EU President Announces New Taxes at Bilderberg Meeting

[long-gone-kiwi]

Do you think it adds to your position by name-calling?


Thanks. I'll pass on that. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

Ok, so how does representative democracy represent those for whom none of the candidates are acceptable? How does representative democracy work, say, in the United States, when a significant majority oppose bailouts for banks (theft from the poor to further enrich the already stinking rich) and their representatives go right ahead and do it anyway?

The theory of this system is that individuals elect others to represent them. The reality is somewhat divergent, where representatives more often than not represent themselves and/or businesses that bankroll them.

Well, it came across slightly differently.

In my experience consensus does more often than not mean accepting a flawed compromise, settling for the lowest common denominator.

You could say that to believe they are innocuous is to be naive. To answer your question, no it is not being paranoid. It is simply opting to believe in one of two possibilities based on the limited evidence available.

It is not irrelevant. On what basis do you say it is irrelevant?

Yes, it may be. Just like that cute little dance you guys do

As I already said, I don't do Wikipedia.

On the basis of the evidence so far, any future single world government is highly likely to be so

My own opinion is that any single world belief system or single world government will at the very least (even if it is as harmless as you postulate) completely kill the sort of creative friction and competitive spirit that brought us to this point. It also denies those who do not want to live under whatever that particular system may be the opportunity to leave and live under another system elsewhere. I also believe that humankind, despite the move from family through to cities and nation-states, is still inherently tribal.

Good morning Tyler. Sorry ,where I come from dumb ass isn't really name calling, but I should have considered that you might be a sensitive wee soul so I shall refrain in future. Your post is exactly the same as the first one and you have made the same mistake. The post that you replied to is days old, was going on over a day or so and I was talking to two or three people. If you had bothered to read it as I suggested you might have a different take on it.You would also have gleaned that we were talking about two different things and that is why your post sounds so confused.Anyway just so you don't feel that you've wasted your time a few points for you to rip to shreds later.
So you don't do Wikipedia, how awfully clever of you. As I said in the thread Wiki is often used as a simple, handy way to refer to commonly known things. It may surprise you to know that conspiracy theories and the bilderburg theory are common knowledge. Your statement about wiki is nothing more than showboating, or to try and reach your lofty heights, academic snobbery.Representative democracy blah, blah, blah I told you I would happily discuss that with you,start another thread. It might be a short one though because I might just agree with you. ( note 'just'). Your experience of consensus does not change its definition.As for the question I asked about the bilderburg theory being paranoia..read the post again.The truth about them is irrelevant.We don't know what they talk about, its a secret.They could be swopping recipes for all we know. I'll put the question another way for you..
Just because the schoolgirls at the back of the bus are giggling it doesn't mean they are laughing at your haircut..thinking that is paranoid..is it not?.Before you consult one of the many respected medical journals you subscribe to I am using the ordinary, everyday definition of paranoid.As I said in the post..see point 1.

[rhonda15]

spare us your psychobabble - this is real - this is happening

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxiWFB7uaZI"]YouTube- Hannity, Morris Agree with Conspiracy People About New World Order[/ame]

[Roland The Gunslinger]

spare us your psychobabble - this is real - this is happening

YouTube- Hannity, Morris Agree with Conspiracy People About New World Order

It's not true,they have gotten to Hannity

Yeah Hannity,all those people you and Bill O were calling nut jobs,crazy and pin heads,were telling the truth...oops

[The Red Pill]

Hello Kiwi,

You asked me how this "consensus" is achieved and I promised I would answer you. I cannot say for sure but here is my hypothesis -

The genesis of the "consensus" I speak of begins with the over-arching influence of organisations like the UN,UNESCO, the W.H.O, The IPPC and The World Bank. The think tanks have a role in formulating and steering the "consensus". The diktats and received wisdoms of the "consensus" are passed down to the so called "trade blocs" and from there to the political establishment at national level. Family foundations such as the Rockefeller Foundation play a social engineering role, conditioning society to accept and participate in the "consensus". They do this through their funding of, and subsequent influence over social charities, rights based lobby groups, and educational/research establishments. The media also plays a major social engineering role.This is made easier by the fact more and more of the world's media is coming under the control of a relatively small number of corporations. Other general corporate interests have a role . I believe that the secret fraternal societies such as the Freemasons and The knights of Columbanus are also involved.

The political system itself, militates against real political discourse and real political diversity. The people who enter politics are generally well-to-do, private school educated: barristers, lawyers,accountants and economists, thus insuring that the political system is populated by a very limited spectrum of people with a rarefied, cynical and elitist view of the world. This quite homogeneous group of people have to operate within the straight-jacket of party politics and it's "whip" system.The net result is that very few real idealists or nonconformists enter the political system and those that do, either become neutered of these qualities or they give up through failure or disillusionment.

