World Government: NOT Conspiracy - Walter Cronkite & Hillary Agrees! VIDEO HERE!
Comments
-
If China is in fact NOT the model to live by, (I'm not saying it is) then why is the west so deeply indebted to it?
hmm...seems strange that the US so rigorously trades with this communist type of regime to the point that thew US is now held underneath it financially....
I'm a bit confused, can someone explain this to me?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.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")0 -
RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:If China is in fact NOT the model to live by, (I'm not saying it is) then why is the west so deeply indebted to it?
hmm...seems strange that the US so rigorously trades with this communist type of regime to the point that thew US is now held underneath it financially....
I'm a bit confused, can someone explain this to me?
that's easy,we have been sold out by the very people who were entrusted to make sure that didn't happen.
We have to have our fangs pulled so we willingly whimper into global government.0 -
He got a global governance award from a group devoted to global governance. Ain't disputing that.
You have yet to show that this "global governance" ties at all to the stuff you have linked before. The word is not incriminating in itself.
However your use of the word "elite" indicates a unity I dont at all see. "Some of the elite" are pushing for global government, sure. Some people want more power to the EU, the UN and whathaveyou, certainly. The motives vary a lot, and the push is not universal nor unopposed within even the elite itself.
An award was given, a speech made, both of which are severely over-interpreted in my view, based on what was actually said.
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:An award was given, a speech made, both of which are severely over-interpreted in my view, based on what was actually said.
And i certainly don't deny that there is debate with in the circles of power about this either.
However, what is really getting to me is that i am first brushed off with staunch opposition to the notion that there is even some sort of group of elite pushing for world government.
Then i show you a video (and thank god this exists, or who knows where i'd be in my argument) that clearly shows that the same fucking shit bag politician who gets her ass driven to Bilderberg meetings and dropped off at the lower parking deck so as not to be seen, because it is illegal under US law for her to be meeting with foreigners discussing US policy anyhow ... i show you this video with her CLEARLY discussing her belief that -- and yes under the guise of the greater good for the downtrodden -- global government is something we urgently need and that Cronkite is a superduper fellow for pushing for it himself ...
i show you this video,
and all i get back, in so many words, is "SO?"
So again, my question is,
you do not see where a soverignty minded true blooded American should be getting up in arms over this !?!
We have SOMEONE WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT OF AMERICA OPENLY (to a select group of shmucks) DISCUSSING WORLD GOVERNMENT!
I don't give one flying fuck what her motive is, or who she thinks she is helping by doing this, the fact that someone who is a US Senator and RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT is candidly discussing a belief in a supranational government entity that would supercede United States soverignty is HIGHLY OFFENSIVE to me.
:(
And as to your claim regarding how it is just a World Court.
Oh yeah sure. You think there is a reason Cronkite said that was PRIORTY #1 for the NWO Shills? HELL YES!
You don't even need the other parts of world government if you have a bloody freaking world court!
NOTHING ELSE MATTERS, really ... because you have just created a Court that can overule and overturn the freaking constitution!
Who cares if we have a constitution or any other US laws for that matter, if there is some Global Judge who can just say, "Nope. Under international law, you're a criminal!"
Hmm.
I'm calling a spade a spade.
Can you explain to me your position on World Government at least?
It sounds like you are for it.
I couldn't think of a more ridiculous notion.
Its even more intolerably stupid to me than communism.
It sounds great in theory, but practical application is beyond the pale.
:(If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?0 -
shameless 1 am bump.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?0 -
You might get met with less initial scepticism if you toned down your language several notches.DriftingByTheStorm wrote:Then i show you a video (and thank god this exists, or who knows where i'd be in my argument) that clearly shows that the same fucking shit bag politician who gets her ass driven to Bilderberg meetings and dropped off at the lower parking deck so as not to be seen, because it is illegal under US law for her to be meeting with foreigners discussing US policy anyhow ... i show you this video with her CLEARLY discussing her belief that -- and yes under the guise of the greater good for the downtrodden -- global government is something we urgently need and that Cronkite is a superduper fellow for pushing for it himself ...
