The true face of TPTB driving the world... Knowledge: Is power. Opposition/Divulging: Is Dangerous

There is a strong ideology affecting the world as we know it; it is the reason behind all wars, a hidden hand in all political affairs and agendas. There is a ideology that goes by many well known names; World Peace, Free Trade, Global Unions, NWO... but there is just one suspect zero, behind all of these... presently it is called Globalization.

Globalization roots can be found back to the 11th century... It arose out of the Silk Road in the form of: MFN (Most Favored Nation) In the beginning, most favored nation was usually used on a dual-party, state-to-state basis. A nation could enter into a most favored nation treaty with another nation.

Generally reciprocal, in the late 19th and early 20th century unilateral most favored nation clauses were imposed on Asian nations by the more powerful Western countries (Open Door Policy).

After the World War II, tariff and trade agreements were negotiated simultaneously by all interested parties through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which ultimately resulted in the World Trade Organization.(WTO)

The World Trade Organization requires members to grant one another most favored nation status. In practice, this could be circumvented by highly restrictive non-tariff trade barriers.(sanctions)

GATT members recognized in principle that the most favored nation rule should be relaxed to accommodate the needs of developing countries, and the UN Conference on Trade and Development (est. 1964) has sought to extend preferential treatment to the exports of the developing countries.

Another challenge to the most favored nation principle has been posed by regional trading groups such as the European Union, which have lowered or eliminated tariffs among the members while maintaining tariff walls between member nations and the rest of the world.

In the 1990s continued most favored nation status for China sparked U.S. controversy because of its sales of sensitive military technology and its use of prison labor, and its most favored nation status was only made permanent in 2000. All of the former Soviet states, including Russia, were granted most favored nation status in 1992.

Lets get to know globalization shall we...

glob·al·i·za·tion [gloh-buh-luh-zey-shuhn]
noun
1. The act of globalizing, or extending to other or all parts of the world: the globalization of manufacturing.
2. Worldwide integration and development: Globalization has resulted in the loss of some individual cultural identities.
Definition source

Quotes:

John Kerry: “I know that some of you and many across the country wish that globalization would just go away, or you wistfully remember easier times. But, my friends, no politician, no matter how powerful, can put this genie back in the bottle. So our challenge is to tame the worst impulses of globalization even as we harness its ability to spread information and possibility, to offer even the most remote place on Earth the same choices that have made us strong and free.”

Quote source

Al Gore: “The outcome of the struggle to shape humanity’s future that is now beginning will be determined by a contest between the Global Mind and Earth Inc. In a million theaters of battle, the reform of rules and incentives in markets, political systems, institutions and societies will succeed or fail depending upon how quickly individuals and groups committed to a sustainable future gain sufficient strength, skill and resolve by connecting with one another to express and achieve their hopes and dreams for a better world.”

Quote Source

Though, the idea of globalization has been around for a long time; it's political foothold is much younger, from 1978 to 1991 to be precise. The first and most important development was China’s decision to turn from Maoism to the market, with the reforms initiated by Deng Xiaoping in 1978. A year later, Margaret Thatcher came to power in Britain. One of her first acts was the abolition of foreign exchange controls, easing London’s rise as a global financial center and setting an example that was emulated internationally. Then, in 1980, Ronald Reagan took power in the US on a platform of deregulation and tax cuts – giving a huge boost to market ideology around the world. In the mid-1980s, the European Union committed itself to creating a single market.

Many people take this quote by Ronald Reagan asking Gorbachev to ponder:

“how easy his task and mine might be in these meetings that we held if suddenly there was a threat to this world from some other species from another planet outside in the universe. We’d forget all the little local differences that we have between our countries …”

To be about about actual aliens; but instead it was a logical argument for globalization, and it worked...

In 1989, the collapse of the Berlin wall allowed eastern Europe and Russia to join the globalization game. The 1980s also saw the discrediting of protectionist populists in the largest countries of Latin America. Finally, in 1991, came another huge change: the decision by Indian leaders to move away from the regulation and protectionism that had hobbled the Indian economy since independence.

