The coming "crisis" and American totalitarianism

[cHeal]

Well straight away it's important to remove the phrase "conspiracy Theory" from the debate, it's far too loaded and has connotations which do not make for balanced debate. As already stated the push for further global governance is not a conspiracy theory in the same way the 9/11 truth is a conspiracy theory, rather it is an accusation of intent to mislead and manipulate the citizens of the world.

Even if one was to believe that what the CFR and Bulderberg group do is for the greater good, the fact that their is no public consultation and education of the reasons and results of their policy objectives makes it a usurption of democratic rule.

World government is inevitable but do we want a world where there is truly freedom, a world without borders or war because we no longer want to go to war? Or do we want a world where we the people are kept occupied by shiny gadgets, where there is no such thing as people, but only consumers, with a bar code and price tag?


At the end of the day the elected representatives of this, or any country are rarely any more qualified to theorise on what is best for man, than the average joe on the street, And if we are to presume that the EU is a precursor to a tangible form of world government then surely it is thus evident that such extended democratic rule is far more susceptible to elitism and corruption? And since all politics is local, can we really expect the democratic check on such behaviour to function when their actions rarely have any direct effect on the citizens they represent?

[Thac0man]

Well straight away it's important to remove the phrase "conspiracy Theory" from the debate, it's far too loaded and has connotations which do not make for balanced debate. As already stated the push for further global governance is not a conspiracy theory in the same way the 9/11 truth is a conspiracy theory, rather it is an accusation of intent to mislead and manipulate the citizens of the world.

Even if one was to believe that what the CFR and Bulderberg group do is for the greater good, the fact that their is no public consultation and education of the reasons and results of their policy objectives makes it a usurption of democratic rule.

World government is inevitable but do we want a world where there is truly freedom, a world without borders or war because we no longer want to go to war? Or do we want a world where we the people are kept occupied by shiny gadgets, where there is no such thing as people, but only consumers, with a bar code and price tag?


At the end of the day the elected representatives of this, or any country are rarely any more qualified to theorise on what is best for man, than the average joe on the street, And if we are to presume that the EU is a precursor to a tangible form of world government then surely it is thus evident that such extended democratic rule is far more susceptible to elitism and corruption? And since all politics is local, can we really expect the democratic check on such behaviour to function when their actions rarely have any direct effect on the citizens they represent?

The part I highlighted there is part of the problem. The absence of consultation is not evidance of malice or indeed malintent, as is being claimed. The inclinataion by some is to claim that an absence of evidance is in itself evidance, and come up with any number of associated theories that that evidance then supports. Clearly flawed logic.

The value of Bilderburg meetings is that influential people can meet and discuss serious issues in an informal atmosphere, and hopefully find common ground, without said issues being subject to pointless political wrangling, speculative and misleading media analysis and opportunism.

The evidance of increased co-operation in the west at least is all around us, for those who care to look. Serious political issues that crop up in the West do not become issues where national prestige is on the line and one side or the other must win at all costs. It might be news to some people, but that scenario is the reality of the economic and poltical world and has in the past led to serious conflicts and even wars over relatively minor issues. Instead a common ground is found and compromise is usually the preferred method or progressing a cause - not all or nothing engagement.

Now another issue that I have highlighted in your post is in italics (third paragraph). The fundemental contradiction in that statement is startling. A world without borders? In this very thread the phrase has been parsed to mean loss of sovereignty. A Europe without borders does not mean loss of physical border demarcations or indeed soverignty, and no one wants a world without borders. I yet to hear anyone (sane) make a claim that such a thing is even desirable. So a circular arguement, based on nothing, becomes a self fulfiling conspiracy theory, and not a scintilla of evidance to back it up.

All in all people over estimate the influence of the Bilderburg group because it is not a group, as in a unified entity. Therefore it cannot act as a group. The very nature of what the Bilderburg group is, is being twisted or misunderstood.

If there was a world government in the offing don't people think Putin or Chavez would be at these meetings? They who control the flow of oil to all the crucial Western economies? Or the leadership or a representitive of them from Iran? At no time in the forseeable future is the West ever going to control the worlds oil reserves so why is OPEC not calling the shots at these Bilderburg meetings? Because any of the afore mentioned would not leap at the chance of getting in on a world government because they are such upstanding and moral characters? Please.

Those who cannot accept the paradox at the heart of democracy and indeed freedom will always seek to find other ways to explain events that surround them. But utlimitely even of they skate over the very human facts that affect all our lives, the holes in the resulting 'world government theory' are just too huge to reconsile with reality.

[Lthse]

If there was a world government in the offing don't people think Putin or Chavez would be at these meetings? They who control the flow of oil to all the crucial Western economies? Or the leadership or a representitive of them from Iran? At no time in the forseeable future is the West ever going to control the worlds oil reserves so why is OPEC not calling the shots at these Bilderburg meetings? Because any of the afore mentioned would not leap at the chance of getting in on a world government because they are such upstanding and moral characters? Please.

