Coming in December: World government

HAAHAHA world net daily!

Don't take that article seriously.

reply to post by beta.services


Those are good ideals. But too bad because we already know there is too much corruption in those initiating the changes for those ideals to be met.

Originally posted by Doc Tesla

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by Loke.

 

But it still presents a premise which makes for interesting discussion, no?

discussing an unreliable source is a waste of time. its all gonna be the same he said, she said stuff and nothing will be solved.

I couldn't disagree more. Not discussing it won't solve anything either. Nothing needs to be solved now. We can't expect the truth to come in a 'Eureka' moment. It will be a gradual consolidation of many ideas that will lead to the answer.

The fact is, while most people around here agree that there is some sort of grand conspiracy involving the government or secret groups or whatever, nobody knows exactly what it is or what the endgame is.

So,

When a new idea emerges, rather than scrutinize the source of the information, we should discuss the idea itself. We should ask how or why this idea could be true, as well as how or why it couldn't be true. Perhaps this new idea could fit in as a part of an existing idea, or at least give a new perspective on things.

For example,

If the posted article is true, it would change my thinking of TPTB somewhat. The article implies that all of these lies, secrets, and wars that have become routine COULD have a noble and just cause. If I want to spread all the wealth in the world around evenly to end needless suffering, I would think it would be difficult at best to reach an agreement with every nation.

Perhaps there is something to discuss here. Have TPTB resorted to darker methods after decades of desperately trying to help everyone to no avail?

I personally wouldn't believe that, but it is interesting, and should be discussed. Surely someone has another point of view. Let's hear it.


The point is, if a new idea shines light in areas we have not wandered, explore the area first, then the source will be revealed as either fact or fiction. It's the only way to have an unbiased view.

Make sense?


(I know, you think its a waste of time to talk about stuff that isn't true. But then, you don't KNOW that it isn't true, do you?)

First post, sorry its long. I purge my thoughts, rather than let them trickle.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
.................
The parochial notions of arbitrary nation-state boundaries will become obsolete.

What people seem to fear, here, is the loss of identitiy from a cultural standpoint...but, really...WHO nowadays has an original culture, anyway?

Wow...so tell us buddy, who do you want being in power? The Communist Chinese? Or maybe the Progressives who want the UN to have control over the U.S.... There is more at stake than just "indentity"... there is FREEDOM at stake, and the rights, as well as diferent ideals which exist, and sorry to say but everyone becoming robots will not be any good for the future...

reply to post by Loke.


Are you saying that World Net Daily is an unreliable news source?

If you are, then you should really get a new life and do some heavy research into what news sources really are. Joseph Farrah is a credible news person and his website is no different than any other news site, including ATS.

reply to post by Redneck from Hell


Can you read, did you notice the analysis I did on the treaty? Unlike you, I have the ability to read for myself...

Originally posted by infinite
UN-FCCC-Copenhagen 2009

[P = paragraphs]

P.24 - stop unilateral measures from nations states in terms of countervailing goods and services. Overules national law

"Conference of the Parties", governed by the Convention will set short term targets and monitoring their success.

P.36- 37 New institution that will provide legal framework. Provide technological and financial support to developing nations.

P.38 The word "government" appears along with "executive body" in relation to the new institution in p36-37

P.50 Institutional arrangements are explained under the self titled section.

P.55 efficient system of governance

P.57 Bureaucracy are named and explained. Refereed to as "branches"

A few examples. The word "nation state" is replaced by "parties"

I have an idea, Maybe the Anunnaki are returning in 2012 ??, you know the guys that created man for their slaves and pop in every 3600 years to see how we are getting along so to speak, maybe they are the real TPTB we all harp on about, when they left last time leaving an agenda for mankind to adhere to ?.. me thinks they are going to be a bit disappointed..

The anunnaki picture i found, Strange how he appears to wear a Watch/compass ?? on his two wrists...

Originally posted by foxhoundone
me thinks they are going to be a bit disappointed..

Oh I don't know. Every government around the world has been stockpiling gold/silver/oil/platinum whatever else for god knows how long.

If we really were here to mine resources, I think we did a pretty damn good job.

Originally posted by beta.services
reply to post by foxhoundone

 

I agree.

There are many benefits that people seem to miss about a single government.

One main one: If there were global standards on working conditions (such as a global minimum wage) there would no longer be any great incentive to outsource/offshore work to countries with cheap labour rates.

Another: And I know most people would object to this one... If there were a single peacekeeping force to replace all national armies, then we could say goodbye to nuclear weapons for good.

Military budgets could eventually be scaled back and diverted to science and exploration.

Sending wealth to developing nations is definitely a step in the right direction.

And I don't see why any Americans would care. They're broke anyway. Given enough time they might be able to claim developing world status

[edit on 28/10/09 by beta.services]

This is a dangerous thinking, wishful but unfounded.

If it's the people that benefit the most then hooray for that. But just throwing a bone at the poor and common while the elites reap most of the benefits is not something we should cheer for.

