How can anyone doubt the NWO is the end goal when..

*chuckle* me too. Although, a good drinking game would be how many times she can say 'mainstream media' in 25 minutes.

 

StpLSD25

Obama said "this doesn't create big-brother gun registration." But Lawyers who read the bill, said it did just that. His push for Gun Control wasn't about guns- but about control!

I don't think I trust the government too much. I just don't interpret the above as Agenda 21 in progress - ready to disarm every American gun owner and bring about martial law. And I, to be honest, don't think you really think that, either.

 

Gun Registration? No. But Obama? I honestly believe he's a sociopath, and will do whatever the powers that be ask of him. I really think he's that bad! Also, if you look at the demoralization of our presidents, esp since Kennedy but, corruption spreads over 100 years into our history, maybe longer.

So honestly i think Clinton, Bush, Obama swore a secret oath in Bilderberg (which they all attended about a yer before being 'elected') which probably states that they will pass any law and do special favors for their new spot in American politics. I personally would believe that the whole election process is a sham.

 

So, this proves you are crazy and your reputation is worthless. Obama has never tried to disarm citizens, has never done anything that would allow the government to track who has guns, and has never stated that he wants to do either thing -- but you persist in fantasizing what he is "really" thinking and intending and stating it as if it were the truth. Don't you see how crazy that is?

 

Anything relating to Obama and anything he says relating to guns, to be honest. To be fair to you, you said: '(UN Small Arms Treaty) probably to bring about Martial Law, when the people revolt.'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB7ZaK7Oa88"]Alex Jones Disrupts BBC's Sunday Politics Show 2013 - YouTube

I just get the feeling you are a little bit like that.

I'm sure you are generally a nice calm person IRL

 

I'm not like Alex Jones, and I don't watch Alex Jones. I'm More like Adam from "Adam vs the man" because I believe government should protect life, liberty and property and never intiate force. I also don't believe there is a such thing as "victimless crimes" (Regarding our drug policy) But as far as the things I say that some of you may see as "over the top," I'm simply saying that it's not 'over the top' for our government. They have killed American college student during protest and now we've even legalized torcher. People like you and others (no offense) who accept this as your everyday life, are giving government a pass to commit murder, genocide and, theft and their soldiers and representatives are recently being overlooked when they commit rape and murder and turn teenage prisons into rape camps! This is the type of government so many people are blindly accepting as reality. I strongly believe that government violence creates more violence. The only way mankind will advance, is to not allow the government to intiate force to impose their will and, we regain our freedom and rule of law from what is a world government which several people admitted to....

"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government."
- Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference in Evians, France, 1991

“Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.” (There is more to the quote that this website left out, saying he believes they did it for the greater good. Although, that's entirely opinion, and is completely arguable!
- David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405

 

WHICH "new world order" is the end goal of WHAT?

international cooperation is only a bad thing, when it universally supports economic interests superseding local cultures and the civil rights and well being of real organic people and the health and well being of their surrounding natural environments.

a world for the convenience of corporate profits, is a world destroying the means for human life to exist. the corporate mechanism is a dumb doomsday machine, which some wealthy eletes are dumb enough to imagine the can and do control, not realizing nor understanding it controls them.

but its not some mysterious external force. it is the automatic (symbolic) wealth concentrating mechanism, of the corporation. it is the blindness of that mechanism. NOT even some mysterious secret super agreement between corporate leaders, but the blindness of the way the corporate mechanism inhierently works.

now there are, carl rove and the nose candy brothers, who want to make the world a u.s. lead dictatorship which they can in turn pull the puppet strings of from behind the scenes.

the biggest bitch i have about this use of the phrase "new world order" is the use of the word "new" in this context. which it isn't. its the very OLD "world order" of feudalism, just on a much grander scale.

 

Well unfortunately the NW O is ran by Banksters who are the biggest elitest manipulating government and the Military-industrial complex. (The Bilderbergs, CFR, UN and most western style government countries.

The end goal is to control all resources and countries. A Literal "visible" world government is not desirable; because that doesn't account for wars, population control etc. But their current goal is to lower population in America. Agenda 21 (a UN document) states that golfing, skiing and, backyards are all unsustainable. It takes a VERY Liberal envoirmental path saying America is "overpopulated" and we'd all essentially have to live in apartment complexes, with less people than we currently have, and Obama signed off on it.

Odon II is incorrect though (he's from the UK and doesn't know American Law) The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land; The Supreme Court has also ruled any law/treaty/ executive order which violates it, is automatically null and void. Unfortunately, most of our politicians work for companies!