How come oil is now $50 a barrel and how come I could have told you A YEAR AGO that this would happen?

[Thac0man]

How come oil is now $50 a barrel and how come I could have told you A YEAR AGO that this would happen?

It is $50 dollors a barrel because of the global credit crunch. Read a newspaper.

Tell me, did you learn this skill or were you born with the awesome power of hindsight?

Either way I assume you made a forture speculating that the price of oil would indeed plunge from unsustainable levels. No? Or do you believe that you alone predicted that eventually the bubble would burst?

[cHeal]

The part I highlighted there is part of the problem. The absence of consultation is not evidance of malice or indeed malintent, as is being claimed. The inclinataion by some is to claim that an absence of evidance is in itself evidance, and come up with any number of associated theories that that evidance then supports. Clearly flawed logic.

The value of Bilderburg meetings is that influential people can meet and discuss serious issues in an informal atmosphere, and hopefully find common ground, without said issues being subject to pointless political wrangling, speculative and misleading media analysis and opportunism.

The evidance of increased co-operation in the west at least is all around us, for those who care to look. Serious political issues that crop up in the West do not become issues where national prestige is on the line and one side or the other must win at all costs. It might be news to some people, but that scenario is the reality of the economic and poltical world and has in the past led to serious conflicts and even wars over relatively minor issues. Instead a common ground is found and compromise is usually the preferred method or progressing a cause - not all or nothing engagement.

Now another issue that I have highlighted in your post is in italics (third paragraph). The fundemental contradiction in that statement is startling. A world without borders? In this very thread the phrase has been parsed to mean loss of sovereignty. A Europe without borders does not mean loss of physical border demarcations or indeed soverignty, and no one wants a world without borders. I yet to hear anyone (sane) make a claim that such a thing is even desirable. So a circular arguement, based on nothing, becomes a self fulfiling conspiracy theory, and not a scintilla of evidance to back it up.

All in all people over estimate the influence of the Bilderburg group because it is not a group, as in a unified entity. Therefore it cannot act as a group. The very nature of what the Bilderburg group is, is being twisted or misunderstood.

If there was a world government in the offing don't people think Putin or Chavez would be at these meetings? They who control the flow of oil to all the crucial Western economies? Or the leadership or a representitive of them from Iran? At no time in the forseeable future is the West ever going to control the worlds oil reserves so why is OPEC not calling the shots at these Bilderburg meetings? Because any of the afore mentioned would not leap at the chance of getting in on a world government because they are such upstanding and moral characters? Please.

Those who cannot accept the paradox at the heart of democracy and indeed freedom will always seek to find other ways to explain events that surround them. But utlimitely even of they skate over the very human facts that affect all our lives, the holes in the resulting 'world government theory' are just too huge to reconsile with reality.

Emboldened: Without any public consultation there can be no value attributed to the Bilderberg meetings because we do not know what is discussed there? The very fact that these powerful people are in discussions, in secret, is cause enough for concern because it is a flagrant undermining of democracy because we know that politicans from our country, as well as those from many others attend these meetings. It should be illegal for any public representative to gain office or public service having engaged in a meeting such as this, not in an officially capacity, and with foreign governmental assistance.


Italics: I hope that one day there will be a world without borders, but I hope that this day also sees the abolishion government as we know it, democracy as it is currently practised and all forms of authoritarianism, but I'm an Anarchist, so I would hope this.

However to deal with your actually point, I was actually drawing the comparison between what world governance could be, i.e. by choice and what it will more likely be, i.e. established through ignorance, a world without borders referred more to an anarchic system than to that of world government. Of course borders will survive world government, just as Ireland, under one government still has borders. It is a fundamental truism that any plans for world government will require the loss of individual national soveriegnty, there is no way around this.

I find your thrust in government and those who attend the Bilderberg meetings to do good mildly amusing.

[Lthse]

It is $50 dollors a barrel because of the global credit crunch. Read a newspaper.

Tell me, did you learn this skill or were you born with the awesome power of hindsight?

Either way I assume you made a forture speculating that the price of oil would indeed plunge from unsustainable levels. No? Or do you believe that you alone predicted that eventually the bubble would burst?

Really, when did the credit crunch start? Was it a year ago? Weren't we told the high price of oil was because of China and the emerging economies?

And no, I don't have any awesome powers I just listen to people who know what's going on in the world.

I also have some 'predictions' for 2009 but I guess you don't want to hear them because you already know as you are such an intellect.

[Thac0man]

Emboldened: Without any public consultation there can be no value attributed to the Bilderberg meetings because we do not know what is discussed there? The very fact that these powerful people are in discussions, in secret, is cause enough for concern because it is a flagrant undermining of democracy because we know that politicans from our country, as well as those from many others attend these meetings. It should be illegal for any public representative to gain office or public service having engaged in a meeting such as this, not in an officially capacity, and with foreign governmental assistance.


