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

Discussion in 'Conspiracy' started by AmericanTerrorist, May 21, 2013.

  1. StpLSD25

    StpLSD25 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    11
    Daamn somehow I lost most of my post. I'll type up a different response to you later, this laptop pisses me the f* off!
     
  2. odonII

    odonII O

    Messages:
    9,803
    Likes Received:
    25
    I'd prefer a similar one. Thanks. I try the 'back' button before I start over.
     
  3. themnax

    themnax Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,694
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    western area regional joint operations holistic network. acronym ring any bells?
     
  4. StpLSD25

    StpLSD25 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    11
    I did- it brought me back but the post was gone. I'll try to write up the same type response now... one sec..
     
  5. StpLSD25

    StpLSD25 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    11
    You can't really wage war on individuals unless you surgically remove them with drones or police, and I don't think people would live in such a world so close to the book 1984... but let me get to Odon II
     
  6. StpLSD25

    StpLSD25 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    11
    Okay, well let me evaluate further; Iran has implemented classes in their grade schools which preaches against Islamic extremism. They are also trying to develop nuclear power, not weapons, and that's why they wont "stop their nuclear program."

    I think it's crazy to insinuate the US Government should be allowed to dictate what type of power another country uses. But back on the subject of the "OWG;" The UN may declare that something "has to be done about Libya," and then they send our brothers and sons out to get killed for their cause. But the UN would never go after the US Government for their war crimes, because somehow Our Government has been alluding that they have the power of the Angel of Death herself. But the UN will never oppose our government, because we finance them.

    But it's more than that.. most of our 'elected officials' attended Bilderberg meetings, just prior to coming into power. Eisenhower warned as he was leaving office, that the military industrial complex was taking over our nation- and when JFK didn't follow with their agenda (Operation Northwoods) he was shot. It was lies that got us into Vietnam. (Gulf of Token turned out to be a fake.) This is why I don't believe they're really looking to transition from war. But they do want an awful lot done globally.

    I agree with PR on some things and others- I don't. We are already really only fighting dissent of our government, most with radical ideologies. However, it also must be recognized that we have a way of creating our enemies. The US Government wants enemies to keep the war machine rollin- and that's where PR and I disagree. I don't think the leaders want total peace because they need and enemy to show their people to be afraid of. I think peoples fear would flip right to government if we lived in the 1984 world PR speaks of.

    But Odon, I asked you before, but do you like the Eurozone?

    Would anyone like if a random group of unelected officials controlled their country's policies/economies? I highly doubt it.

    But the joke is on us, because it's been happening that way for many many years. I wouldn't be surprised if even our election process is a sham.( It's scarcely known that they don't 'count every vote')

    But then, I do agree they are working toward a world government and that we already have one behind the curtains. I just don't see total peace anywhere nearby as long as we allow the worse criminal banksters to proceed with business and politics and usual. See you somehow accuse my views of destroying this country, when really it's both democrats and republicans that are outspending and overtaxing us. The only time my views were ever tried was at the start of America when Americans were free to keep most of their money, without crazy government intervention for non violent "victimless crimes;" Infact, in those days, there were no victimless crimes! One could walk into the store, buy a bottle of Liquid Morphine; No one goes to jail, gets shot or does anything illegal. But people were still responsible enough not to go crazy with it. Because it's proven with drugs that most problems are prohibition related and not used related. I'm not saying one should take Morphine- but one shouldn't be treated like a criminal for buying anything either; Alcohol kills 6.5x more than all other illicit drugs combined!

    This part confused me. I don't want it both ways. I found out about the "Illuminati" when I was young- like 14 or so. However, I also read the Constitution for the first time around 16 or 17; I wanted to know my Rights, because travling around America as a teenager opens the door for alot of police harrassment. I'd be smoking a cig out of a motel room and police pulled up and put a flashlight to me. I didn't know the Constitution so somehow I "Consented" to his search, but I kept saying "you can't do this" (cause I knew they weren't allowed, I just didn't know it was the Fourth Amendment ) but anyway they BSed me the whole time and I didn't even do drugs at that time. So I really believe in the power of the Constitution. It is meant to maintain order and the rule of law in this nation; it is also meant to help the people identify tyranny, when the Constitution is constantly violated, It's time to pull out the Declaration of Independence!


    Ha! We don't follow the UN's laws! You think killing foreign leaders and drone striking 16 year old citizens for no reason isn't Human Rights violations to the UN? They turned a blind eye cause we pay most of the bills.

