World Government: NOT Conspiracy - Walter Cronkite & Hillary Agrees! VIDEO HERE!
Comments
-
Bump for the PM.
never say die!If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?0 -
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.If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?0 -
abc
easy as 123
world government for
you and me
abc
123If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?0 -
DriftingByTheStorm wrote: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.THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!
naděje umírá poslední0 -
Collin wrote:This is a genuine question.
some answers
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=45ABD221BD27E9A2hate was just a legend0 -
SweetHarmonics wrote:
I'm sorry but I don't see how this answers my question. At all.THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!
naděje umírá poslední0 -
Collin wrote:I'm sorry but I don't see how this answers my question. At all.
???
you had questions about how the global one-world government deal is going down, there it ishate was just a legend0 -
SweetHarmonics wrote:???
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.THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!
naděje umírá poslední0 -
Collin wrote: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
but specifically, chapters 17, 18, 21, 27, 28hate was just a legend0 -
Collin wrote: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.
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 Sovereigntyarticle wrote: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?0 -
woops.
almost fell off the front page.
world government is scary.
too scary for page 2.If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?0 -
DriftingByTheStorm wrote: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, 19650 -
OutOfBreath wrote: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.
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?0 -
One for the road then.
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, 19650 -
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.OutOfBreath wrote:One for the road then.
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
Dan0 -
Its getting pimped by Rockefellers, Bush's, and all other sorts of scum. Its obviously not for the people.Commy wrote: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.0 -
Exactly.Commy wrote: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.
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?Nevermind wrote:Its getting pimped by Rockefellers, Bush's, and all other sorts of scum. Its obviously not for the people.
(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, 19650 -
OutOfBreath wrote:Exactly.
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?0 -
Theyre in the process of setting it up. First they need some more wars and "accidents".OutOfBreath wrote:Exactly.
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
Dan0 -
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)DriftingByTheStorm wrote: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!
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.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!
:(
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, 19650
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.9K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help