Italics: I hope that one day there will be a world without borders, but I hope that this day also sees the abolishion government as we know it, democracy as it is currently practised and all forms of authoritarianism, but I'm an Anarchist, so I would hope this.

However to deal with your actually point, I was actually drawing the comparison between what world governance could be, i.e. by choice and what it will more likely be, i.e. established through ignorance, a world without borders referred more to an anarchic system than to that of world government. Of course borders will survive world government, just as Ireland, under one government still has borders. It is a fundamental truism that any plans for world government will require the loss of individual national soveriegnty, there is no way around this.

I find your thrust in government and those who attend the Bilderberg meetings to do good mildly amusing.

Thankyou cHeal. Now you have made it clear your world view is indeed irreconcilable with democracy I can dismiss most of your opinions about democracies and the shakey premise you base those opinions on.

I do not attribute good to the Bilderburg group, I don't have to, but see no reason to attribute malice - that I made clear. I precieve a value in people, particularly politicians, being able to discuss topics in detail that promotes understanding before such issues become a source of misinterpretation (like your beliefs about the Bilderburg Group). That I also made clear in my post, but you choose to ignore, or seem in fact not to have read it.

As for your opinions about politicians, this and that should be illegal etc, as you put no credance, and I assume do not participate in mainstream politics, your opinions are without any value what so ever. You are politically persona non grata, by your own choice. Your opinions carry no responsibilty and hence no consequence. how cosy. In short your beliefs are a cop out and any responce you get from me is an indulgance. Enjoy it while it lasts.

[Thac0man]

Really, when did the credit crunch start? Was it a year ago? Weren't we told the high price of oil was because of China and the emerging economies?

And no, I don't have any awesome powers I just listen to people who know what's going on in the world.

I also have some 'predictions' for 2009 but I guess you don't want to hear them because you already know as you are such an intellect.

These emerging economies that have laid off hundreds of thousands of workers? You mean like China which saw a staggering number of firms go to the wall this year? (as of Nov 86,000 firms!). You mean those economies whose growth forceasts have been slashed to a fraction of what they were last year? Those ones whose predicted demand for oil has plummeted and drastically affected the price of oil? Those ones?

Its not rocket science mate, at least to the rest of us.

[Almanac]

The idea of some form of 'world government' has been around for a long time.
It is implicit in some Greek and Roman philosophers who promoted the notion of government by an an enlightened rational elite. Plato, for one, did not disguise his contempt for so-called 'democracies', in which the people supposedly determine key decisions, but are actually devoid of the necessary knowledge and understanding, and are, consequently, wide open to manipulation by all manner of political hucksters.

In the modern period, the idea gained momentum in the aftermath of European colonial expansion. In the 17th century, thinkers like Hugo Grotius advocated the need for some form on 'international law', in order to, among other things, protect the rights of the weak nations against stronger ones.

In the late 18th century, Immanuel Kant wrote a short manifesto called 'Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch', in which he proposes the need for "a Federation of Free States". According to Kant: "there must be a league of a particular kind, which can be called a league of peace (foedus pacificum), and which would be distinguished from a treaty of peace (pactum pacis) by the fact that the latter terminates only one war, while the former seeks to make an end of all wars forever. This league does not tend to any dominion over the power of the state but only to the maintenance and security of the freedom of the state itself and of other states in league with it".

Kant's idea generated much interest throughout the 19th century. Marx and Engels, for example, believed in the need for world revolution, but they pointed out that communist globalism was merely a mirror image of the capitalist logic of global monopoly.

Kant's 'Perpetual Peace' was one of the main inspirations underlying the League of Nations, founded after World War I. The formation of its replacement, the UNO, was agreed by the Allied Powers at a meeting in Teheran in 1943.

So, the notion of 'world government' has a very long history. The role of the Bilderberg Group (or any similar group, of which there are many) in promoting this idea is relatively minor. Observing long-standing cultural, economic and technological trends, it is difficult to see how a gradual move towards some form of global government could not be regarded as inevitable. The only real debate concerns the form.

Good point. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with a world government. The problem is is the form it's going to take and the manner in which it is being constructed.

[Lthse]

These emerging economies that have laid off hundreds of thousands of workers? You mean like China which saw a staggering number of firms go to the wall this year? (as of Nov 86,000 firms!). You mean those economies whose growth forceasts have been slashed to a fraction of what they were last year? Those ones whose predicted demand for oil has plummeted and drastically affected the price of oil? Those ones?

Its not rocket science mate, at least to the rest of us.

Congratulations on showing what a total fool you are, once again you have miserably failed to address a post. I specifically said I could have told you the price of oil would be $50 a barrel a year ago which NO mainstream economist could have predicted. You could have asked me about my 'predictions' for 2009 just to put me on the spot but you have FAILED to do this.

So enjoy your slavery because you fully deserve it!!!