In less than 15 years, the political elites in the power centers of the world had come to broadly similar conclusions. They happily embraced global business and market economics, and it has become the standard ever since.

Keys points and consequences of globalization:

* Increase in international trade at a faster rate than the growth in the world economy

* Increase in international flow of capital including foreign direct investment

* Increase in world production and output and consumption

* Greater trans-border data flow, using such technologies as the Internet, communication satellites, and telephones

*The push by many advocates for an international criminal court and international justice movements (see the ICC and ICJ respectively)

*Greater international cultural exchange, for example through the export of Hollywood and Bollywood movies

*Some argue that terrorism has undergone globalization through its use of global financial markets and global communication infrastructure

*Spreading of multiculturalism and increased individual access to cultural diversity, with on the other hand, reduction in diversity through assimilation, hybridization, Westernization, Americanization, or Sinosization of cultures.

*Erosion of national sovereignty and national borders through international agreements leading to organizations like the WTO, OPEC, and EU

*Greater international travel and tourism

*Greater immigration, including illegal immigration

*Development of global telecommunications infrastructure

*Development of global financial systems

*Increase in the share of the world economy controlled by multinational corporations

*Increased role of international organizations such as WTO, UN, IMF that deal with international transactions

*Increase in the number of standards applied globally, for example, copyright laws

Source:

~Continued next post...

Globalization cannot happen without unification, or in other words unions.

The main 3 letter organizations, behind globalization are: WTO, UN, and IMF

The WTO is basically; All of the members in a global trade agreement.
The UN is basically; The government for global trade, global welfare, global safety.
The IMF is basically; The fund that the previous two operate from... the holder and financier of these funds is World Bank.

There are many globalist unions, International and worker alike; that I will not go into depth with... but touch on, because it is what has given rise to what is happening in Syria and the Middle East in general.

The current issue in Syria; we have all heard the term sanctions by now. This is the "time out corner" for countries to sit in... basically your trading ability will be cut to bare minimum, unless you get with the program. If you refuse, the citizenry eventually out of suffering will have had enough, start a civil war this typically erupts in a Coup d'état. It is in the globalist agenda to seize this moment, whether it is civil war: Because of the government agreeing to globalization... or the government disagreeing with globalization. The difference is the larger globalist nations will aid the rebels, if the government is against the global agenda... or aid the government against the rebels that are anti globalist.

Assad is against the globalist agenda... so, the rebels are being aided, the same as it occurred in Libya. We all know John Kerry is pro globalization, this is why he has been pushing so hard for strikes against Syria.

This opportunity to further globalization is one with a lot of major eyes on the table. The eyes opposing: Russia, Iran etc. have strong beliefs in: National sovereignty... one of the major concerns of globalization if you recall is: The spreading of multiculturalism and increased individual access to cultural diversity, and on the other hand, reduction in diversity through assimilation, hybridization, Westernization, Americanization, or Sinosization of cultures.

The larger globalization equivalent to the EU across the Mediterranean is the "Union for the Mediterranean".
The Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) is a multilateral partnership of 43 countries from Europe and the Mediterranean Basin: the 28 member states of the European Union and 15 Mediterranean partner countries from North Africa, the Middle East and the Balkans. It was created in July 2008 as a relaunched Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (the Barcelona Process), when a plan to create an autonomous Mediterranean Union was dropped. The Union has the aim of promoting stability and prosperity throughout the Mediterranean region.

The formations of these multi-country unions is a larger step to a united one world... without borders. Refuse and well... the globalist many outweigh the nationalist few. So, it's either get inline and come aboard or accept the consequences.

Now we all can understand the Syrian issue clearly yes?

Now aside from all the sanctions and war how else can this be dangerous?

MFN (Most Favored Nation) seemed to be too discriminatory; what if the country was grossly under developed and had little to trade? Well, this point became a contention in the WTO, and some buzz started to take place for setting up a welfare system for countries. Called the LDC (Least Developed Country)

Food for thought since this is a conspiracy site... to put this out there for speculation, it just so happens that a one John F. Kennedy was president at the time that this buzz of starting a welfare program for countries started.

