media, and with NO approval from congress? IT IS NOT. It is a SUBVERSION of the process! Signing TREATIES, any fucking treaty, is by and large a subversion of democratic principles. It is how nearly EVERY major blow against soverignty has been acomplished. How did the drug laws, the EPA laws, FCC laws, etc get in to place? Through international treaties! Did you know that? Pot is illegal, essentialy, because of a trade treaty!
2. Now, as far as Bush, multilaterialism, and this somehow disproving Global Government, again you are off base. First, as i've said repreatedly, you are massively confusing and deliberately skewing the huge differences bewteen "multilateralism" and "global government". The fact that Bush doesn't pursue multilateral approaches to issues means nothing with relation to pursuing a globalist agenda. All it really means is that the globalists have a clearly stated (and documented, through things like their numbered "banking kingdoms" map from the late 70s) that the two preeminent powers in the new global structure should be America and Western Europe, with America getting the "#1" at least on their chart from the 70's. So, by not allowing multilateral INTERVENTION in their aims, all Bush is doing is maintaining American hegemony over the globe. Further, his actions HAVE furthered global government. He has helped them break down substantial trade and protectionist political tape in foreign markets around the world, through the furtherance of WTO and World Bank initiatives. He has strongly supported NAFTA. Further, his intervention in the Middle East is going a LONG way towards instilling globalist control of a region that is otherwise (except for Saudi Arabia and Israel) wholy adverse to such outside control. The establishment of bases and huge embassies, strong arming countries like Iran, all this goes to increasing the white man's universal control of the globe. His policies, tactics, and what most dub conspiracy-theories, have also gone a LONG way towards establishing the legal basis for TOTALY overturning the constitution by way of martial law and setting the stage for globalist control. Same with the killing off of the dollar. They just love to see that die a nasty death. Amero ho!
:(
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Well, Bush sure as hell wanted no part of the international court though. Shouldn't he be all over that if world government was his major concern?
(edit) In fact, many would say that the Bush presidency has been an alltime low when it comes to doing things muiltilaterally, and have largely not given a fuck about what anyone else had to say about anything. That doesn't sound like building world government to me.
Peace
Dan
Theyre in the process of setting it up. First they need some more wars and "accidents".
1. Commy's assertion is that if World Government were built for and by the people, then it is a good thing. I would argue that, as |America sits here dying, there are pretty much NO governments in the world truly run for and by the people, despite what you may want to say about socialist countries around the world. I would ALSO add that the clearly documented record of quotes indicates that the "global government" advocates clearly do NOT want a democratic process. They want a scientific elite making the decisions. Case in point, the UN is not a democratic institution. There is zero accountability to the people of any nation. Any voting is done strictly within the institution itsself. Further, how can you possibly sit there and even pretend like these aims are being persued through the democratic\political process when we have old Gordon Brown telling the British public to go fuck themselves just this week, that he will be signing them in to the European Union (by treaty, see below) WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT! How in fuckssake is that democratic or THROUGH the political process? That is direct SUBVERSION of the political process. Its in your face! Undeniable! ALso. Lets talk about SPP\NAU, how much in the public political process is meeting with leaders behind closed doors, away from the media, and with NO approval from congress? IT IS NOT. It is a SUBVERSION of the process! Signing TREATIES, any fucking treaty, is by and large a subversion of democratic principles. It is how nearly EVERY major blow against soverignty has been acomplished. How did the drug laws, the EPA laws, FCC laws, etc get in to place? Through international treaties! Did you know that? Pot is illegal, essentialy, because of a trade treaty!