I am well aware that the word consensus means "general agreement" but, in my opinion, the social and political consensus of which I speak, is far from general.The vast majority of people do not have any say in this "consensus". The "general agreement" is reached between a very small number of rich and powerful people. This "consensus" then becomes a set of diktats which are imposed (one way or another) upon the majority.

France 34 NZ 10

[The Red Pill]

Come on now Pill, only dropped in to do some cut and paste and I find this. It does in fact say where I'm coming from. The thread revolved around two ideas remember and they both got mixed up.

I think you are the one who is mixed up. You should stop smoking that weed. When you smoke it makes you think and when you think you get confused. I have also heard that it makes people paranoid.

We were talking about the whole 'conspiracy theory' craic and the particular 'one world govt.' one. First of all it doesn't matter if I think its nice or not I am only saying that it is my opinion that it is the logical conclusion.

In the context of this discussion and your participation in it, it does matter if you think it's nice because you keep mocking and criticising people for holding the view that it is not nice. It seems to matter to you that other people hold this view. You are not simply saying that it is a logical conclusion. You have said numerous things which suggest that you have positive view of one-world-government and that you envisage a much more benign future than the "conspiracy theorists". You have speculated that a O.W.G would stop conflict. You have expressed an inability to understand why I fear it. You have called others who fear it "doomsayers". Your obvious opposition to anyone who is negative about O.W.G suggests that you hold a positive view and you are busy ducking and diving in effort to avoid having to explain why you hold this view.

extrapolation..for want of a better word..its late, I'm stoned. Evolution is not what I call it , Darwin came up with the concept and the word (I could be wrong) I don't know who applied it to society..social evolution..but its a valid description of societal progress..isn't it?..

Darwin first introduced his theory of evolution to the world in his book which is now known as "The Origin of Species". The full title, which for some reason, has been censored these days, is "the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."

"The preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life".

Sounds a bit dubious and dangerous to me. How about you? Are you an advocate of racism and Eugenics? Wasn't Hitler into that kind of stuff?

You mention "societal progress". By this do you mean: Overcrowded polluted cities, rampant consumerism, wholesale environmental destruction and the ever increasing disconnect between humans and the natural world which sustains them. Perhaps you are talking about sweatshops, child labour, bio-weapons or the arms industry. Maybe you mean the cancer-like, dumbed down, celebrity obsessed culture which constantly seeks to find a new lowest common denominator. Are you talking about childhood obesity or the sexualisation of children? Maybe you are talking about widespread addiction to drugs (legal and illegal) or gross economic inequalities.

I know you're tempted to argue that these are all arguments in favour of a O.W.G . If you are going to do that, then you will have to describe the nature of this O.W.G, who will manage it and how you know that the O.W.G you envisage is going to be the one that the "natural" process of evolution is going to produce.

what the bizzo about me Ma has to do with it is beyond me.

Let me explain it to you. You call those who fear one-world-government "doomsayers". This implies that you hold a more positive view of one-world-government. You have expressed an inablitiy to understand why I fear it. This, again, implies that you believe it to be benign. You seem to base this belief on another belief that one-world-government is part of an evolutionary process. You seem to be implying that it is part of an evolutionary process simply because it is happening and everything that happens is part of an evolutionary process. You seem to be putting forward this entire hypothesis as an argument as to why we should all embrace one-world-government.

So I'll ask you again. If someone kidnapped your mother, phoned you and told you they were going to torture her until she dies, would your reaction be to say "well, this is happening and anything that is happening is part of an evolutionary process and you can't argue with evolution so I must embrace what is going to happen to my mother"?

Why don't you clarify for me by giving me a straight answer to the following question.

Do you believe that one-world-government is part of an evolutionary process simply because it is happening?

[long-gone-kiwi]

Good evening Pill. Thanks for the tips last night if you didn't catch the reply last night. Your instructions were bang on and I had a play around and sussed it out . I gave your reply a quick read and will work on it properly and get back.Big day tomorrow. This is getting very convoluted due to the number a size of these posts and my drug adled brain is redlining. You wonder though why I think you might think you are a bit paranoid when you keep filling your posts with the same armaggedon scenarios. Some of the ideas in your last post are teetering on the edge man. If you look back over my last few posts yyou will see time and time again that I dont think the future will be nice or horrendous.. I dont know and it is irrelevant to what I'm saying. Read back and what I am trying to tell you. I see it as a natural progression. You are concentrating on the wrong things. You don't have to come up with mad stories about evolution or Darwin, eugenics whatever. Can you not see that the mechanism, the concept of evolution is applied to many things these days. Its like a generic term almost. Music and art and laws and software. Forget about strict biological evolution. I wish I hadn't said, try natural progression if that suits you better. We only differ on a very small point, but both sides have very different outcomes. Yours is dystopia mine is unknown. We are working on different time scales as well I think.