On June 4, 1963, a little known attempt was made to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest. On that day President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve. Mr. Kennedy's order gave the Treasury the power "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation. In all, Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion in U.S. notes into circulation. The ramifications of this bill was enormous.

~Continued...

With the stroke of a pen, Mr. Kennedy was on his way to putting the Federal Reserve Bank of New York out of business. If enough of these silver certificates were to come into circulation they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve notes. This is because the silver certificates are backed by silver and the Federal Reserve notes are not backed by anything. Executive Order 11110 could have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level, because it would have given the government the ability to repay its debt without going to the Federal Reserve and being charged interest in order to create the new money. Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S. the ability to create its own money backed by silver.

John F. Kennedy was assassinated just five months later, no more silver certificates were issued by any other president even though they could. Yes Kennedy was removing the Federal Reserve from power. Needless to say, in order for globalization to operate it needs funds to do so... without the federal reserve the US would not be paying into World Bank to fund the IMF. When this happened, I am sure he was given a full globalization disclosure as to why the Federal Reserve was needed... did he refuse the idea, in turn costing him his life?

Reagan a champion of globalization, effectively killed the treasury's ability to print money/coin based off the silver standard with out the Federal Reserve's fingers in the cookie jar. In short, Reagan killed Kennedy's E.O. 11110... enough time passed without it being a suspicious act, by the most liked president in history?

Reagan to the American public said on National TV during his last year in office:

"given the U.S. Monetary System......Americans must understand, that with our present "Debt Instrument" system & it's "Federal Reserve Notes, it is impossible to either pay-down or payoff the National Debt."

Secrets are not good for the mind, it is quite possible Reagan literally lost his mind from the knowledge of deep rooted truths that could not be shared. Burdens that large could shake anyone, looking at all it's ramifications on a large scale.

With Kennedy out of the way; and the Federal Reserve back to full undisclosed self regulating power... the LDC welfare country program was put into action...

Geneva, 1964
In response to developing country (Least Developed Country, LDC) anxiety at their worsening position in world trade, the United Nations General Assembly voted for a 'one off' conference. These early discussions paved the way for new IMF facilities to provide finance for shortfalls in commodity earnings and for the Generalized Preference Schemes which increased access to Northern markets for manufactured imports from the South. At Geneva, the LDCs were successful in their proposal for the conference with its Secretariat to become a permanent organ of the UN, with meetings every four years.

The plan of globalization; has held many names, it started out as trade agreements many years ago into the unstoppable force it is today, at some point it was realized that world peace and a united world government could be attained using economics as a foot hold and a path to get there... and evolved from a system of trade into an ideology that shapes the world. This is TPTB, it is bigger than you or I, people or president... stand against it or oppose one of it's many hidden connections and you will fall.

At some point in time the goal of globalization will be achieved; and a one world without borders realized. The past, current, and future conflicts will all stem from this.

If the genie cannot be put back in the bottle; as John Kerry states... then it may be wise to pay head and watch; it's very clear that if you stand in it's way you will fall.

Opponents of globalization:
The anti-global movement is very broad, including church groups, national liberation factions, left-wing parties, environmentalists, peasant unionists, anti-racism groups, libertarian socialists, and others. Most are reformist (arguing for a more humane form of capitalism) and a strong minority is revolutionary (arguing for a more humane system than capitalism). Noam Chomsky, has claimed that this lack of centralization may in fact be a strength.

Sounds like people that could be put on a terrorist watch list yeah? Consider the following quote from G.W. Bush:

"A coalition partner must do more than just express sympathy, a coalition partner must perform, that means different things for different nations. Some nations don't want to contribute troops and we understand that. Other nations can contribute intelligence-sharing. But all nations, if they want to fight terror, must do something. Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity. You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

I am pretty sure the Patriot Act was to apply the above statement to all citizens as well.

Thank you for reading.