Noted. I dont really disagree too much with the gist here, although I disagree with many of the parts you mention. What I (and commy) said was that world government as a concept isn't anything bad in itself. I said nothing about how things arguably work or not. Point is that uttering the words "world government" or writing them down on a piece of paper isn't an automatic indictment against the author for wanting nazi police state with China as a model. (which seems to be synonymous in your opinion)
2. Now, as far as Bush, multilaterialism, and this somehow disproving Global Government, again you are off base. First, as i've said repreatedly, you are massively confusing and deliberately skewing the huge differences bewteen "multilateralism" and "global government". The fact that Bush doesn't pursue multilateral approaches to issues means nothing with relation to pursuing a globalist agenda. All it really means is that the globalists have a clearly stated (and documented, through things like their numbered "banking kingdoms" map from the late 70s) that the two preeminent powers in the new global structure should be America and Western Europe, with America getting the "#1" at least on their chart from the 70's. So, by not allowing multilateral INTERVENTION in their aims, all Bush is doing is maintaining American hegemony over the globe. Further, his actions HAVE furthered global government. He has helped them break down substantial trade and protectionist political tape in foreign markets around the world, through the furtherance of WTO and World Bank initiatives. He has strongly supported NAFTA. Further, his intervention in the Middle East is going a LONG way towards instilling globalist control of a region that is otherwise (except for Saudi Arabia and Israel) wholy adverse to such outside control. The establishment of bases and huge embassies, strong arming countries like Iran, all this goes to increasing the white man's universal control of the globe. His policies, tactics, and what most dub conspiracy-theories, have also gone a LONG way towards establishing the legal basis for TOTALY overturning the constitution by way of martial law and setting the stage for globalist control. Same with the killing off of the dollar. They just love to see that die a nasty death. Amero ho!
:(
What US consistently does, is what suits it's own real political interests. (Are you familiar with the term realpolitik? if not, wiki it) Bush and his administration have done it in a more blatant "my way or the highway" way than previous administrations.
But about the UN, you are currently eating your cake and keeping it on that issue. Is the UN the tool for world government, or is it an impediment to it that needs to be circumnavigated by Bush & co? IF the UN is the ultimate world government tool, why is it being ignored so thoroughly by the Bushies, who are supposedly trying to set it up? Why on earth would Bush oppose the world court, if that were a primary motive? What better time than right then to get the world court started in order to get that foothold to build true world government on?
What explains events far more accurately and simply, is that every nation (and it's elite) are looking out for it's (their) own interests and acting accordingly. And many times (if not most) the interests do not coincide at all, which leads to the messy and brutal world of international diplomacy. Different countries, different circumstances, different elites with different objectives and interests. That is what goes on consistently in the world.
In that vein, historically, the nation(s) favouring "freer trade" are the nation that know that it will benefit them. The US have for a long time now benefitted from more international trade. (Except perhaps for the last few years.) Which is why the US is always at the front promoting "free trade", which is then just code for "more goodies for us". 150 years ago, it was the british that were most vehement "free traders", as they were the big boys. Today, it's America.
The biggest reservations I have towards the "massive conspiracy" is:
1. the sheer numbers of complicit members such an undertaking would require, not to mention the incredible discipline in keeping it quiet. Many of the countries "involved" are democracies that change leaders often.
2. The assumption that the elite is the elite and have common interests globally, which is not only unlikely, but being literally unproven every day if you just check out the news. Or just get some knowledge how organizations and diplomacy work. It is one thing to use a class analysis to determine that the elite is always making it comfy for itself whatever country. It is something very different to assume that they are thus cooperating just about flawlessly to keep it that way.
3. The assumption that "the elite" would even need police state control to maintain themselves. Why would "they" bother, when "they're" already cushy as hell?
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Comments
Guaranteed eventually it will be abused, and when it does get to that point...oh man...look out.
The sheer scale of that is worse than anything imaginable thus far imo...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
No one has any opinions on global government, huh?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Unfortunately it needs the cooperation of the world's empire in order for it to function properly. The UN has shown the world's superpower won't play the game, and so any world gov't idea, however benign in its charter, will end up innefectual in comparison to the US empire.
Thank you.
I think you just demonstrated the point quite nicely.
Even if the intentions were "bening" as you say, the very fact that there are greedy selfish people in this world who would inevitably find their way into the ONE government the world would have ... that very fact dooms the system, no matter how bening the intention.
Kind've like communism, right Commy?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
But I believe we can get a gov't to work. A true democractic system with an educated public is a very good thing. but that's the thing, you gotta have people educated and involved to prevent the corruption that inevitably comes with power. it really comes down to a free press and an educated people.
But they don't want a "democratic" "One World Government", Commy.
Thats the other problem.
Even if you were naive enough to think that having no escape and no choice in your governance (no where to run) ... even if you did think that World Government was some great idea, why on earth would you accept the rule of an unelected scientific elite?
Should the people not have a significant say in their own rule?
???
If I opened it now would you not understand?