I agree. It's not new. But certain people IE OdonII justify it, claiming they do "some good." But if you look around at all the bad things going on in the world, it is because our government has become a monopoly on the use of force. We've given our Government this God pass like the ancient Egyptians, where their word is gold, and they can violate their own laws. And that's usually when countries fall apart from the inside out.

 

Those things are all correct but being that people call it the N.W.O. I'll keep calling it that... if people want to call it the O.W.O. we can do that too. Same thing, different words.

 

You do realise you have mentioned a 'one world government' more than once, don't you?
So, it's now not really a 'one world government', but something like a 'one world government'?
So, a 'one world government' isn't what you actually meant?
Am I taking things too literally again?

Lol, where, please quote the passage. Thanks.

Where does it say the U.S is overpopulated and must be depopulated?

Have you moved away from saying ALL International law/treaties are unconstitutional?

What are you talking about? Are you putting words into my mouth?

 

No. I'm not taking anything back. They want a 'one world government,' invisible to the adverage Joe. In other words, They want most governments to work towards their 'UN'/Bilderberg agenda; But they don't want to have to control the whole world (cause this would take away the need for war and trading. Instead, IMO they want a government who smiles and agrees on everything, including starting wars and trading. Control of the whole world, without the losing money in "Pax Earth"

I don't recall that I have said — and I don't think that I really feel — that we need a world government. We need governments of the world that work together and collaborate. But, I can't imagine that there would be any likelihood — or even that it would be desirable — to have a single government elected by the people of the world.-David Rockefeller

The reason he feels this way, is because we are too different; Europe wont accept One Government, do you think the whole world would?

I can't. I've seen numerous professors speak against Agenda 21, but I didn't sit and write down the verses; but here is some websites on Agenda 21

http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/cobb/130219

It doesn't say any of that directly. It does however, give certain numbers of "suggested population," and America is already WAY above the mark. So how do the expect us to depopulate? I believe they're already working on all that.(Chemicals in our food and water and an attempt to demoralize our citizens, and cause fear in others. (Which I also believe is backfiring)

No, again. The Constitution is the Supreme Law over America; The Supreme Court has ruled in instances, that Laws,Treaties and, executive orders which violate the Constitution are notwithstanding as if they had never been written.

If you want to debate American politics with Americans, I suggest you read the Constitution; A majority of us know better than to surrender ourfreedom, for pretty government promises.

And you know I'm not putting words in your mouth; you blamed me for not mentioning that David Rockefeller said

And you know I'm not putting words in your mouth; you blamed me for not mentioning that David Rockefeller said

For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.
The anti-Rockefeller focus of these otherwise incompatible political positions owes much to Populism. "Populists" believe in conspiracies and one of the most enduring is that a secret group of international bankers and capitalists, and their minions, control the world's economy. Because of my name and prominence as head of the Chase for many years, I have earned the distinction of "conspirator in chief" from some of these people.
Populists and isolationists ignore the tangible benefits that have resulted in our active international role during the past half-century. Not only was the very real threat posed by Soviet Communism overcome, but there have been fundamental improvements in societies around the world, particularly in the United States, as a result of global trade, improved communications, and the heightened interaction of people from different cultures. Populists rarely mention these positive consequences, nor can they cogently explain how they would have sustained American economic growth and expansion of our political power without them. -DRockefeller-


You got mad at me since I didn't add his defense; The reason I didn't add his little speal about how he "bettered America," is because we bailed them out, our economy is in shambles and cognitively the economy would've been better ran by the consumers of the world, and not elite Banksters like this, who would lie, cheat and, kill people off, just to make an extra buck, or a little more power.

 

What is the ''UN'/Bilderberg agenda'?
How do you define 'most'? Most of the 'western' world? Most of the English speaking world? Most of the world, but not including countries such as Iran, Russia and North Korea?
Doesn't the UN try and resolve conflicts rather than promote them?
Wouldn't an easier thing to do is put at odds all countries and create as much conflict as possible?
More wars. Less people.
If it is to promote peace and harmony, wouldn't that increase populations significantly?
The point is, what is actually going on in the world - the real world - rather than some soundbites.

What is so terrible about this: 'We need governments of the world that work together and collaborate.'?

That seems to the ethos of the UN and other such entities around the world.

Of course not. So I don't see the point of even trying. If there were, what would be the consequence to the average person?

Maybe you should.

renewamerica:

The mission of RenewAmerica is to expand the influence of America's grassroots — both among individual citizens and among principled groups — in the cause of preserving our nation upon its founding ideals, specifically those in the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution, as well as those derived from biblical principles.

