It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A one-world government is inevitable, so why oppose it?

page: 19
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 10:36 PM

Originally posted by mutatismutandis
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Citizens United v F.E.C. is a great example of how the system is manipulated however...granted I agree with u that they made the decision to uphold the constitution, but by making such decision our political system has been screwed. It was a catch22 for the courts that the political system incited. My arguement was not that their decisions wern't based in law, but that law has been manipulated for squirly means...was their decision on this worth the cost of future elections? Not that they wern't backed into a corner to do so, but if our system worked such a thing would never had happened. I don't blame the courts for our problems, I blame the whole system and those manipulating it for personal gain, or shady agendas.

The Citizen's United ruling was a victory for every individual, but was be-musingly a victory for every "person" as well. However, there is a false assertion being made by government officials, politicians, and members of the media that it was the Supreme Court who made corporations persons. This is categorically false. It was Congress who statutorily defined corporations as "person", and there is nothing at all unconstitutional about this act of legislation, which in no way possible reflects law. It is absurd to think that a legal fiction should be equated with natural people. It is also, factually, legally, and lawfully not true that because they exist legally as a "person", they have the same rights that natural people do.

However, Congress has done this, and there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits them from creating artificial "persons" that exist solely by permission from the state. Because it is not unconstitutional to do this then the statutory definition of "person" has weight with the courts who render decisions regarding the cases before them. In the matter of Citizen's United, because Congress had defined them as "person", they had standing under the 14th Amendment to demand Equal Protection under the law. The courts were Constitutionally bound to honor this standing.

The important thing to remember is that before this case got to the Supreme Court it went before other federal courts that accepted their standing under the Equal Protection Clause, but failed to realize that under that condition the particular corporation suing the government also had standing under the First Amendment. This is the horrifying reality of many lower courts, they tend to look for ways to argue that Amendments do not apply to the application of unconstitutionality, regardless of the person before them, whether it be a corporation, or a human. The Supreme Court has a far better record of defending the rights of "persons" human or otherwise.

The Citizen's United ruling was a victory for all because it was a resounding rebuke of Congress' arrogance and overreaching ambition. It wasn't corporations alone that were protected, private individuals were also protected by this ruling. Here is the problem: Congress thought they could create a contradiction and have it seen as valid. Congress didn't define corporations as "person" to afford them Equal Protection of the law. If Congress did, it begs the question as to why they allowed the Federal Elections Commission to move forward with the suit. Surely Congress understood that by defining corporations as "person" they were affording these artificial legal arts Equal Protection of the law.

If Congress didn't define them as "person" to afford corporations Equal Protection under the law so that they could rely upon the same rights as humans do, then why did they? I submit to you that they did this because Equal Protection works both ways, and if the licensing and taxing of corporations, legally defined as "person" is law, then humans, also defined by Congress as "person" should also be licensed and taxed in the same way.

Now, some may want to roll their eyes and pfffffffftttt and pffffffufffft at me for suggesting this, but that humans are increasingly expected to follow the same rules and procedures that corporations follow is self evidently so. The beauty of the Citizens' United ruling is that their own chimera came back and bit them in the ass, while at the same time protecting the rights of all "persons".

The Supreme Court has the luxury of deciding which cases it will hear and which it declines to hear. I think because of all the negative propaganda put out about the Supreme Court these past few years, that this weighed heavily into their decision to hear Bond v United States. The unanimous decision, I believe, was the Supreme Court speaking directly to human beings, in the only way they can, and making it undeniably clear that they are on record as acknowledging that individuals have the absolute right to challenge government that is in excess of jurisdiction. All you have to do is read threads in ATS to see the many who will argue that this is not so, and that individual must submit to governmental authority and any legislative act that comes down the pike.

Those people have been told by the Supreme Court that as a matter of law, and legality, nothing could be further from the truth.

The Problem is a shameful and arguably criminal collusion between the legislative branch and the executive branch to aggregate power. The Supreme Court can only hear one case at a time, and the exponential rate at which Congress and the President move forward in spite of Constitutional restraints is too much for the courts to handle. With Bond v United States, I think the SCOTUS made a sweeping decision in hopes the people would heed it and act quickly to challenge government actions that are causing injury, or threat of injury to law abiding people.

