EU President Announces New Taxes at Bilderberg Meeting

[mryoungdan]

Really, who can take you seriousely

Are you one of those who blathers about Endgame.

How could anyone not know about the Bilderbergs

[long-gone-kiwi]

Quote:
"I must admit I didn't get this from reading The Republic It seems to me that Plato was saying it ain't gonna happen unless you have control of everything and make it happen (the Cave)and it seems to me
( from reading posts here and looking around me) that there is a virtual cave with digital shadows so the control grid is almost in place !"
[COLOR="Sienna"]
Plato's ideal society, his Kallipolis, is an oligarcy, that is what I meant. It required ,among other things, that the phliosopher kings and the guardians have no family and no private property. In the end he realises that is unobtainable and advises us to seek the Kallipolis in ourselves. We all have reason in the soul (philosophers),passion in the soul (guardians and soldiers) and appetites in the soul (artisans and farmers) all that craic. Not important really because I only meant to say that the quote Roland put up sounds like Plato's philosopher kings and if Rockefeller was making that analogy he would be aware of the rest of his ideas.[/COLOR]

Quote:
I haven't read this piece , but I do intend to now that I'm aware of it . My limited understanding of it is that Niccolo posits that political freedom is enhanced by instability and undermined by stability.( though I'm open to correction) It seems to me that the "Stability " provided by a Single world "Governance " system would probably eliminate political freedom . and other freedoms would follow.

[COLOR="Sienna"]The Prince wasn't Machiavelli's last word on statecraft. He was first and foremost (imo) an historian, and a very good one at that. I mentioned Discorses on Livy because it so brilliantly outlines how and why any attempt to install any kind of govt. other than a Republic with strict separation of powers is doomed to fail[/COLOR].

Quote:
"then you clearly have not been paying attention (or you have, and you are in fact a Marxist )
As Spark's points out it is not surprising that the wealthy should collude and plan to cement their position. It's called Capitalism. I'm not sure Who Sparks is but what you just described can be attained though "Capitalism " with much planning and hard work. but could be much easier easily achieved through complete indoctrination (The cave) Central Control (Communistic) one world government .
So! you are either an idiot who copies an pastes from the web or you are a creeping Fabian Socialist . be honest now ,which ?

[COLOR="Sienna"]Not a Marxist ItchyandSratchy a pragmatist. I try to avoid getting to lost in ideology, blocks you from being able to take on new ideas and using the good bits of everything, does that make me a conservative..oh dear, will worry about that another day.
You appear to be another one that wants to project your insecurities into the future. Why would a single world govt. necessarily restrict political freedom any more than a single state one does? I have never put forward any conclusions about what form it might take simply because we are discussing something that has no precedent. I have only suggested that it has the potential to end confict, I used the example of the Pax Romana in one post. As for Sparks he is the guy quoted in a BBC article I linked to. Very interesting man who has written alot about conspiracy theories. Here is a link where he talks about the new world order one in particlular.[/COLOR]

The age of anxiety: conspiracy ... - Google Books
[COLOR="Sienna"]
Your last sentence reminds me of another post I replied to in a rather scathing manner, you even use the same words. You too appear to be unable to conceive of more than two alternatives[/COLOR].

[The Red Pill]

1..Yes click on and read the link..its not me telling you its the Australian Attorney General
2..Yes click on and read the link..its not me telling you its the Australian Attorney General.
4..Irrelevant read BBC link..quotes from people who attend meetings

You are doing it again! I ask you a question and you try to fob me off with something you have copied and pasted from the internet. If I copied and pasted something from the David Icke website which said that the world is run by humanoid reptiles would that make it true? Would you say to yourself: "Well, the guy who posted this said that the David Icke website is a credible source so it must be true"? So, why should I believe anything the Austrailian Attorney General says? Why should I believe anything that is broadcast by the Biased Broadcasting Corporation?

Why should I believe anything when it goes against my better judgement and the evidence of my own eyes,especially when it is something that is being said about "the establishment" by someone with a vested interest in "the establishment". Surely you've got better arguments than "well this guy says it's true (see link)" or "go to your room and play. The adults are talking". Are you really that much of a cretin? You actually have the audacity to slag other people off because they chose to think for themselves??!!!