Events in history tell us time and time again that we should have every reason to be cynical towards the idea that the elites somehow have the best interests of the people at heart.

I'm sure there will be more pretty dressed up rhetoric to glorify such a world government in coming years, but no matter how much it appeals to our own ideals at a face value, we should always look deeper before giving up our rights.

I mean, this is not even about elites vs. common folks. This is about letting others decide our fate for us. We should always add a bit of critical thinking in it.

[edit on 29-10-2009 by nighinfinite]

Originally posted by piddles
I read this today and I have to call BS

it's so ridiculous, it's almost laughable. Yeah, they're gonna roll out the NWO in a not secret meeting.

The NWO will happen during an intense emergency, like war (civil or not) or a natural disaster, not a meeting on CLIMATE CHANGE

Why roll out an NWO in an intense emergency when they can do it in plain sight without the masses realising? Once the worlds united under the green 'religion' a world government or 'world governance' structure will be easily implemented.

You could discount this article as BS if you want, but there's plenty more information if you want to look for it.

Take for instance, the organisation I mentioned earlier, Socialist International, who has close ties to the United Nations

Socialist International prepared a briefing paper titled "Reforming the United Nations for a New Global Agenda" in 2005 which can be found here. These are some exerpts from that paper.

The UN Funds and Programmes should be streamlined and merged in order to avoid overlappings, increase the efficiency and enhance the role of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
............................................................................
There should be a one-time review and replacement of personnel, including through early retirement, to ensure that the Secretariat is staffed with the right people to undertake the tasks at hand.
...........................................................................
The mobilization of these resources may require development oriented special allocations of SDRs, some forms of international taxation such as a carbon tax or a tax on the production or sale of armaments, or a small profit tax surcharge on the income of large corporations

So to summarise, Socialist International proposes that the UN should get rid of older staff, to usher in staff who will be able to undertake the tasks at hand (New Global Agenda), and use a carbon tax to fund the reform.

Members of Socialist International include Obama's climate change czar Carol Browner. Also Helen Clark (ex NZ Prime Minister) who has now taken over the helm of the United Nations Development Programme.


You may also want to see what Al Gore has to say about global governance. This was discussed here.

Gore touted the Congressional climate bill, claiming it “will dramatically increase the prospects for success” in combating what he sees as the “crisis” of man-made global warming.


“But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.” (Editor's Note: Gore makes the “global governance” comment at the 1min. 10 sec. mark in this UK Times video.)

(visit the link for the full news article)
www.blacklistednews.com

Legislate a Tower with the Power of two Niagara Fall why don't they.
Choke on that instead of coal stak smoke.
The Illuminati don't know.
The Illuminati don't know.


[edit on 11/4/2009 by TeslaandLyne]

Originally posted by RestingInPieces
It's simply mind-boggling how you people CONTINUALLY get up in arms over thees types of... fabrications.

It must be an odd life to think the end is just around the next corner, and then the next, and then the next.

Besides, we all know that the world government is going to be instituted forcefully on February 12th, 2010.

I'm still waiting for the end of the US predicted for October 27th 2009! That thread went quiet very quickly didn't it.

Thread enders.. of their own momentum.
A lot of conspiracies just stagnate.
All of them.
Just uncanny.

Well some end when the date passes.
Then reschedule for another date.

Well if this hemmoratic pneumonia takes off in the Ukraine, and it looks like it is, then we might need a world government in December... but there will only be a few hundred people around to enjoy it.

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by Loke.

 

But it still presents a premise which makes for interesting discussion, no?

I've also seen you post on stories sourced from mainstream outlets - is it your contention that those sites ARE reliable?

By dismissing out of hand because you do not like the source, you are hardly "denying" ignorance - more embracing it...

With all due respect, discussion of topics of a very questionable nature from questionable sources do nothing but spread more disinformation and contribute toward more ignorance of the truth...at least that is how I see it.

I thought the whole premise was to discuss topics based on factual proof rather than hypothetical scenarios. Am i missing something?

We are discussing the prospect of world government, meanwhile the US is still embroiled in a war for possession of energy corridors in central asia and containment of perceived threats in the sqame theatre and elsewhere.

If world government is the case, based on the current state of things the only argument that can be made at this point for world government is that the US will be the world Governor.

Otherwise, why even waste the effort?
What I am getting at is that several things just arent lining up.
I can see what is currrently happening, but I cannot see anything happening regarding world government. At least not with the hostility the US poses to the reast of the world.

Care to enlighten me? Once again, with all due respect.

reply to post by Critical_Mass


Thanks for the measured response, and for your input.

The problem is that as a conspiracy website and community, by the very nature of the boards, factual information is difficult to come by.

It is up to each and every one of us to weigh the available evidence and draw our own conclusions.

The starting point for this is a premise, and then discussion based on that premise.

Do we have real, factual evidence for ANY of the conspiracies on the boards, that would hold up in a court of law?

If we only discussed things for which there is evidence which would convince any sceptic, then we would have no community.

New World Order, anything new? we are just waiting like a sheep to go to the slaughtering house... waiting for the chips and the antichrist.