How will people heed it, when most don't even know about this ruling, but instead believe that the Supreme Court is instead trampling all over their rights?

posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 10:56 PM
reply to post by daskakik

I think the point of the OP is that your view isn't the only one and that sooner or later a one world government will come to be in one form or another. It doesn't have to be all about authoritariansim it could be a world wide 1776.

It would be nice if the whole purpose of debate was rooted in finding the truth, or an answer to a problem. Regardless of differing view points, the truth remains the truth, and while that truth must necessarily - in one way or another - encompass all view points, in the end truth is truth. Truth is not democratic, neither benign or malignant, is is objective of all possible subjective angles and curves. The truth is not what we make of it, it simply is. The allness of isness, all that is is truth.

Debate is a method by which we can work together, by using competing arguments, to better discover the all of is. If debate is used to find the truth to this question; "...why oppose it?", then our goal - as individuals cooperating to compete - is to find some sort of resolution that in someway, or with greater fortune in all ways, accurately describes the truth.

This is quite a task, answering the question to why oppose one world government, which logically leads to the assertion that one world government is inevitable. This presumed inevitability necessarily discounts opposition as a valid method to by which obtain the truth. For the O.P. the truth becomes translated to an inevitability of world domination by some unnamed government. Slight suggestions are made as to what form of government this one world government would be, but nothing beyond that. Just a vague suggestion that a democratic process might be the best form of government to facilitate world domination.

Some who support, or advocate one world government prefer the use of the term federation, and one would hope that these supporters are supporting an idea of federalism. Federalism is the foundational principle of the Constitution for the United States of America, and federalism appears to be greatly misunderstood. The U.S. Constitution is federalism in the sense that it divides sovereignty (inherent political power) between first the people, then the states, all of which strike a covenant with a federal government which itself has the power granted them divided even further. This "diffusion" of power is intended to protect the power and keep it from corruption.

Well, it looks good on paper.

It is, of course, a system of government I believe in mightily, this federalism, as it seems to be the form of government least likely to deny and/or disparage the rights of individuals. However, federalism has demonstrably failed to do this in a nation where a federal Constitution expressly and unambiguously prohibits that federal government from trampling on peoples rights, and where each state constitution with in this union does the precise same thing. All these fail safes put in and yet this U.S. government of federalism is filled with government employee's whose attitude is that things are quite different from what I just described. Rather than it being the people who hold the inherent political power, it is that they once did "long ago" but they gave it up so that we could have a government.

Instead of diffusion of power, it has been a steady aggregation of power, where individuals are told that in order to live in the society governed by these government employees must go along with the licensing schemes and regulatory agencies that are only there to make sure you get through the system properly. The people increasingly work for the government, instead of the government working for them. Yet as self evident is this is, many will argue it is not so and that I am only exaggerating. Many will argue there is nothing wrong with all these licensing schemes, regulations and perpetual income taxation. That it is just the necessary oil needed to grease the slow grinding wheels of government.

Ever slow, and the bigger it gets the more cumbersome and sloth like it gets. Sloth like because this is an animal that has a tendency to move very slowly, if move at all. However, when a sloth attacks, it is as quick and as terrifying as an attack by an other beast. This is government; slow to move, moving slowly when it does move, unless it attacks and then with lightning speed they strike with their terrible swift sword. Federalism has done little to stop the rise of bureaucrats, the modern day tyrants.

Theories are only as good as their practical usage allows them to be. If the theory of good government being big government has any validity you would think big governments that have existed throughout history would exhibit certain truths about what made these historical big governments successful. Some could argue that Rome, lasting a millennium, was successful because of this longevity. Of course, the history of Rome goes through many epochs and eras, where it began humbly with an eye towards liberty, and evolved into a reign of emperors, each one leading Rome towards its inevitable destruction.

We could, for the sake of argument, point to some big governments today as successful governments that might serve as a valid model for forming a one world government. If the O.P. has somehow tapped into the truth and one world government is inevitable, then under those conditions I would have to advocate federalism in spite of its failures. However, there will be other that will advocate some other form of government, many operating under the belief that democracy is the answer.