By the way, on the subject of the BBC. Successive British Governments have persued,with an evangelical zeal,the policy of privatizating everything, for over two decades now.Have you ever wondered why there has never been any political will (from any quarter) to privatize the BBC? Could it perhaps be because they want to keep it under their control as a major component of their public-service broadc.... (sorry) propoganda machine?

You claim that parliamentary privilege is, in reality, intended to facilitate honesty, truth and openess in parliamentary discourse. You claim that the reason for the secrecy of the bilderberg meetings is the same as that of parliamentary privilege. You claim that representative democracy is, in reality, representative.You make all of these claims yet you are incapable of putting forward arguments to support them. This would be all very well if you did not slag other people off and demand that they do what you are incapable of doing. This hypocracy is compounded my your smugness and tone of superiority.

3..I don't obviously..neither do you, its secret..thats why its a conspiracy theory not a conspiracy..simple..logical..stretch your mind

Stretch your mind! Yeah, too much dope has obviously made your mind way too malleable.

Let me re-phrase the question for you.

You contend that the Bilderberg meetings are shrouded in secrecy in order to facilitate honesty,truth and openness. If this is true, do you think it is quite plausible, given that we are talking about the rich and powerful, that what they are being honest,truthful and open about are plans which may be quite sinister in terms of their effect on the rest of us, who are being kept in the dark?

If not, why not?

.if you are right why did Devalera put it in the constitution.?.why is it in the american constitution written to specifically to curtail the power of govt.?.like I said easy..stretch your mind

I presume you are talking about privilege. Perhaps it's in the constitution for exactly the resaons I have already suggested. There is certainly nothing to stop it being used to in this way. Given the coniving,ruthless and dishonest nature of politicians, it's the more likely reason.As for the American constitution - I'm not sure exactly what text you are refering to when you talk about it being "written to specifically to curtail the power of govt", but just because something is written down as being intended for a particular purpose, it does not mean that it can't be twisted to be used for an entirely different purpose, if there is the will to do so. It certainly didn't stop G. W. Bush from riding roughshod over both the constitution and the American people.


Well done the All Blacks! Humble pie has been consumed!

[The Red Pill]

[B]You appear to be another one that wants to project
your insecurities into the future.

Hey freud!

This arrogant, presumptious and unfounded statement has reminded me of something I asked of you which, surprise surprise, you chose to sidestep. In an earlier post you said the following about conspiracy theories and theorists:

"They are a convenient crutch for people who want to blame some force, over which they have no control, for their own shortcomings and perceived injustices."

I asked you to expand on this hypothesis. But, as usual, you could not. I'll ask you to do so again and, while your at it, answer these question.

Do you base the above statements (in italics) on extensive personal experience of a number of conspiracy theorists whom you have gotten know very well?


If so, please give details of their shortcomings and percieved injustices.

As for Sparks he is the guy quoted in a BBC article I linked to. Very interesting man who has written alot about conspiracy theories. Here is a link where he talks about the new world order one in particlular.

Thats funny! I did not know that the New World Order was a conspiracy theory! The term New World Order is a term which has passed the lips of Bushes 1&2, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown amongst others.

Are they conspiracy theorists?

What do you think they mean when they talk about a New World Order?

[The Red Pill]

God this thread is a scream, full of paranoia, nonsense, incoherent ramblings, irrelevant points, and zany conspiracy theorist garbage. All that's missing is some ramblings about lizards and it would have a full house of conspiracy fantasties in one.

God this post is a hoot! Full of the usual dismissive cliches and short on reasoned argument.As usual, the unthinking sheeple are the first to mention Lizards! You cretins are obsessed with them. I think you envy their intelligence. I challenge you to go through the posts of people on this website whom you deem to be conspiracy theorists and see how often reptiles or lizards are mentioned.While your at it, do the same for posts by idiots like you.

[Itchy ClickFinger]

Plato's ideal society, his Kalli polis, is an oligarcy, that is what I meant. It required ,among other things, that the phliosopher kings and the guardians have no family and no private property.In the end he realises that is unobtainable and advises us to seek the Kallipolis in ourselves. We all have reason in the soul (philosophers),passion in the soul (guardians and soldiers) and appetites in the soul (artisans and farmers) all that craic. Not important really because I only meant to say that the quote Roland put up sounds like Plato's philosopher kings and if Rockefeller was making that analogy he would be aware of the rest of his ideas.