So you would prefer a world/America based on biblical principles? - what ever the hell that means.
Well, that sounds fantastic. *sarcasm*

It suggests to me an isolationist attitude.
We (America) will do what ever we want, when ever we want, and to whom ever we want.
Again, an 'I' and 'we' scenario.

The truth is, America follows/adopts many, if not all, 'international treaties' etc, and benefits greatly from doing so.
Like many other countries it tries to prevent an erosion of sovereignty.
However, it seems, ANYTHING signed outside America is seen through that prism.
So you then see groups formed such as 'renewamerica'.

Did you notice they focus mainly on 'disarming Americans'?
Aren't Americans completely paranoid about supposedly being 'disarmed'?
Wasn't the latest arms treaty supposed to do that? did it? no.
Was it aimed at doing that? no

They also doesn't seem to make much direct reference from Agenda21 to back itself up.
So, it's mostly hyperbole, imho.

This seems to be a recurring theme.
I know you may say that Agenda21 will not directly say something, but an indication of what it does say compared to your interpretation would be nice.

It sounds terrible:
http://www.iisd.org/rio+5/agenda/agenda21.htm

Paranoid:

Agenda 21- Codex- Fema Camps-80% Depopulation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUWByt813fA"]Agenda 21- Codex- Fema Camps-80% Depopulation = New World Order (Terror Camps: The Global Agenda) - YouTube

I suppose, to many people, being advised/told what should be done, is the same as being directly dictated to. But isn't a good idea a good idea?
Governments take the lead on certain issues/best practice from other countries all of the time.

Post a source, please.

Which ones have?

Parliament is supposed to do the same thing.

The fact is, there are laws/treaties that do not originate in one particular country but affect and effect others.
That does not constitute a OWG/NWO.
It does seem to me that some Americans think the only thing to follow is US law and the constitution.
Do you understand what I mean?

If the world did not have some forms of unity/uniformity you and I would not be communicating now.

 

I don't agree with Stp regarding wars and an "invisible" world government. An invisible world government is pretty much what we have right now.

Money means nothing to the people at the top. Trading means nothing to the people at the top. Both are means to an end and nothing more.

They want an open world government eventually, and I believe most of us will see it in our lifetime. Wars serve mostly to bring the world under control of a one world government. Once that happens, wars will be unnecessary, and instead the wars will be waged against not individual countries, but individual people who dissent. That is already largely happening, too, when you look at how freedoms are being violated across the Western world as governments take away more of people's rights.

As far as most countries going along with the agenda, that is already happening, with the exception of a few of the Middle Eastern countries, but the US is taking care of that as we speak.

Odon - the Bilderberg/UN agenda is a open one world government where the nation-state is obsolete and all people will answer to one global authority. Freedom as we know it will be non-existent and the living standard will be greatly diminished across the entire Western world.

 

'The entire western world'?
What is a 'global authority'?

So the ' Bilderberg/UN agenda' is to diminish the US hegemony, and increase the strength of countries such as Africa and China?

Could you be a little more precise, please.

Forgive me, Pressed_Rat, but I have read so many of your posts over the years that you have completely abandoned - I never really know what your current thinking is.

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=73859&highlight=agenda+21&f=28

http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=226230&highlight=agenda+21&f=420

Maybe post a few of your older articles.

 

I think Iran tries to play along (putting anti islamic extremsist classes in their schools)Russia plays along somewhat, but keeps us in check as we do with Israel; IE Tells us we're in too many wars etc.

Well, no. I think some of the UN's policies are made to appear as though they are good for the world; But the American government is totally blameless when they commit war crimes and human rights violations, (I believe because we sponsor the UN, and pay for most of it.) When the American government does things which violate UN acts such as, Drone Strikes, Killing their own citizens, bombing/no fly zones without a declaration of war and, assasinating democratically elected leaders without a declaration of war; The UN does not hold them accountable, because they almost exclusively pay the bills. So Imho the UN is a group of bully nations, that again, have a monopoly on violence that they define as "Peacekeeping," when they're really just ensuring Power in the status quo, so that the biggest financial organizations, banks, oil/'green-energy' industries and the pharmaceutical companies can control the world resources, and legitimize this practice with force.