This is precisely what I mean by over-interpretation. In order to arrive at the same I have to acknowledge and agree to a host of other (in my view questionable) information and premises. No way can this speech be "scary" or revealing of anything like you indicate. That doesnt say that you are wrong by default, I do say that this clip here isn't any evidence either way.
I dont think anything said here is something to get up in arms over, no. Politicians can and should be opinionated and participating in organizations concerning themselves with politics and policy-questions. Comes with the territory. You can also detest and totally disagree with said politician, of course. And you are entitled to not be a fan of multilateralism, just as other people are entitled to be fans of it.
A president believing in international negotiations and mediation between the nations would be something new and scary wouldn't it?
And it seems you dont really know what the deal about the world court is. The proposed court is to adress crimes against humanity and war crimes. How is that bad? Nowhere has it been remotely proposed that it is a court that will generally outrank laws of the signing countries. The point is to have a permanent court that are already set up, so that when the next Rwanda happens, it doesnt take 5 years of bullshitting back and forth to get a process started. Not to mention that you then have a specialized court that can start dealing with it right away. Such a court, as all international organizations, will only function if the nations cooperate and agree to them.
As for the US constitution, according to yourself, they havent exactly needed a world court to ignore it, have they? So why would that be different?
As for "world government", that is a silly "for or against" question really. It is not a black and white issue. It's not something we have or not. It's many seperate issues, which do not at all fall neatly into two camps, or 3 or even 4. Being in favour of a world court, does not equal being in favour of general "world government". Being in favour of international negotiations on issues does not equal giving up sovereignty. And so on.
I am generally in favour of democracy, and preferably in smaller units. I am undecided how small the units need to be, but the main point is that people can influence their lives and surroundings. Beyond that however, there is need for some international coordination and cooperation for select global concerns. So an organization like the UN, or similar to it, is necessary as a forum where issues can be adressed. At least as long as the world is divided into militaristic, mutually hostile nation-states. Nationalism is a big killer, that is a point I agree with these federalists on. However, making an international level to correspond to the nations like the federal level corresponds to the US states sounds like a bad idea to me. Even well-intentioned, it's bad for democracy, which always is my major concern. But an international level, with a human rights court acknowledged by all signatory states doesn't sound that bad 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:A president believing in international negotiations and mediation between the nations would be something new and scary wouldn't it?
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"...
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?If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?0 -
Ignorance is at an all time high and this country has been dumbed down so bad most people aren't informed enough to even have this conversation.even though you will have the know-it-alls who will attempt to but they are betrayed by their obvious lack of information.
we are a god-less nation now too,the bible talks about world government and the beast system they are/have been erecting for some time now.but so many can't read the writing on the wall.0 -
bump for COBIf I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?0 -
Cause i can, i wont, and i don't stop.If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?0 -
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.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")0 -
Bump for the night crew.
No one has any opinions on global government, huh?If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?0 -
global gov't can be very dangerous or very necessary, depending on how its run.DriftingByTheStorm wrote:Bump for the night crew.
No one has any opinions on global government, huh?
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.0 -
Commy wrote: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?0 -
true. I should note I am not supporting communism, despite the name.DriftingByTheStorm wrote: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?
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.0 -
Commy wrote: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?0 -
2am bump for Ron Paul
(and his book, lol) If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?0 -
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.DriftingByTheStorm wrote: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"...
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.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?
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, 19650 -
OutOfBreath wrote: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."
?OutOfBreath wrote: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!OutOfBreath wrote: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.OutOfBreath wrote: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").OutOfBreath wrote: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?OutOfBreath wrote: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.OutOfBreath wrote: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?
???OutOfBreath wrote: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.OutOfBreath wrote:Peace
Dan
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 was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?0 -
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.THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!
naděje umírá poslední0
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