One World Government

But I believe everything you say is just paranoid tripe.

And again with the jews.

 

What about them? They're HUMAN. They DO commit crimes like anybody else.

And right now a very elite, wealthy group of them is up to no good and needs to be routed. Jews or not, these people are DANGEROUS.

If you have a problem with this, that makes you a part of the problem.

Either help or get out of the way.

Your neck is on the line like everybody else's. You're 23. Are you prepared to spend the next 50-60 years of your life under their thumb?

Think about that before you go to bed tonight.


x

 

So, a one world goverment... and Zimbabwe, Iran and North Korea will argee to this?

 

They will be made to comply.

Need I remind you that almost all their imports...come from the west.

You choke off that supply, the people are likely to overthrow their own governments to get it back. This is exactly the kind of pressure that is being applied to Iran.

Are they really the danger we've been told they are, or are they trying to fight this New World Order?

Ahmadinejad makes numerous references to "zionist" Israel in his speeches.

The western media usually omits the word zionist when they report on him.

Why do you think that is?


x

 

Wait... so Iran is actually a benevolent player in the fight against the NWO?

...and they don't hate Jews.... the simply hate Zionists...

Yes, Ahmadinejad is a great humanitarian indeed, out on a noble cause of a second holocaust.

Hell, it's 7 million zionists in Israel... they're zionists, they're not human, they deserve to die after all....

Right?



I hope that you or someone that is close to you faces Islamic extremism a time or two, so that you see how bad it can really get. This goes way beyond global government conspiracies and money. It's more pure than that. It's pure primal hate.

 

lmao @ all of you for serious worries about this

Kind of for that reason ^

Here, xen:

http://www.rotten.com/library/hoaxes/zion-protocols/

Although it could actually come to be, we just might need one more great war. What I see, though, is the lifting of true government in lieu of international corporation. They may be some friction caused by countries against capitalism, but some of the apparently obvious rivals might actually work with it.

You say that as if the OWG conspiracy ideas are as simple as every nation in the world sitting in a conference and signing papers to join as one. That's not quite on the ball.

Either way, replacing a government in any politically unstable country is as simple as giving the local anti-government types nice big guns. You know, until they use them for other purposes.

Even if that doesn't work out:
Are all three of them completely independent nations? What of trade pressure? A government ruled by a crazy enough dictator to oppose the rest of the united countries could come to be, but it would have to be an independent enough country to solve any famine issue on its own, and would have to have an economy that is completely self-sufficient. Odds are that any such country's ruling party would be overthrown by it's people, for any number of reasons. Not to mention the option of invasion by the rest of the united world.

There's been a good handful of successful Hitlers since the original, we really did a good job at "never again". But hey man, if killing 7 million innocent people would put the entire world on the right track for some time to come (unlikely), would it be worth it anyway?

Doesn't their hate arouse a lot of vengeance and hate in you? Break that cycle, hug a suicide bomber sometime (uhh, with his vest off, preferably).

 

No, it would not be worth it. Not by any possible means.

No, it does not. I do hope that every single one of them dies, but I don't think it's hate.

 

The whole agenda for the Middle East is about bringing them into the world governmental system. It has very little to do with oil or anything like that -- that is simply what they would rather have you believe.

Mugabe can easily be done away with once he has served his purpose, and so can Kim Jong Ill.

 

Love?

The way it seems to be going, the Middle East is the ground which the Cold War is being fought on; countries for capitalism, and countries for communism both supply sides of the battle, and install puppet governments, or motivate the actions of existing governments through compensation. The current 'government' of Iraq would be an interesting example; it was installed by the U.S., and must serve U.S. interests to a point. Say, in the next x number of years, it comes to be that Russia is supplying weapons to insurgents to take down the Iraqi government. Would the U.S. be 'forced' to respond if it knew? How would the (international) corporately owned media show the story?

 

No, nothing that simple, I would guess.

Something colder, if anything.

Denser.