(and his book, lol)
If I opened it now would you not understand?
What he is specifically about is setting up the world court for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and the need for all nations to give up some sovereignty in favour of international cooperation for peace. Aside from that, he talks vaguely about peace and why war sucks.
Where have I been unwilling to concede that they want a form of "world government"? I just say that just because those words are used, dont make all your assumptions about them correct. I also outlined why "world government" is a very unprecise concept which is a very heterogenous mix of tendencies, policies and opinons. Among which there is no visible "one way" among them which you seem to outline.
And yes, this crowd is about international law, and getting a rule of law between the nations as well as within them. This organization makes no secret of it. I just state again that this isn't at all ominous in itself. Even if they can be said to be for a "world government", I see little or no connection to what you have posted before, in this speech.
Pushing for international rule of law, is not the same as puching for world nazi police-state government. As I said, I am not impressed by this clip's evidence value.
As a sidenote I might add that I am sceptical to much the same people you are. But instead of fearing the capitalists' socialist conspiracy scheme, I find it much more sensible to fear the capitalists in general, and what their resources enables them to do. Thus, I see a "return to the constitution" to be a quixotic band aid that wouldn't change anything, because it wouldn't change the fundamental ownership problem where one individual in principle legitimately can own the entire world. I see much more sense in a classic class struggle view than in a highly unlikely, far-flung and nearly omnipotent conspiracy. And in the classs struggle view combined with general social theories and empiry on how the world operates makes a lot more sense, and requires no direct conspiracy, only that people make arrangements for themselves and theirs, and that the structure in general favours a moneyed elite on the top that reap the benefits of the others' labour. If it is the power of the elite you fear the most, then an opposition to the current capitalist system is pretty mandatory.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
So sounds like you are taking the ANTI-SEMANTIC view by basicaly saying, "it totaly makes no difference what is said. Just pretend what is said is not said, because they are just words."
?
Actualy, what he specificaly says is that a World Court is a very important FIRST STEP towards a world government. Go back and listen again. A FIRST STEP. He then goes on to say it is going to be a hard battle. A VERY hard battle, and that people will need to give up soverignty, and that the fight will be tough. But that the court is just a FIRST STEP. And rightly for the reasons i outlined. Because it is the MOST IMPORTANT step! Because a World Court can subvert ALL national law. Whether what he talks about here is specificaly relegated to war crimes and human rights or not. A World Court would have preeminence over (and would subjugate) ALL national law! A FIRST STEP!
I'm pretty sure in several other posts on other threads you have denied that such "conspiracy" even exists. If you now accept that there is a contingent for this, great. We are making progress.
Wow.
NO.
It is NOT an "unprecise concept".
The "CONCEPT" of "WORLD GOVERNMENT" is JUST THAT!
"WORLD GOVERNMENT!"
The only thing "unprecise" is how exactly the best way, or (even more "precisely") through WHICH INSTITUTION, is it best to BEGIN IMPLEMENTATION of such "concept".
If you pay attention, you would know that at Davos this year this was a BIG part of the discussion. Go listen to Daniel Estulin on Alex Jones (alexjonespodcasts.com) from Friday of last week. They are actively engaging the elite class in discussions on how best -- through which institutionalized means -- to implement world government. So yes, publicly now they are having discourse on how to implement such a governing body. But the CONCEPT is NOT "unprecise" ("imprecise").
So you see little or no connection between active discussions about "world government" and my previous posts about a faction of humanity actively seeking to impose world government? That is odd.
You mean you disagree that a powerful segment of that elite (Rokefeller in particular) seem to have decided that a model based around what Mao implemented in China is the best model for such government? Okay. But quotes from Rockefeller himself disagree with you. So, what is YOUR argument?
No, pushing for "world government" is pushing for "world government". You are more than free to debate what the contextual connotation of such denotation actually implies. However, again, quotes from highly influentials of the class of people actively pursuing this "world government" concept seem to indicate you are wrong.
I dislike hinging any argument around the terms "capitalist" or "capitalism".
Do you dislike the idea of "free markets" specificaly?
You feel that socialism (in whatever form you please) is preferable? Even if you do, that seems some what irrelevant given that what we are discussing here is the fact that the controlling elite of this planet have a push on for an UNdemocratic Scientific Dictatorship formed under the cloak of a "Peoples Republic". Do you think the people of China are "Free"? Do you think that is a preferable model? How do they handle pollution? Will it work better for the world? What about human rights? What about free will? What about political dissent?