Most excellent and finely-crafted thread. Certainly does appear to be infrastructure building. Of course America has to be brought to its knees for phase 3 in that scenario. Bet it doesn't end all that well for the architects. These things usually don't so says history.

reply to post by The GUT


In my opinion the US at least the political side has already fallen, since the US is the world police, and the residence of many of the multi national corporations pushing for their products to be in every nook and cranny of the world.

The wool is still over the citizenry's eyes however; I think there is fear that the word will spread of this agenda, and that's the purpose for all the gun grabbing and legislation. There are many on US soil very nationalist and fundamentalist with a "you'll pry it from my cold dead hands" ideology. So if that's the segment you were referring to going to its knees Gut I agree...

I think Obama waiting for Congress to strike, which is mostly Republican is a strategic one. If he pulled a GW Bush for the globalist agenda, I think the country has had enough to go into revolt... and he knows it so... it's a by the book on this one. We will strike if Assad doesn't magically concede by then, that you can bet on... it is another Libya and more leverage in the Middle East with the Mediterranean Union.

The irony is how in the open this all is yet how hidden it all is at the same time... the average bear would say wait a minute... we are fighting and dying to unite the world? We are giving billions to other countries because the UN has declared them welfare countries? The majority of the populous would not stand for the no borders and world peace as a good reason for them to be losing family to war, jobs and homes from a weakened economy for this ideal, that only the corporations seem to be benefiting off of right now, by taking bailouts and bleeding us all dry as profiteers in the process.

The Middle East is moving rather quickly because of the fear of nuclear capability, that drags the process out longer so the fear is the longer they wait, the less chance this plan has to move forward the more nationalist nations that have nuclear weapons to facilitate mass casualty on a major level, it's a bargaining chip at the head of the table. Which is ultimately not their goal since peace is, the UN lays out what the goal for the world is in the end.

So that's why this is dangerous knowledge in my opinion.

I am all for a united world, free to live and travel with one currency... the implementation is not the best in my opinion... the while you were sleeping can really piss people off.

I do agree that an united world is an inevitability, baring some extinction level event. Also have huge concerns about how we get there as well. It does feel that the globalist agenda is being pushed to fast and hard, resulting in some of the conflicts and disasters around the place. To get the most out the cultural assimilation process the best parts of each do need to rise up, this does take time with many implications.

The nuclear issues have been causing a lot of stress and grey hairs for a while now. It is not an easy club to get into, those that do make it have demonstrated a very strong and tight cultural unit, very important for regional security. In time there maybe a world without nuclear weapons, but first the issues surrounding their existence does need to be resolved. Considering the ongoing progression of technology, even more powerful forces will be harnessed by then.

If we cannot get there through respecting human dignity, ethical standards and self determination then it may not be waiting for us.

Fine work friend. Hope many read this and think long about what you have written. Then verify it with what they see going on.

Originally posted by kwakakev
If we cannot get there through respecting human dignity, ethical standards and self determination then it may not be waiting for us.

Well stated. And the fear of many of us it seems.

"One World" does sound good on paper. Almost Utopian. I like it. On paper at least.

History and the "absolute power absolutely corrupts" quote seem to suggest where all of this may lead, however.

It will be One World and 1%.

I too have come to terms with globalization and a united world. But all things in good time. What's the rush? The entire eastern culture has a much needed reformation needed in religious/political thought. They need to be left too it without interference from a different culture with it's own agenda wanting to get it's hooks in the bounty. Greed is the motivator behind this war. Why not come home and lead the world to new the hnologies in energy? Instead of worrying about propping up an unsustainable one? Sooner or later, people are going to realize - black gold is nothing more than a crap investment. Eventually - poof - it will dry up anyways.

For those allies near Assad fearing an immeninent chemical attack, sorry but fight your own fight and do not expect Americans to fight in proxy for you! Go serve in your countries military and fight back! Why expect us to expend our resources and young men and women to fight for something you want? We already had our civil wars and in court are still working out the kinks. My advice - separate law and religion. Believe what the hell you want to believe and be free to do it - but the law applies to everybody despite what you believe.