The biggest problem with democracy is that it tends to favor majority rule over the rule of law. The rule of law has many tenets but one of the founding tenets of this rule of law is equality under the law. All people everywhere are subject to this law. Democracies, all too often, insist that whatever the majority of voters want is how the elected should act. This ideal is rooted in the belief that law is some sort of invention made by people, and is contrasted this way with the laws of science that instead endeavor to accurately describe phenomenon and its relation to the environment around it. Thus, the law of gravity is not the same thing as "the law" of jaywalking. Of course, this is true, but only because "jaywalking" is not law. It is a legislative act. It does not describe any phenomenon and its relationship to the world around it, it is a positive act of prohibition.

My point with that is this: If we are to succumb to the inevitability of a one world government, one form or another, the people living with this government will have to deal with law. The question then becomes what is law? Of course, there are various answers to this question, all presenting different answers. You might say viewpoints. There are, however, certain viewpoints that are so self evident that it is easy for all to agree on this self evidence. It is easy enough for all of us to agree that A is A, or that there is a Sun that appears in the sky every 12 hours or so, and when it disappears there is a moon that follows various stages of metamorphoses. Not all self evident properties, however, are as clearly defined as a letter to an alphabet, or the bodies in motion of the sun and the moon. Not as clearly defined because there are some things of which we cannot sense biologically, but know it is real. "I think, therefore I am" is one such certainty that cannot be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched.

"I have the right to exist" is another abstraction that is self evident. It matters not that it cannot be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched, every creature great and small has the right to survive. If I have the right to exist, and you have this right, and the O.P. has this right, and every member in this site has that right, and in terms of a one world government, every human being on the planet has this right, then it follows that we, each and everyone of us, have the right to self defense. If we all have the right to self defense, it follows that we also have the right to come together collectively and form an organization towards that same end. That end, however, is the right of each individual to exist, and to defend that existence. That existence comes with other rights that belong to all people with or without government. If we all come together and form a government then the only just purpose would be to defend the rights of the individual.

Any act of legislation not defending the rights of all individuals is not an act of law, but merely an act of legislation.

This is a much longer post than I had hoped I could get away with and because of the complexity that comes with world domination, or world government depending upon your view, I have barely scratched the surface of this, with this posts, even when combined with previous posts.

However, it is late, I am under deadline tomorrow, and as important as I believe this issue is, perhaps it is best I leave it here and allow you and any others who wish to respond, and if we're all smart, we'll use this debate to seek some sort of resolution, where all can live - if not melodically with each other - harmoniously together.

posted on Jul, 10 2011 @ 11:24 PM
It is inevitable, the Bible says it will come to fruition; it will be instated by the antichrist. I'm opposed to it because of the forced religion that will follow suit, which will impose the adherence to total acceptance of the validity of every religion; Many will be highly persecuted [maybe even killed] for the refusal comply with this.

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 12:07 AM

Originally posted by disasternaut
It is inevitable, the Bible says it will come to fruition; it will be instated by the antichrist. I'm opposed to it because of the forced religion that will follow suit, which will impose the adherence to total acceptance of the validity of every religion; Many will be highly persecuted [maybe even killed] for the refusal comply with this.
It's paranoia and superstitious fear like this that's going to prevent us from coming together as a species.

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 01:43 AM

Originally posted by Annee
There is only one logical direction.

Why do wealthy power people owe you anything?

They don't.

You're wrong about that assumption. I don't believe anyone thinks the wealthy owe them anything (except left-wing nutjobs but that's another whole thread), however we do believe that we do not owe the wealthy total, unbridled power over us, which is what this NWO is all about.

What you're saying by advocating the NWO, as planned, is that they have a right to appoint themselves our masters and plan our future behind closed doors, with no checks and balances. I have never heard any pro-NWO person state otherwise.

I do agree that a world government is inevitable, but now is definitely not the time. Men are too greedy and power hungry to be trusted with absolute power. Think about it - even with our checks and balances in the U.S. we have a totally corrupt government. How long would it be before an unelected government without these checks and balances becomes corrupted, and then who would expose it? Even if by some miracle it were exposed, who would fight it? When armies are the police, opposition can no longer exist and with a one-world government the only possible use for armies is control over it's own population.

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 10:37 AM
All this talk of inevitability of a one world government seems to want to ignore that such a thing is the very same as world domination.

“One should always play fairly, except for when one has the winning cards. Then he should take over the world.”

~ Oscar Wilde on World Domination

It is the pinnacle of imperialism, where all nations, all states, all tribes, and all people, are subject to the same governing body. However, this blind faith that such a thing is inevitable also ignore history.