 

Ahmadinejad does NOT run Iran. The main danger with him is he belongs to a messianic sect of Islam that's attempting to create circumstances for the arrival of the Mahdi, the Islamic messiah. The people of Iran no more want war with Israel than the people of Israel want war with them. Its the leadership that is failing their respective people. Not the people themselves.

Zionism is moving along this exact same track but in a secular way. The Moshiach is a secular savior rather a divine being. This means that the position is open to anyone who can fill it. Many are trying to, but they're doing it to the benefit of zionism as a supremacist movement rather than an effort to help Jews.

Its not Islamic extremism that worries me. Its Jewish extremism.

I know know you're a young Jewish man concerned for those you love, but to deny that some of your own people are behind much of this trouble is to live in denial. You're an intelligent person. Don't waste that by buying into the hatred that being served to you.

Its primal hate because it has been cultured to be that way. Engineered.

There is a cause and effect to all this. Zionism is the cause. Islamic extremism is the effect. A 100 years ago, it wasn't this way.

If your generation doesn't help put this fire out, it's going to sweep across the entire globe, and its going to hang Jew and Gentile side by side when it does.


x

 

Here, xen:
Quote:
For the record, The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion was proven to be a fake as far back as 1921. That year, a newspaper article in the London Times traced the meat of the book back to a plagiarization of a plagiarization of a work whose original target was Napoleon Bonaparte. The ultimate source, published in 1864, was titled Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavelli et Montesquieu ("Discussions Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu in Hell"). The book was a satirical commentary on Napoleon's insatiable lust for world domination. No Jews whatsoever appear in the story.


I know the Protocols are bogus. I've never read them and never had the desire to. It was tough enough to get through the Bible and the Koran and all the other holy books of the world I've digested years ago.

They are beside the point.

Zionism intends to purge the ME of Islam because they see it as the main stumbling block to their agenda. They are creating circumstances in the world which will cause people there to self destruct as much as possible, thereby relieving them of direct involvement in their deaths.

They hope to initiate WWIII to take out the stragglers. Its no stretch of the imagination to say that a billion people or more could die in this war. The United States will of course come to Israel's "rescue".

It will be the end of life as you now know it. And in the aftermath of this war, the final phase of world domination will begin.

This world government will bring order out of the chaos, but it will do so at a high price to civilization and morality.

Life will be cheap.


x

 

the only reason i wouldn't agree with you is that i don't have the same sense of eventuality about these things. i used to think the public wouldn't allow a move to support israel, but they allowed bush, that's a hell of a test for bending to see how far the rubber necks could go.

 

Certainly nothing is set in concrete here.

Lots of room to manuver, at least for now. But the longer we allow it to infect the world body, the more difficult and dangerous the cure will be.

That much is certain. The key to diffusing zionism is to expose it for what it is rather than what it's portrayed to be.

Once people understand, they will act against it with vigor just like they did the Nazis.

The Germans waited too long. We don't have to.


x

 

I'd have to say "No" on that one.

I'd provide you with some random links so that you think that I actually listened to what you wrote, but I'm not in the mood to look for them.

 

Everywhere is corruption so how can we possible have one good world goverment. Thanks, i had enough of thouse crimes. PEACE

 

What is Rat’s solution?

The only thing he’s ever seemed to promote is a form of right wing nationalistic libertarianism or some kooky type of social Darwinism.

Systems where the elites would be unburdened by taxation or regulation, where they could do as they wish unchecked.

And over the years what has he suggested as the means to counter the elite’s growing power? That people shouldn’t vote, that people shouldn’t organise, that people shouldn’t demonstrate, that people shouldn’t agitate in any way for social or political change. In fact they shouldn’t do anything that might upset the dominance of wealth.

Also whenever someone tries to suggest solutions or propose ideas that could damage the elite’s position, Rat’s very soon there using dubious conspiracy theories to try and discredit it, basically doing all he can to scupper the ideas.

**

To recap

What is known of rats political ideas is that they all would seem to favour the interests of wealth.