In the perfect world it is great in theory, globalization, that is, and I believe necessary in bringing us up to a higher class of citizens. What are we right now? Class 0 civilization? Eventually world unification is necessary and needed - but do it right, for Christ's sake!

I just disagree with the methods. Forced change, euthanization, genocide to take care of those who resist? Or those 'percieved' as not belonging or undeserving. I'll speak out against war games and darwanian survival and totalatarian, police state orwellish tule - all forms of amoral practices found in the higher tiers of government and economic management. Until we learn to be caretakers of this world and each other without fear, violence,and oppressive control...

We're screwed. We have to find a different way - that doesn't involve humans taking up arms against each other.

Cirque

Part of the globalist theory is that kids in far off corners would prefer to pick up an I-pod over an AK-47, supplying that I-pod is a gateway theory in use... the nationalists against capitalism see it as an infiltration of Western culture to corrupt. Well, Western society and products do influence cultures.

Look at the boom Japan has had in cultural revolution, being the first real country to lay down nationalism in favor of complete globalization and Western influence. Has their culture collapsed entirely? Or transformed and blended with the technological modern world from embracing it for the better?

A lot of the youth have seemed to become dystopian, with Japans drive to become a first world country... of course this could be attributed hey it's teenagers, and it will inspire the underground arts and creativity that we find in the West... you could see this as a negative impact or a youth finding a way to fit in and discover their internal entrepreneur and become their own boss, making a living without the traditional brick and mortar work place. This movement in my opinion is where the national identity and culture really arises from.

It's only natural for nationalist citizens to fear the change, their way of life and roots will seem lost if they don't attempt to preserve it. Problem is the same people don't want it to develop and evolve either, that means different points of view, sharing a piece of the pie over control and learning some tolerance.

If a terrorist family's child has an I-pod is the father going to kill the child? No they will try to take it and give them an AK-47 instead. We know with reverse psychology this creates a rebellion in the child, that is trying to find their own identity away from the parents. So naturally, when that child has a choice they will drop the AK and pick up the I-pod and snub the fathers terrorist agenda.

Human nature there's no way around it... how many people do you know that were forced to do certain things like church, that that person is now adamantly against and have chosen to find their own path or identity away from their parents?

The educated in power with the most money in the restrictive countries know this, and they fan the flames of propaganda in the populous, so they don't have to share the pie. These people are corrupted by power and do not want their masses illuminated on the truth, just to preserve their own way of life. This happens in all cultures and governments to make sure they can guide cultural belief in the masses enough, so that they are not adverse to their agenda.

In the US and other countries where most are educated and form their own opinions with less of a herd mentality, things like the internet become dangerous. It leads people to sites like ATS and posts like the op... knowledge is power, and some knowledge gets restricted to keep power... if it is leaked out or someone can put 2 and 2 together more cuts for the pie have to be shared and less power or influence for those holding it.

I do not think hiding the globalist agenda behind closed doors and in elite meetings, like Bilderberg is a good idea. If you want trust and true aid and momentum behind this it should be clear and in the open.

Of course the human rights violations, death toll, and loss of culture is why many drag their feet on disseminating... a question arises with a doubt... I agree it's a good idea, but at what cost? Is a united world worth it? It is a matter of robbing the present that hopefully pays dividends in the future.

I believe the majority that hold power have agreed it is worth it, so hopefully everyone knowing what the agenda is can avoid as much suffering as they can in the process.

Resistance at this point is futile.

Hi,

Huh?

The future of humanity would be on more certain ground if the sociopathic nature/nurture--whatever it is--could be eliminated from the human experience. Of course that is easier said than done, and ethical questions abound. Meanwhile we simply must make-do with early-in-life recognition and apply careful but certain controls to safeguard others.

reply to post by loveguy


Kinda a paradox yes? Using an ideology to press global change is a Sociopathology, the vision of the end goal is all the justification needed... I don't think mental disorders such as Sociopathology are strictly individual. I think like most things labeled a disorder are just things with a less than popular public opinion. For example at one time homosexuality, was considered a mental disorder with more public acceptance it has been elevated from mental illness to an acceptable lifestyle.