No matter how it is dressed up in this thread, or the current world stage of political theater, a one world government is at worst a brutal Empire that managed to dominate the world through military might, and at best a hegemonic Empire that rules indirectly avoiding military force by favoring a form of paternal - or maternal if you prefer - appeasement to those states that are under an indirect rule of this empire.

This spectrum, from a mighty military empire to a more hegemonic one is not some new fangled theory borne of modern sophisticates, it is as ancient as time immemorial. Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, Adolf Hitler, and Pinky and the Brain, all have tried to accomplish this so called "inevitability", and all have failed.

Pinky: Gee, Brain. What are we going to do tonight?

The Brain: The same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the world.

If a one world government is such an inevitability, then why the hell has it taken so long, and why do its adherents argue it will be some time down the road when it finally arrives?

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 11:18 AM

Originally posted by AntiNWO
You're wrong about that assumption. I don't believe anyone thinks the wealthy owe them anything (except left-wing nutjobs but that's another whole thread), however we do believe that we do not owe the wealthy total, unbridled power over us, which is what this NWO is all about.

I do not use the term NWO. I said: One World Federation.

I do not believe I am wrong about the assumption of progression to a One World Federation. We are pretty much already there.

Many posters on ATS think the wealthy owe them something. Could have done without the left-wing nutjob comment. It was completely unnecessary and really only reflects on your mindset.

Life doesn't owe anyone anything.

I do agree that a world government is inevitable, but now is definitely not the time. Men are too greedy and power hungry to be trusted with absolute power. Think about it - even with our checks and balances in the U.S. we have a totally corrupt government. How long would it be before an unelected government without these checks and balances becomes corrupted, and then who would expose it? Even if by some miracle it were exposed, who would fight it? When armies are the police, opposition can no longer exist and with a one-world government the only possible use for armies is control over it's own population.

And you are going to stop these greedy power hunger "men" how?

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 01:37 PM
reply to post by MathematicalPhysicist

My concern is that the wrong people control this government. Their are many societies (secret societies which believe and make great pains to keep their society separate from ours) who have in perception have achieved this new world order. My problem is that a bunch of ancient old farts and their insets bloodlines are the ones controlling it. Not only do they depend on lies and miss education to blind the people they seek to control but they also allow their foreign friends and family to come to this country rape, murder and molest our citizens. People apart of this bloodline is of course the bush family, John Kerry, Dick Cheney and anyone evolved in the skull and bones society, masonry, and various other groups, the council on foreign affairs new about these going ons years ago and have done nothing.

Fact of the matter is Washington Masons, skulls and other societies come out of their hidden world to defile American citizens, degrade them, experiment on them and when someone outrages over it they become targets.

In my dealings with some societies I've heard American citizens and citizens all over the world called "cows ripe for the milking." They've aliened themselves with one of the most socially degenerate Unions on the planet and are willing to allow American citizens suffer to make high ranking society members of corporations rich... basically they are still stealing our money and using it to buy their underage prostitutes.

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 01:41 PM

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by AntiNWO

I do not believe I am wrong about the assumption of progression to a One World Federation. We are pretty much already ther

Yes and with government leaders turning their heads and prostituting our nation out to foreign leaders this "One World Federation" is right on track. How many people need to die for a small handful of people to rule the world and a majority of citizens sold bliss in exchange for their freedoms.

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 05:37 PM
That is an extremely simple question to answer. Because IF YOU DO, YOU WILL BURN AN ETERNITY IN HELL!

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 06:33 PM

Originally posted by Seveen
Yes and with government leaders turning their heads and prostituting our nation out to foreign leaders this "One World Federation" is right on track. How many people need to die for a small handful of people to rule the world and a majority of citizens sold bliss in exchange for their freedoms.

The problem is thinking TPTB owe you something.

They don't. Not really.

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 07:47 PM
This new world order business don't have me fooled. All it is, and all it will ever be, is someones attempt to rule the world. I've heard the phrase since the 70's and the meaning has always been the same, especially now when things are happening just the way I heard it would. Just because something looks like it was written in stone, don't make it inevitable. Government will continue to push us to that end, and there will always be someone fighting back.

What's wrong with the Constitution of the United States anyway? The only thing I see wrong is that it keeps the government in check and lets private citizens be rich enough to buy airplanes and protect themselves by purchasing guns. So what's the freaking problem? Oh, I know, they want slaves and the Constitution is an obstacle.