???
This is where i think we come nearest to agreement, save for the last sentece.
If an entire class of people ... or at least a core group of the uppermost class ... the most elite of the elite ... are actively engaged in a plan to bring the world under one government ... but they are doing so without the discussion or involvement of the people themselves, well then dan -- my friend -- that is nearly the definition of conspiracy. The fact that sometimes some small portions of this discussion essentialy leak in to the public domain is not a negation of the idea of a conspiracy, it is only indication that they still live in the same world as us and sometimes information comes around. Further, if the public face of their private plan differs radicaly from the actual intention, then it is STILL a conspiracy, regardless of what is said (or what debate, if any, is held) in public.
So i'm not sure where i see a difference, other than in pure semantics, between what you are suggesting and what i have said. Yes, of COURSE, this is a class struggle. DUH! That is why i repeatedly say, "the elite"!
However, again we are going to have to clash over the whole "capitalism" ideology.
Personaly i think that a free market, (with VERY limited government intervention to prevent monopoly\duopoly, singular control or other very limited issues of universal harm) is the ONLY way to ensure true personal liberty and global prosperity. When humans start running out of oil in earnest, i think you may agree. Unfortunately oil is subsidizing the elite, and this false "globalization" (funded by cheap oil) is weaking the local culture of the world significantly.
I am tired and half drunk on Ezra Brooks fine sipping bourbon.
Peace to you, Dan.
Thanks for playing.
You are one of the brave, the very few, willing to even discuss such issues.
For that i salute you, whole hearted.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I am interested in this, though. And I'll try and follow what is going on, but right now, I'm not convinced that this is a real threat because I feel it's unlikely to really happen.
naděje umírá poslední
never say die!
If I opened it now would you not understand?
World government.
They want it.
It's coming.
Don't lie to yourself.
You may wake up and find out the nightmare is a reality.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
easy as 123
world government for
you and me
abc
123
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Who is they? Besides Hillary and Cronkite.
Hu Jintao? Zubkov and Putin? Chavez? Castro? Ahmadinejad? How exactly would a "world" government work without every country's co-operation? This is a genuine question.
naděje umírá poslední
some answers
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=45ABD221BD27E9A2
I'm sorry but I don't see how this answers my question. At all.
naděje umírá poslední
???
you had questions about how the global one-world government deal is going down, there it is
Who made these videos. Where did they get their information? It doesn't cite any sources, for all I know it's pure surmise, a biased or mendacious opinion.
And which of these videos should I be watching? The first three are about 9/11.
naděje umírá poslední
the first one is a good synopsis of the whole series
but specifically, chapters 17, 18, 21, 27, 28
THIS is how it happens, and works, Collin.
YOUR GOVERNMENT LEADERS BETRAY YOU:
22 Hours Ago (March 7th) HOT OFF THE PRESS:
The EU Lisbon Treaty: Gordon Brown Surrenders Britain's Sovereignty
YOUR LEADERS TELL YOU "FUCK OFF, YOU GET NO SAY IN THIS!" ... "I have been given my 'orders' to sign, I will sign, and you will FALL IN LINE!"
This article is so important, its getting it's own thread.
But its here because its amazingly relevant to this discussion.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
almost fell off the front page.
world government is scary.
too scary for page 2.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Well, if you keep it to the point and dont go so heavy on the ranting, I might play again sometime. (You might want to reconsider posting while sipping bourbon....)
Thought I'd just finish this off. I havent had much time to check the forum for the last week. Just started in a full-time job, and also have to close off my 3 part-time jobs these weeks. I'm really busy these days. But I might return at some point over easter to talk sense to you.
Just a few final general remarks from me.
Political organizations does not equal conspiracy
Promoting stronger international treaties and organizations and advocating a stronger UN, does not equal promoting a China-modelled global police state.
An individual, perceived to belong to a group, does not necessarily speak for that group as a whole. Particularly when it is hard to pin down just who that group really is. I do not speak for all Norwegians, sociologists nor socialists, even though I belong in all those groups. Even if my last name had been "Marx" or something.
Quotes out of context can actually be more misleading than direct lies.