Rat does all he can to stop rational discussion of ways to actually counter the interests of wealth.

**

Other than his loud assertion to the contrary is there anything Rat’s rationally set forward that actually hurts the interests of wealth?

 

Xexon

I see you are back on the forum and ‘highlighting’ the same things.

So I might as well ask the same questions you have evaded elsewhere.

What are your solutions, specifically what political policies programmes and actions would you like taken to tackle the threats and problems you claim to highlight.

As became clear in another thread you are very loud and shrill in who you think is to blame, but asked to explain what political ideas or philosophy you would bring to solutions and you become very shy and coy and extremely evasive.

What are you trying to hide?

*

My last post is here -
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=311203&page=34

 

“A handful of men in the richest nations use the global powers they have assumed to tell the rest of the world how to live. This book is an attempt to describe a world run on the principle by which those powerful men claim to govern: the principle of democracy. It is an attempt to replace our Age of Coercion with an Age of Consent."

George Monbiot in his book ‘Age of Consent: A manifesto for a new world order’ argues that what the people of the world should be striving for is a democratically elected world government.

His ideas are basically to democratise international institutions so that for example the heads of the World Bank and IMF would not be appointees of the US and EU, but be democratically chosen.

Here is a review of the book

This is an extremely important book. The biggest single geopolitical issue today is the overweening power of the US in a unipolar world and the problem of how it should be handled by all other nations. No political leader can be said to have satisfactorily resolved this problem.

George Monbiot offers a searchingly rigorous analysis of the sources of American power and presents a package of proposals that would radically redraw the present world order. It is breathtaking in its radicalism, but for anyone who is serious about tackling the current US hegemony, it is difficult to fault the logic.

His basic thesis is that the institutions set up in the past 50 years to run the world in a democratic fashion are in fact deeply undemocratic. The UN General Assembly is dominated by the Security Council's five permanent members, who can veto whatever they don't like. If any attempt is made to remove their dominance, they can veto any attempt to remove their veto.

The International Monetary Fund and World Bank are dominated by the G8 nations, which hold 49% of the votes, though that suggests that if all the other 176 nations voted together, they could still overturn the richest nations. However, all major decisions require an 85% majority, so the US, which alone possesses 17% of the votes, can veto any significant resolution it wishes, even if the resolution is supported by every other single country.

The World Trade Organisation has an aura of democracy in that every nation belonging to it has one vote. However, before a new round of trade talks begins, the agenda is fixed by the "Quad" - the US, EU, Canada and Japan. Together with a small and variable number of poorer countries, they decide all the main business of the new trade round in a series of "Green Room" meetings. The WTO is therefore as exclusive as the UN, with the Green Room acting as the WTO's Security Council and the Quad its permanent membership.

The consequences of this system are clear for all to see. The US goes to war with Iraq without a second resolution in the Security Council, defying three of its per manent members and most of its temporary members.

The World Bank and IMF have become the bailiffs of the world economy, putting the whole burden of maintaining the balance of international trade on the poorest debtor nations. Sub-Saharan Africa paid twice the sum of its total debt in the form of interest between 1980 and 1996, yet still ended up owing three times more in 1996 than it did in 1980.

Equally, the WTO enforces free trade on weaker nations according to rules with which the richer countries, especially the US, do not comply. Debtor nations are required to remove barriers to trade and capital flows, to liberalise their banking systems, reduce government spending on everything except debt repayments, and privatise assets for sale to foreign investors. By contrast, the US, after the so-called Doha development round in 2001 aimed to liberalise trade and increase access to western markets, raised farm subsidies to its own farmers by 80%, thus massively cutting world prices and bankrupting tens of millions of farmers in the poor world.

Monbiot's solution to this behemoth of growing world inequality in wealth and power is not tinkering with the existing institutions but replacing them wholesale. The key to his proposals is a return to the brilliant innovative insight of John Maynard Keynes in 1943 in preparation for the Bretton Woods conference, which determined the postwar international economic architecture that has prevailed ever since.