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 08:02 PM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

Mod note: Read before posting. Don't name-call or troll. Ignorance is no excuse. You have been warned. -- Majic
edit on 7/11/2011 by Majic because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 08:05 PM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 09:26 PM
reply to post by MathematicalPhysicist

A very good book to read on this subject is The black book of communism. In that you will find how many lives it has cost to try to bring this ideology into reality. After you read then you will know the cost of why a one world government will not work.

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 10:04 PM
reply to post by BanMePlz

Freemasonry has some pretty bad apples in it to be sure. However, when the founders died they could have very well taken our freedom with them. The founders were thinking more for individualism because they didn't like government having the floor and pulling all the strings.

posted on Jul, 11 2011 @ 11:20 PM
And I suppose that you have infallible knowledge that would provide with the means to to be entirely certain that i'm merely superstitious? Were just human beings; you don't know as an empirical truth that I am wrong, nor can I be 100% sure of my claims. But based on my studies this seems to be true; and if it's not fine. But what if?

posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 04:49 AM

Originally posted by MathematicalPhysicist

You have absolutely no evidence to support your ridiculous assertions. There are no "global elites" that want to control the world and reduce the population. No human organization can perpetuate this "ultimate plan" for years and years without any thing going wrong. That just not plausible.

Apparently, by what I can see you are buying into the "Climate Change must be fought" lie, so you are already brainwashed by the "non-existant world elites".

In 1991 an evil green environlunatic, i mean a good environmentalist known as professor Ignacy Sachs wrote a paper for the UN in which he describes step by step the phases that need to be taken by the SOCIALIST elites in order for western countries to redistribute their wealth to developing countries, as well as the emergence of a One World Government.

He states in this paper that the governments of the western world will most probably not accept this transfer of wealth, and dissolution of their sovereignty unless their hands are forced "by a popular movement or a catastrophe, such as another Great Depression or ecological disaster.

How about if you cause all tree of them?... Cause a worldwide economic crisis, claim that there is an environmental problem that MUST BE SOLVED RIGHT NOW, and that if you don't do it THE WORLD WILL DIE, and make a "popular movements of the people backing immediate action to stop such an environmental problem, and economic prolem....Wouldn't that be better?.....

He discusses how it will be needed for the dissolution of all middle classes around the world, which will mean EVERYONE will be equally poor which happens in Socialist dictatorships.

He states this plan, and strategies should cover several decades in order to be implemented slowly, unless there can be redistribution of wealth at a faster pace, which would shorten the time needed to implement this plan.

BTW, I am going to be linking to the official UNESCO website where the paper can be found.

Without further due, here is the article and links supporting what I just described above.

Published on 12-10-2009

By Jurriaan Maessen

“The governments of Europe, the United States, and Japan are unlikely to negotiate a social-democratic pattern of globalization – unless their hands are forced by a popular movement or a catastrophe, such as another Great Depression or ecological disaster“

Richard Sandbrook, Closing the Circle: Democratization and Development in Africa, Zed Books limited, London, 2000.

A 1991 policy paper prepared for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) by self-described ‘ecosocioeconomist’ professor Ignacy Sachs outlines a strategy for the transfer of wealth in name of the environment to be implemented in the course of 35 to 40 years. As it turns out, it is a visionary paper describing phase by phase the road to world dictatorship. As the professor states in the paper:

“To be meaningful, the strategies should cover the time-span of several decades. Thirty-five to forty years seems a good compromise between the need to give enough time to the postulated transformations and the uncertainties brought about by the lengthening of the time-span.“

In his paper “The Next 40 Years: Transition Strategies to the Virtuous Green Path: North/South/East/Global“, Sachs accurately describes not only the intended time-span to bring about a global society, but also what steps should be taken to ensure “population stabilization”:

“In order to stabilize the populations of the South by means other than wars or epidemics, mere campaigning for birth control and distributing of contraceptives has proved fairly inefficient.“

In the first part of the (in retrospect) bizarrely accurate description of the years to come, Sachs points out redistribution of wealth is the only viable path towards population stabilization and- as he calls it- a “virtuous green world”. The professor:

“The way out from the double bind of poverty and environmental disruption calls for a fairly long period of more economic growth to sustain the transition strategies towards the virtuous green path of what has been called in Stockholm ecodevelopement and has since changed its name in Anglo-Saxon countries to sustainable development.”