Keep these in mind when doing research and reading off web-sites. Use me as that inner voice applying a critical filter. At least until I am again able to post at length.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
See,
this is the part that i have a major disagreement with.
I keep providing you with video and quotes showing major player involved in sponsoring what THEY call, by name, "WORLD GOVERNMENT",
and yet you repeatedly, i mean 4 or 5 times in this thread alone, diminish that statement by refering to it as "international treaties" or "multilateralism" ...
my point is that, while they MAY reference some of those things in their speeches as a MEANS to an END ... what they are CLEARLY and EXPLICITLY discussing is "WORLD GOVERNMENT".
And yet, time and time again, you seem to want to duck and dodge that very touchy issue ... the issue at the crux here ... and prefer to pretend like they are merely talking about advancing the issues of greater coordinated policy.
The other thing that really gets my goat, is you constantly insisting that i am, "taking quotes out of context", and yet you just couldn't get any more contex than what i am providing for you here.
A guy getting an award for "GLOBAL GOVERNANCE", by an introdutory speaker who says outright, "WORLD GOVERNMENT", and a guy who goes on to accept his award and talk at length about how setting up a world courd is the first and most difficult and very important step in achieving this aim ...
... and yet you step up here and say its all out of context?
Well, what in fucks name am i missing then?
:(
ps. oh. good luck at your new job mate.
3 part times? yikes! good riddance to that shite.
and peace back at yah.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
The argument is not about whether they're talking about some kind of world government. What is very much up for debate is what they mean by it. And from what I heard in the clip, their, or at least Cronkite's, definition of what they wanted to do and why does not add up with the view you want to credit this clip to. Their "world government" does not necessitate the "world government" of you and AJ. They are just words, and very broad ones at that. "Government" is a value-neutral word from the outset. What kind of government that one wishes for is the crucial part. And, here in this clip, I was hard pressed to find anything sinister in character. Unless any international cooperation is to be regarded as steps towards totalitarian police state.
And, no, you are not quoting out of context right here, I said "general remarks", referencing the larger conspiracy web you want to make out. (As far as I can tell from previous threads) And previous random quotes from random guys at random times (As far as I can make) to "prove" the super-conspiracy. It's not hard to find some people, one can call elite, that at some time expressed authoritarian sympathies, particularly in the 30s when such a view was more common and accepted, in the wake of failed democracies.
Now, while this clip ARGUABLY can be interpreted in your direction, that may be. But it requires maximum ill will in interpreting what is said, and many connections requires acceptance of the conspiracy theories to work and to make it all have a sinister character. I saw the clip, heard all that he said, and was not impressed into your direction of interpretation.
One question though. In your view, can a political organization, forum, club whatever legitimately work for "world government" if they are open about it and working through the democratic process? Without being a "conspiracy"? This is why I emphasized the "political organization does not equal conspiracy" bit. Cause if so, any campaign, party, activist organization or what have you will likewise be conspiracies. Are you conspiring to get Paul elected president?
It's great to question the authorities and official accounts of events, as they tend to leave things out, and be a bit vague around the edges. The remedy, however, isn't believing fully in sensationalist theories by people who have sensationalism as a living. The former doesn't always lie and the latter isn't always right. You have the authority criticism going. Now just a little criticism of the opposite here would be welcome for a remotely balanced view.
(edit) ps: thanks for the good wishes. It's gonna be good not to have to juggle so many small jobs, and get a decent regular pay-check. My new job is with the government employment and welfare agency.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Well, Bush sure as hell wanted no part of the international court though. Shouldn't he be all over that if world government was his major concern?
(edit) In fact, many would say that the Bush presidency has been an alltime low when it comes to doing things muiltilaterally, and have largely not given a fuck about what anyone else had to say about anything. That doesn't sound like building world government to me.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Well i would counter this quite vehemenently.