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
Kinda a paradox yes? Using an ideology to press global change is a Sociopathology, the vision of the end goal is all the justification needed

The ends justifiy the means, eh? How...sociopathic...of you:

If there is a singular personality type that consistently gives rise to violence, it is the sociopath--aka psychopath. Narcissists are similar, but are typically out of touch to significant degrees. Such people are not psychotic; their psyches are distorted. They are amoral, robots without feelings for others or for the consequences of their own actions.

www.roadtopeace.org...

I don't think mental disorders such as Sociopathology are strictly individual. I think like most things labeled a disorder are just things with a less than popular public opinion. For example at one time homosexuality, was considered a mental disorder with more public acceptance it has been elevated from mental illness to an acceptable lifestyle.

Sorry, but my homosexual friends would take issue with being compared to sociopaths. I take issue with such a silly and shallow comparison as well.

Like I said, I doubt it will be the utopia that you somehow fantasize. Here, this is what it will almost undoubtedly look like:

“The technotronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values.

Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities. ”

― Zbigniew Brzezinski, Between Two Ages: America's Role in the Technetronic Era

Not much for human history and/or the politics of power I take it?

reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness

Using an ideology to press global change is a Sociopathology, the vision of the end goal is all the justification needed...

The end goal for a sociopath is "none other than to win."

Integrity and justice is what drives me to look myself in the face and recognise the soul within, or if I have one at all. I'm happy to report 'we' are presently accounted for...me, myself, and I.

I know I'm not a sociopath though, because I care about people who have the same trials and tribulations that I too must endure, on a global scale (economics). I'm gratefully lucky to be a simple witness at this point in time.

Nobody is so important that somebody else has to make some kind of blood-sacrifice.

It's sick to try and justify a forced dystopia through death and destructive lies- to suit the end goal.
To me the end goal is to end humanity if I am to follow the advice of scripture?

What kind of prize is it to gain and having to constantly guard against the theft of such spoils/personal property- from one's one used to rub elbows with?

One lone individual will still need another human to continue any perceived conquest...once gaining an agency through evolution?

It will be cold and lonely and lost without any sense of purpose. The rest of us will be dead and forgotten.

Darwin dictates we become a part of our surroundings through adaptive transformation? I wouldn't know. I quit school because eating was more of a priority.

Those with an agency don't have to build buildings to house their idea of what an agency is.

reply to post by The GUT


Ouch, the assumptions. I am talking from a generalized point of view to this not a personal one. These agenda's are generalized my personal point of view will do nothing to change them or facilitate their growth... I am not a person of influence, just a peon like everyone else trying to do the best I can with what I've got.

The analogy between sociopathic was to point at a change in public belief and opinion on various ideologies, not to compare homosexuality to sociopathology... Gut you have been around and authored enough threads to know the difference.

Here's my personal point of view and not a generalized point of view coming from the proponents or opponents of this agenda. So the speaker is not confused with the content I have presented:

Personally, I like the idea of no borders, being able to live and freely travel all over the world with one traded currency... honestly who the hell wouldn't? But like communism, it looks good on paper, add people and human nature and it falls flat on it's face like all other ideologies when put into implementation. I think we can get there eventually as a species using diplomacy and just letting time and nature run it's course. Robbing the now, and manipulating the world to bring this about because of impatience, or fear that it will be abandoned if left alone... that causes suffering and the loss of life is absolutely unacceptable. The needs of the many never have to outweigh the few, with compromise both can walk away happy. The problem with this agenda is there is no compromise, it is a either you're with us or against us.

I know I sound like lay it down and go along, and you are right. Simply because this is bigger than myself, the best I can do is see it understand it, and try to help my family avoid as much suffering as they can. If I had power and influence, then my life would be in danger if I gave the same information on a grand scale would it not? I know I am taking the blue pill stance on this one, out of a learned helplessness. That does not mean I don't care, just I feel my hands are tied on the issue, and putting this out there in this small venue is the best I've got.