“(…) a fair degree of agreement seems to exist, therefore, about the ideal development path to be followed so long as we do not manage to stabilize the world population and, at the same time, sharply reduce the inequalities prevailing today.”

“The bolder the steps taken in the near future”, Sachs asserts, “the shorter will be the time span that separates us from a steady state. Radical solutions must address to the roots of the problem and not to its symptoms. Theoretically, the transition could be made shorter by measures of redistribution of assets and income.”

Sachs points to the political difficulties of such proposals being implemented (because free humanity tends to distrust any national government let alone transnational government to redistribute its well-earned wealth). He therefore proposes these measures to be implemented gradually, following a meticulously planned strategy:

“The pragmatic prospect is one of transition extending itself over several decades.”

In the second sub-chapter “The Five Dimensions of Ecodevelopment”, professor Sachs sums up the main dimensions of this carefully outlined move to make Agenda 21 a very real future prospect. The first dimension he touches upon is “Social Sustainability“:

“The aim is to build a civilization of being within greater equity in asset and income distribution, so as to improve substantially the entitlements of the broad masses of population and of reduce the gap in standards of living between the have and the have nots.”

This of course means, reducing the standards of living in “The North” (U.S., Europe) and upgrading those of the developing nations (”The South and The East”). This would have to be realized through what Sachs calls “Economic Sustainability“: “made possible by a more efficient allocation and management of resources and a steady flow of public and private investment.”

The third dimension described by the professor is “Ecological Sustainability” which, among other things, limits “the consumption of fossile fuels and other easily depletable or environmentally harmful products, substituting them by renewable and/or plentiful and environmentally friendly resources, reducing the volume of pollutants by means of energy and resource conservation and recycling and, last but not least, promoting self-constraint in material consumption on part of the rich countries and of the privileged social strata all over the world;”

In order to make this happen Sachs stresses the need of “defining the rules for adequate environmental protection, designing the institutional machinery and choosing the mix of economic, legal and administrative instruments necessary for the implementation of environmental policies.”

But I am sure you are going to claim the above "is for the good of all"...

BTW, you have to prove your claim that "quotes have been taken out of context", here is a thread from another member who gives some of the quotes of very important past and present elites.

BTW, if you actually think there have not been, and there aren't any plans by the elites to control humanity you are in for a rude awakening.

By Edwin Black
Mr. Black is the author of IBM and the Holocaust and the just released War Against the Weak:

Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race, from which the following article is drawn.

Hitler and his henchmen victimized an entire continent and exterminated millions in his quest for a co-called "Master Race."

But the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn't originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little known, role in the American eugenics movement's campaign for ethnic cleansing.

Eugenics was the racist pseudoscience determined to wipe away all human beings deemed "unfit," preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype. Elements of the philosophy were enshrined as national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions, enacted in twenty-seven states.

In 1909, California became the third state to adopt such laws. Ultimately, eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in "colonies," and persecuted untold numbers in ways we are just learning. Before World War II, nearly half of coercive sterilizations were done in California, and even after the war, the state accounted for a third of all such surgeries.

California was considered an epicenter of the American eugenics movement. During the Twentieth Century's first decades, California's eugenicists included potent but little known race scientists, such as Army venereal disease specialist Dr. Paul Popenoe, citrus magnate and Polytechnic benefactor Paul Gosney, Sacramento banker Charles M. Goethe, as well as members of the California State Board of Charities and Corrections and the University of California Board of Regents.

Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America's most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Stamford, Yale, Harvard, and
Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics' racist aims.

Stanford president David Starr Jordan originated the notion of "race and blood" in his 1902 racial epistle "Blood of a Nation," in which the university scholar declared that human qualities and conditions such as talent and poverty were passed through the blood.

In 1904, the Carnegie Institution established a laboratory complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island that stockpiled millions of index cards on ordinary Americans, as researchers carefully plotted the removal of families, bloodlines and whole peoples. From Cold Spring Harbor, eugenics advocates agitated in the legislatures of America, as well as the nation's
social service agencies and associations.