The US government has a monopoly on violence, and only people who play along with us survive; This is essentially what's hurting the world. Plus, not everyone share all the same values and beliefs. The US/UN governments have essentially become the World Police saying whoever is a threat to the establishment, is automatically an evil dictator; Meanwhile, some true evil dictators are put into power by America, after assasinating their Democratically elected leader! (Iran1970's)

Because (I believe) it's a Big Chess game; Although those that yield power may be "citizens," they have a very distorted view of the "greater good," and lie or hide stuff from the American people constantly. (GMO's, the reason for flouride in our water, JFK, Operation Northwoods, Gulf of tonkin incident

There's not anything wrong with the statement specifically; but rather, the somewhat secret beliefs of the type of people who say things like that. The Elitest who push the seemingly 'left' Agenda, is driving up the cost of everyday life, but only helping government and banksters. Actually, America was better when we let businesses compete, and not like today where we pick and chose winners and losers. The government controls the economy, and the value of a dollar, and this is the result. (it is worth nearly 1/30th of what it was in 1913 when the dollar was established.


Putting money in the bank? You're getting robbed!

They are still actively trying to disarm America like the UK, but they working on disbanning other aspects of the Constitution as well. People who understand the Constitution, realize the trend of violations have been going on far too long; the system is rotten through, and will not stand much longer imo.

This seems to be a recurring theme.
I know you may say that Agenda21 will not directly say something, but an indication of what it does say compared to your interpretation would be nice.

The reason why you will find Americans who are very serious about the Constitution; the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. (not just in my dreams.) but by our American rule of law. I don't agree with either of those sites philosophy, but I believe in freedom of speech, even though people say stupid things. The other site was "democrats against agenda 21" again, obviously not me!

And there's laws Americans want to change! (Our dumb drug laws) The only way this could happen is if we each individually realize that it's morally wrong for you to impose force to tell me what to eat, drink or even smoke. Freedom is supposed to mean freedom for the individual; however, we've allowed our government to cut out many freedoms, simply by believing their lies and propaganda. People are now demanding freedom on many different accounts, and I hope it comes!

 

StpLSD25

I think you might be using this NWO/OOG theory as plasticine - molding it into any shape you see fit, ignoring any coherent theory.
'I think Iran tries to play along'?
'The Russians play along somewhat'?
'Tells us we're in too many wars etc'?
'Some of the UN's policies are made to appear as though they are good for the world'?
You are wrapping yourself in knots.

I thought you were apposed to the NWO/OOG etc?
I thought you thought the US should do what is 'constitutional' - ignoring/dismissing anything that contradicts that.
Why are you paying any attention to what the UN/OOG is saying?
Why should the US pay any attention to the UN?
It's illegitimate, isn't it?
In the hands of the Bilderbergs etc etc etc etc.
You can't have it both ways.

How can they be 'nations'?

And your solution is?

Why differentiate between the UN and the US? US/UN.
Just say governments that are signatory to the UN charter (which includes the US).
You also seem keen on using the term 'EU' - if you are apposed to a OOG, why clump a whole group of countries up as the 'EU'?
If you keep pitching the US against everything else, then why should I not think this whole thing is not some Americentric hissy fit, because the US has to follow some International laws, and you, and many others, are butt hurt about it?

How can 'they' disarm us, when we were not really armed in the first place? Not like the US.

Much longer?
Check a few of the Pressed_Rat threads out (post 74).
They are nearly a decade old. You might read some of the same sentiments you are saying now being mentioned then.
It's quite repetitive, to be honest.
We are all being led into a OOG because of Agenda 21 blah blah blah.
It's taking a bloody long time, that's all I can say

That's what I am saying. Hence the theory of a OOG because of International law.

Why post them then? Atleast post something you don't find stupid.

P.S: Is it possible for you to delete the parts you are not going to bother to respond to, like I do? Thank You.

 

Oog?

 

Only One Government.

 

Go back to any time period in human history and "it" always turns out to be-- "same shit-differant pile". The endless struggle of a small group or groups, to gain power over large groups by any means necessary, reflects the unfortunate driving force behind the human behaviour that writes our history. It is that which all have had to contend. Why would it be any differant now than 10,000 years ago? Only the numbers affected will differ.

 

They "try" to play along, as in, the show up at UN meetings and basically say "please don't kill us, we're not your enemy."

You say I'm tying mtself in knots when ALL those countries are part of the UN, they're only seen as enemies to American Imperialists, and their supporters.

Well it certainly doesn't go away if we ignore it!? it's illegitimate but we're still paying taxes toward it, and NATO is mostly American troops. It's completely unConstitutional in so many different ways! Agenda 21 doesn't impliment disarmament- but it does declare

I think our disregard for the true agenda if the UN, has allowed for this;However, I don't think everyone should suffer for our previous ignorance.
"An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it"


- John F. Kennedy