I imagine that (unlike you) Mr Rockefeller can think for himself and though he may be aware of all of Platos Ideas He may just have a few "ideas" of his own.As the Kallipolis model is a City state rather than a Global state and as Plato's ideas were formed in 380 B.C and not 2009, I think the rest of your Blather here is irrelevant .

The Prince wasn't Machiavelli's last word on statecraft. He was first and foremost (imo) an historian, and a very good one at that. I mentioned Discorses on Livy because it so brilliantly outlines how and why any attempt to install any kind of govt. other than a Republic with strict separation of powers is doomed to fail.

Again Machiavelli's opinion pertaining to City States in 1517 . Interesting, but not your opinion and not particularly relevant.
Even if Machiavelli's assertions were 100% correct and still held water in 2009 ("doomed to fail") There is no reason why someone wouldn't try anyway.

Not a Marxist ItchyandSratchy a pragmatist. I try to avoid getting to lost in ideology, blocks you from being able to take on new ideas and using the good bits of everything, does that make me a conservative..oh dear, will worry about that another day.

Lost in Ideology lol Ignoring the possible end results makes you seem more than a little Blinkered (Do Kiwis bury their heads in the sand ?)

You appear to be another one that wants to project your insecurities into the future.

Meaningless

Why would a single world govt. necessarily restrict political freedom any more than a single state one does?

If we start from your admission that a Single state Government does restrict political freedom, then it is not unreasonable to posit that a larger more powerful entity,which is less in touch with the populace, may seek to( and be effective in) restricting freedom even more.
Should such a government become Corrupt or Tyrannical, I can see no refuge for its victims ,can you ?

I have only suggested that it has the potential to end confict,
I used the example of the Pax Romana in one post

It has no potential to end conflict A World state needs to have everyone on side and (as this thread proves) there will always be people who will have no part of it (unless the whole population is brainwashed) . either you let them go their own way( and watch the state dissolve slowly) or you use violence to force compliance .
the second option will lead to more dissent and more violence et cetera.
I'm sure Pax Romana was Idyllic for the ruling classes but I'm not so sure about anyone who didn't like the Empire. also there were a few major civil wars during the "Pax" Period which I'm sure were less than peaceful, and this period led to the eventual stagnation and fall of the empire.....so that worked out well!

As for Sparks he is the guy quoted in a BBC article I linked to. Very interesting man who has written alot about conspiracy theories. Here is a link where he talks about the new world order one in particlular.

very interesting The man from the British Brainwashing Corporation ...Well Well! no wonder you have no thoughts of your own.
Of course Aunty Beeb only wants whats best for the kiddies.
So far you have told me the thoughts of Plato ,Machiavelli,Edward Gibbon.and Mr Sparx from BBC.apart from childish jibes heres your contribution

Your last sentence reminds me of another post I replied to in a rather scathing manner, you even use the same words. You too appear to be unable to conceive of more than two alternatives

A Scathing manner eh ? Should I consider my self scathed then ? Ouch !
Strange though, I don't recall, I may or may not have used the same words, if I did it indicates that my opinion hasn't altered and that I don't feel the need to constantly rephrase things to prove how clever I am.If you can find the transgressing post and you can link to it here I will apologize using at least three alternative wordings.

The Open Conspiracy - Blueprint For World Revolution (1925)

[The Red Pill]

Be careful Itchy! If you get kiwi-boy angry, he might start slapping his thighs and and sticking his tongue out at you.

[ibis]

So did people grasp the fact that new taxes had not, in fact, been announced, and that all that happened was that the new holder of a position with no taxation powers had expressed a preference for them?

[Itchy ClickFinger]

So did people grasp the fact that new taxes had not, in fact, been announced, and that all that happened was that the new holder of a position with no taxation powers had expressed a preference for them?

Yes I got that thanks.But the Fabian and incremental style with which this institution operates leads me to believe that this is a signal that these taxes have already been decided upon and are on the way. Wait and see what happens over the next few weeks and months.

[SilverSpurs]

So did people grasp the fact that new taxes had not, in fact, been announced, and that all that happened was that the new holder of a position with no taxation powers had expressed a preference for them?

If the chairman of the most important committee in an organisation calls for something i think there is a decent chance its on the agenda. The EU has us by the balls with the ECB loan guarantee so i dont trust clowen to veto it.