1. P. Ehrlich, The Population Bomb (Ballantine, New York, 1968).

2. Ibid., p. xi. The mortality estimate is based primarily on information from UNICEF, WHO, and other sources on infant/child mortality and may be conservative. For example, it is now estimated that 40,000 children die daily (14.6 million a year) from hunger-related diseases, according to International Health News, September 1987. The number "at least 200 million" is based on an average of 10 million deaths annually for 21 years. See also a discussion in World Resources Institute/ International Institute for Environment and Development, World Resources 1987 (Basic Books, New York, 1987), pp. 18-19. The exact number, of course, can never be known with precision (see note 15, Chapter 4).

3. That is, 28 people will be born and 10 will die. The growth rate is now 3 people per second.

4. L. R. Brown, The Changing World Food Prospect: The Nineties and Beyond, Worldwatch Paper 85 (Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.C., October 1988).

5. P. Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, p. 61.

6. The situation has been analyzed and reanalyzed in the technical and popular literature. Two key technical papers are P. R. Ehrlich and J. P. Holdren, "The Impact of Population Growth," Science, vol. 171 (1971), pp. 1212-17, and J. P. Holdren and P. R. Ehrlich, "Human Population and the Global Environment," American Scientist, vol. 62 (1974), pp. 282-92. Much important information can be found in works by Lester Brown and his colleagues in the excellent State of the World series issued by Worldwatch Institute and published by W. W. Norton, New York, and in the World Resources series issued by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), in collaboration with the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), (published by Basic Books, New York). Two other landmark works are the Global 2000 Report to the President, issued in 1980 by the Council on Environmental Quality and the Department of State, and the World Commission on Environment and Development's 1987 report Our Common Future (the "Brundtland Report," named for the commission's chairwoman, the Prime Minister of Norway), published by Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford. A detailed exposition of the connection of population growth to the rest of the human predicament can be found in P. R. Ehrlich, A. H. Ehrlich, and J. P. Holdren, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment (W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1977). The most recent extensive popular treatment is A. H. Ehrlich and P. R. Ehrlich, Earth (Franklin Watts, New York, 1987).

Apparently this a-hole is not the only one who thinks like this.

In an interview to be published in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she thought the landmark Roe v. Wade decision on abortion was predicated on the Supreme Court majority's desire to diminish “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

In the 90-minute interview in Ginsburg’s temporary chambers, Ginsburg gave the Times her perspective on Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s first high court nomination. She also discussed her views on abortion.

Here is part of the questions and awnsers which Bader gave.

Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.

"A Comprehensive Planetary Regime"

Holdren believed a world government might play a moderate role in the future: setting and enforcing appopriate population levels, taxing and redistributing the world's wealth, controlling the world's resources, and operating a standing World Army.

Such a comprehensive Plenetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable...not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes...The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade...The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits...the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits. (p. 943.)

Part of the power wielded by this "Regime" would be in the form of a World Army. The trio wrote that the United States must destroy all its nuclear arsenal. But this would not render us defenseless against Communist aggression. "Security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force...The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization" (p. 917, emphasis added).

posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 06:35 AM
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions

Mod note: Read before posting. Don't name-call or troll. Ignorance is no excuse. You have been warned. -- Majic
edit on 7/12/2011 by Majic because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 07:16 AM
I am a Christian. I do not believe the bible is the word of God. I do not define Jesus as any but teacher.

I have visited this site for many years. I do believe a global authority is inevitable and I do not oppose it. The issue of a single religion is doubtful, more a single religious principle is likely. Any religion must have as its prime directive:
Divine principle of love, peace, spiritual development and communication with the divine authority. Any teachings that are not based on these principles are neither spiritual nor religious and should be banned.

I am amused at how many ATSers believe in the 'elite' ruling party who 'control the world' weather, war, financial mess, pharma, media etc. These same people say that the 'elite' want the NWO, why? If they already run the show from behind the scenes, they have no recourse to the law and are not held accountable by the majority of the population. They have nothing more to gain from NWO, they would lose some power by being utterly exposed.

If they have been in power for so long then we have been living under the system that most Christians and other NWO believers have feared for decades, if not longer. To keep looking for a future fulfillment of a past event is not helpful. Prophesy has been doctored by those you warn against. Jesus's return will mark the beginning of His kingdom, a NWO, a global government of peace.

Either tptb run the show and have for a long time or they do not and have not. It cannot be both ways.

new topics

top topics

<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in