I gave you a star and flag because of the tremendous amount of work it must have taken to put together and because it was well written and followed a logical sequence. However there is an underlying idea in your thread - the idea that this is being pursued for benign and humanitarian reasons. I would love to believe that, but because of the span of time it takes to implement such an cause, the vast number of players throughout the decades and their varied personalities, I would suspect it's anything other than benign. Oh I guess I should add "human nature" as a reason it would make it difficult to follow through with. The only constant variables that have endured are the nations, the banks and megacorporations; the real players; all of which have selfish interests, and would never put them aside for any humanitarian pursuits. However I do see how full globalization would make doing business much easier and cheaper. And, if indeed this grand scheme is underway, there must be some nefarious, underlying motive, for them to all consider such a massive plot viable and then pursue it the way you have described.

reply to post by Bilk22


Well, the means to get to this point of globalization have been nefarious; so the out come to also be nefarious, makes logical sense. This won't happen in my lifetime so I focus on the here and now, and when it is fully implemented I have optimism that the reason this is kept mostly in the dark, is the same reason not to show your cards in a friendly game of poker. Even though when it comes to the game itself being played it is far from friendly.

As a tid bit of interest, the same nations that GW Bush termed the "axis of evil" are the same ones with no diplomatic ties to the Holy See.

I appreciate the accolades for authorship, but most of the content was snipped quoted and or plagiarized, to form a cohesive whole for what I presented.

Originally posted by BigBrotherDarkness
Here's my personal point of view and not a generalized point of view coming from the proponents or opponents of this agenda. So the speaker is not confused with the content I have presented:

Personally, I like the idea of no borders, being able to live and freely travel all over the world with one traded currency... honestly who the hell wouldn't? But like communism, it looks good on paper, add people and human nature and it falls flat on it's face like all other ideologies when put into implementation. I think we can get there eventually as a species using diplomacy and just letting time and nature run it's course. Robbing the now, and manipulating the world to bring this about because of impatience, or fear that it will be abandoned if left alone... that causes suffering and the loss of life is absolutely unacceptable. The needs of the many never have to outweigh the few, with compromise both can walk away happy. The problem with this agenda is there is no compromise, it is a either you're with us or against us.

I know I sound like lay it down and go along, and you are right. Simply because this is bigger than myself, the best I can do is see it understand it, and try to help my family avoid as much suffering as they can. If I had power and influence, then my life would be in danger if I gave the same information on a grand scale would it not? I know I am taking the blue pill stance on this one, out of a learned helplessness. That does not mean I don't care, just I feel my hands are tied on the issue, and putting this out there in this small venue is the best I've got.

Okay, I understand you better now. I also believe that you now better understand the machinations--and the historical downside--to the "ends justifies the means" counterpoint some of us are making here. In other words: Will the world really be a better place...or just more "technocratic?"

Let me be clear: I've learned a LOT here and have followed up some leads. Thank you, brother! You are exceptionally bright and I appreciate your thoughts.

I DON'T believe we are headed for the world you hope for, however. But, of course, that's just opinion on my part. Yes, God bless us, Yes...probably time to focus on family and other loved-ones and let the inevitable play out. Peace.

reply to post by BigBrotherDarkness

Problem is the same people don't want it to develop and evolve either, that means different points of view, sharing a piece of the pie over control and learning some tolerance.

Evolution is a slow, generational and ongoing process. As for how human cultures and civilization grows, merges and changes over time is strongly reflected in the dynamic nature of the different social boarders in play over time.

As for how I see this gradual evolution progressing in a responsible way is through people like David Hicks, An Australian held at Guantanamo Bay. What he did was care and have an interest in a different culture. He spent time there, understood there culture and share his. Through the friendships he had, issues can be discussed and in time better directions found.

I can fully accept the fear that the wave of new technology can bring. So many new issues, uncertainties, complexities and problems. The one laptop per child program is a better place to focus assimilation efforts than dealing with the old guard. Their time will come as a new generation has a stronger ability in confront and handle the issues that technology brings.