Now, as for 34-10 was it? If France beat the ALL BLACKS on saturday night I will post a reply on every thread declaring your brilliance and my feeblemindedness in comparison.

If I were you I would be more worried about what the Boks are going to do to you Bro..remember that team has beaten the ALL BLACKS 3 times this year, a feat few have ever achieved. not the Irish anyway never..ever

[Tyler Durden]

Good morning Tyler. Sorry ,where I come from dumb ass isn't really name calling, but I should have considered that you might be a sensitive wee soul so I shall refrain in future.

Ah, so you confused politics.ie for politics.nz? It has nothing to do with being a sensitive soul, it has to do with name-calling being the mark of someone who can't engage in debate.

Your post is exactly the same as the first one and you have made the same mistake. The post that you replied to is days old, was going on over a day or so and I was talking to two or three people.

Do your posts come with use-by dates? Is there an unwritten law against replying to posts over a day old? Does your opinion change from day to day?

So you don't do Wikipedia, how awfully clever of you. As I said in the thread Wiki is often used as a simple, handy way to refer to commonly known things. It may surprise you to know that conspiracy theories and the bilderburg theory are common knowledge.

Which conspiracy theories are common knowledge? Enlighten me. What is the bilderburg theory?

Your statement about wiki is nothing more than showboating, or to try and reach your lofty heights, academic snobbery.

If that's what you want to think, I'm not going to stop you.

Representative democracy blah, blah, blah I told you I would happily discuss that with you,start another thread.

I'd rather discuss it in the context of this thread, if that's ok with you. It is not off-topic here.

Your experience of consensus does not change its definition.

I wasn't trying to change its definition, I was debating the usefulness of its end product.

As for the question I asked about the bilderburg theory being paranoia..read the post again.The truth about them is irrelevant.We don't know what they talk about, its a secret.They could be swopping recipes for all we know. I'll put the question another way for you.

Ok, so perhaps your theory is that they are swapping recipes. My belief is that they are more likely to be carving up the world and consolidating their power. What makes my theory any less valid than yours?

Just because the schoolgirls at the back of the bus are giggling it doesn't mean [they are laughing at your haircut..thinking that is paranoid..is it not?

Perhaps you are speaking from personal experience here. Not having been in this particular situation, it isn't particularly relevant to me. In any event, to compare the proceedings at meetings of the most powerful people in the world with those girls at the back the bus who laughed at you is simply ludicrous in the extreme.

[long-gone-kiwi]

Hey Pill

I should mention that I have dual citizenship and am a loyal Ireland supporter, except when they play the mighty ALL BLACKS. Having said that though after being here so long if Ireland did ever beat them I think I could manage a wee smile, only a fleeting grin way down inside. It is a big pity that they are not playing this year because the mighty ALL BLACKS are on a low and the Paddies have a great team at the moment. I hope Johnathan Sexton gets a run against a real team this weekend and does well. He is a star for the future

[long-gone-kiwi]

Ah, so you confused politics.ie for politics.nz? It has nothing to do with being a sensitive soul, it has to do with name-calling being the mark of someone who can't engage in debate.


Do your posts come with use-by dates? Is there an unwritten law against replying to posts over a day old?


Which conspiracy theories are common knowledge? Enlighten me. What is the bilderburg theory?


If that's what you want to think, I'm not going to stop you.


I'd rather discuss it in the context of this thread, if that's ok with you. It is not off-topic here.


I wasn't trying to change its definition, I was debating the usefulness of its end product.


Ok, so your theory is that they are swapping recipes. Mine belief is that they are more likely to be carving up the world and consolidating their power. What makes my theory any less valid than yours?


Perhaps you are speaking from personal experience here. Not having been in this particular situation, it isn't particularly relevant to me.

Blah blah blah same stuff again, forget it man

[Tyler Durden]

Blah blah blah same stuff again, forget it man

So you have no answers to any of the questions I have asked, is that what you are saying? You appear to be very good at firing disparaging barbs at others (Red Pill, Roland, Rhonda and Prester Jim for instance) and demanding that they answer your questions, but when it comes to doing so yourself you consistently fail, much like the All Blacks at the World Cup.
You have yet to score a try let alone a conversion.