1. Commy's assertion is that if World Government were built for and by the people, then it is a good thing. I would argue that, as |America sits here dying, there are pretty much NO governments in the world truly run for and by the people, despite what you may want to say about socialist countries around the world. I would ALSO add that the clearly documented record of quotes indicates that the "global government" advocates clearly do NOT want a democratic process. They want a scientific elite making the decisions. Case in point, the UN is not a democratic institution. There is zero accountability to the people of any nation. Any voting is done strictly within the institution itsself. Further, how can you possibly sit there and even pretend like these aims are being persued through the democratic\political process when we have old Gordon Brown telling the British public to go fuck themselves just this week, that he will be signing them in to the European Union (by treaty, see below) WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT! How in fuckssake is that democratic or THROUGH the political process? That is direct SUBVERSION of the political process. Its in your face! Undeniable! ALso. Lets talk about SPP\NAU, how much in the public political process is meeting with leaders behind closed doors, away from the media, and with NO approval from congress? IT IS NOT. It is a SUBVERSION of the process! Signing TREATIES, any fucking treaty, is by and large a subversion of democratic principles. It is how nearly EVERY major blow against soverignty has been acomplished. How did the drug laws, the EPA laws, FCC laws, etc get in to place? Through international treaties! Did you know that? Pot is illegal, essentialy, because of a trade treaty!
2. Now, as far as Bush, multilaterialism, and this somehow disproving Global Government, again you are off base. First, as i've said repreatedly, you are massively confusing and deliberately skewing the huge differences bewteen "multilateralism" and "global government". The fact that Bush doesn't pursue multilateral approaches to issues means nothing with relation to pursuing a globalist agenda. All it really means is that the globalists have a clearly stated (and documented, through things like their numbered "banking kingdoms" map from the late 70s) that the two preeminent powers in the new global structure should be America and Western Europe, with America getting the "#1" at least on their chart from the 70's. So, by not allowing multilateral INTERVENTION in their aims, all Bush is doing is maintaining American hegemony over the globe. Further, his actions HAVE furthered global government. He has helped them break down substantial trade and protectionist political tape in foreign markets around the world, through the furtherance of WTO and World Bank initiatives. He has strongly supported NAFTA. Further, his intervention in the Middle East is going a LONG way towards instilling globalist control of a region that is otherwise (except for Saudi Arabia and Israel) wholy adverse to such outside control. The establishment of bases and huge embassies, strong arming countries like Iran, all this goes to increasing the white man's universal control of the globe. His policies, tactics, and what most dub conspiracy-theories, have also gone a LONG way towards establishing the legal basis for TOTALY overturning the constitution by way of martial law and setting the stage for globalist control. Same with the killing off of the dollar. They just love to see that die a nasty death. Amero ho!
:(
If I opened it now would you not understand?
What US consistently does, is what suits it's own real political interests. (Are you familiar with the term realpolitik? if not, wiki it) Bush and his administration have done it in a more blatant "my way or the highway" way than previous administrations.
But about the UN, you are currently eating your cake and keeping it on that issue. Is the UN the tool for world government, or is it an impediment to it that needs to be circumnavigated by Bush & co? IF the UN is the ultimate world government tool, why is it being ignored so thoroughly by the Bushies, who are supposedly trying to set it up? Why on earth would Bush oppose the world court, if that were a primary motive? What better time than right then to get the world court started in order to get that foothold to build true world government on?
What explains events far more accurately and simply, is that every nation (and it's elite) are looking out for it's (their) own interests and acting accordingly. And many times (if not most) the interests do not coincide at all, which leads to the messy and brutal world of international diplomacy. Different countries, different circumstances, different elites with different objectives and interests. That is what goes on consistently in the world.
In that vein, historically, the nation(s) favouring "freer trade" are the nation that know that it will benefit them. The US have for a long time now benefitted from more international trade. (Except perhaps for the last few years.) Which is why the US is always at the front promoting "free trade", which is then just code for "more goodies for us". 150 years ago, it was the british that were most vehement "free traders", as they were the big boys. Today, it's America.
The biggest reservations I have towards the "massive conspiracy" is:
1. the sheer numbers of complicit members such an undertaking would require, not to mention the incredible discipline in keeping it quiet. Many of the countries "involved" are democracies that change leaders often.
2. The assumption that the elite is the elite and have common interests globally, which is not only unlikely, but being literally unproven every day if you just check out the news. Or just get some knowledge how organizations and diplomacy work. It is one thing to use a class analysis to determine that the elite is always making it comfy for itself whatever country. It is something very different to assume that they are thus cooperating just about flawlessly to keep it that way.
3. The assumption that "the elite" would even need police state control to maintain themselves. Why would "they" bother, when "they're" already cushy as hell?
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965