Keynes's idea was a new global bank called the International Clearing Union (ICU) with its own currency, the bancor. Every country would have an overdraft facility in its bancor account no more than half the average value of its trade over the previous five years. The system he devised gave a strong incentive to both deficit and surplus countries to clear their bancor accounts annually, ending up with neither a trade deficit nor a surplus.

Deficit countries would be charged interest on the overdraft, rising as the overdraft rose; they would have to reduce the value of their currency by up to 5% to promote exports and would have to prevent the export of capital. Keynes's innovation was to apply similar pressures to surplus countries too. Any such country with a bancor credit balance more than half its overdraft facility would be charged interest (or demurrage) at 10%. It would also have to raise the value of its currency and permit the export of capital. But if this was not enough and its credit balance at the end of the year exceeded its permitted overdraft, the surplus would be confiscated.

Keynes's system would, quite simply, maximise worldwide prosperity and level the power of nations. The ICU would entail no forced liberalisation, no penal conditions on the poorest countries, no engineered opportunities for predatory banks and multinational corporations, no squashing of democratic consent. But the obvious question remains: how can the rich nations, especially the US, be made to accept it?

Monbiot's answer is to turn the instruments of rich nations' power against themselves. The poor world's debt to the commercial banks and IMF and World Bank, at some $2.5 trillion, is nearly twice the combined reserves of all the world's central banks. In effect, as Monbiot himself puts it, "the poor world owns the rich world's banks". But he is not recommending a mass default. Rather, he proposes that the indebted nations, which can never repay their debt, should demand a conditionality for their compliance - exactly as the rich nations do - namely the replacement of the institutions causing the problem (IMF and World Bank) by arrangements that automatically achieve a balancing of trade (the ICU). Blackmail, of course, but if well orchestrated it might just conceivably work.

He rounds off this central theme with two other radical proposals. One is that a Fair Trade Organisation (FTO) is needed to govern the rules of trade very differently from the market fundamentalists of the WTO. Following the precedent of the rich countries, which in nearly all cases (certainly in the case of the US) got rich initially through protectionism, the FTO would permit the poorest countries to defend infant industries with tariffs, other import restrictions and export subsidies. Foreign investors would be required to leave behind more wealth than they extract and to reimburse for any destruction, environmental or otherwise, that their trading produces. Rich nations would be required to remove all barriers to trade - tariffs, import restraints and perverse subsidies that keep out imports from poorer nations.

Again, what hope in hell is there of such a radical (and utopian) system beng accepted? Monbiot's reply is unequivocal: a fair trading system should be added to an ICU as a condition of refraining from a mass coordinated default.

Linked to this is Monbiot's final major proposal - a democratised UN General Assembly where votes are weighted by size of population and in accordance with a global democracy index, to incentivise high standards of governance. This restructured assembly would also take over the functions of the UN Security Council which, as Monbiot says, has already largely been sidelined by US actions over Iraq.

Again, there is a breathtakingly radical sweep to all this. But before it is dismissed as the rabid fantasising of the Global Justice Movement, certain caveats are in order. This is not a whinge, but a very well argued statement of a positive alternative agenda. And if it is far too radical for some tastes, can they suggest any lesser options that will produce the same vast improvement in world justice and prosperity? The floor is theirs.

• Michael Meacher was environment minister from 1997-2003, and is MP for Oldham.

Published in the Guardian Review

 

I don't see why you even bother with Xerox, he just keeps on spewing the same old hateful shit and can only back it up through shitty links to lengthy insane conspiracy websites.

He doesn't have an ounce of originality within him. This is not his idea that he's promoting, he's just a puppet for the people who were nice enough to let him brainwash himself with all of their bullshit.

He will avoid every single question that challenges him, by answering with generalizations and diverting the blame. He also tends to throw weak metaphors with some shitty poetic and apocalyptic innuendo.

He will live a miserable life within his hate. He will die alone.