    I am opposed to a NWO, and the EU. I'm not putting the US against everyone, I just value our sovereignty, rule of law and independence. I wouldn't want to live in a county that pushed for the agenda of the "founders of the UN," because I'm sure no one but elitest probably know what it is.

    You're not armed now cause they made it illegal. But do you feel much safer now? You can't hold a gun- most cops don't even have guns, but criminal gangs still have guns!? You guys are still allowed to have rifles if you "have a reason;" but if I lived out there- I would make up a reason!

    It's crazy tyranny when a country disarms it's citizens, and America is taking steps to do that; Not only are they pushing gun control hard with Hollywood and control happy politicians, but DHS and social security (relitively 'non-violent agencies') bought up enough ammunition to shoot every citizens 5 times (2 extra shots than the 3 the army tells you to kill with)

    I agree they will attack dissent, but with whom? I think NATO troops or out of country troops would be more likely to violate our Constitution than Americans, but there are probably some Americans too.

    But it's not the gun that's important. Good guys and bad guys have guns. The important part is the maturity and mind of the person behind the gun; what they know and what they believe in. If one could change enough minds you can win a war, without even lifting a gun. Which is what I think most of us are hoping for..

    Well yeah it is taking a long time, and the plans date back, like I said to the 60's and earlier. I like they are leading into eventual global government (or more sub-global "Continental Governance" (NorthAmerica, Africa, Europe, china and, Russia.) and these will be the future superpowers with the Bilderbergs controlling it all and the US Constitution Null and void. (That's my problem with this mess) Plus I do agree with PR that there agenda is to build up other countries. Maybe not China, but Agenda 21 is a plan for what can only be discribed as global communism. They want to take money from us "rich" countries (the UK and America) and give it to Africa etc, to destroy our country while boosting theirs. They are trying to collapse our dollar and cause chaos, and it can happen at anytime the way we run our printers today

    (Sterling devalued 14% in one day, and left London in peril without simple things like trash pickup for months. America has been steadily devaluing and acting like the laws of economics don't apply to us. They know a disaster is coming- they just want us to believe the government spending more will magically fix everything, so we all go back to sleep will total trust that our dollar will be worth a dollar tomo, and it's not reality. We are heading towards a crisis that will then be used as an excuse to usher in a bigger world government, a world currency, a world constitution etc. but the people must be in total fear, like the great depression; and with all the spending, printing and foreign aid our government gives away, it's obvious this is unsustainable.


    Are we gonna be able to work together though and build a new government? Or will we riot like Animals till the dems and cons come back?

    I think we had a better government when it was ran by people who truly debated, and didn't play this "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" game.
     
  7. odonII

    odonII O

    Messages:
    9,803
    Likes Received:
    25
    How do you know?

    It isn't the US government, btw.

    'Its refusal to suspend nuclear activity with both civilian and potential military applications in defiance of U.N. Security Council demands, and its lack of full openness with the IAEA, have fueled suspicions abroad about its ultimate goals.'

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/17/us-iran-nuclear-iaea-idUSBRE95G0VQ20130617

    http://ola.iaea.org/ola/FactSheets/CountryDetails.asp?country=IR

    It's those world government people.

    Don't you see where I am coming from when I say that I think some Americans think it's all about them?

    I don't think it quite works like that.
    Why did you only say 'our' ?
    Did you mean each country within the UN that decides to provide troops?
    Females, too.
    I know it doesn't sound quite as emotional as: ' our brothers and sons'.
    For the sake of argument, I would say that 99% of the time our 'brothers and sons' don't go anywhere and don't die.
    A pretty good record.
    I think what you have to remember is that - to keep it totally Americentric - UN signatories have a bit of chat and they decide one thing or another, and sometimes America agrees.
    You see that as the UN saying something and the US having to do something.
    They do not have to do anything they don't wish to.
    And they (the US) generally do something if it is in their interest (perhaps a little cynical).
    You know this.

    What I'm saying is that in one breath you are apposed to the UN, and see it as illegitimate, and part of god only knows what, but then you want the UN to 'go after' the USA for the war crimes you say they are/have committed.
    You can't be apposed to something and then want it to spring into action.
    You can't have it both ways.

    One minute you say the UN clicks it's fingers and America goes running, but then the UN doesn't do something else because America pays for the UN.
    Odd.

    Funding:
    This is broadly based on the relative capacity of each country to pay, as measured by their gross national income (GNI), with adjustments for external debt and low per capita income.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations

    You're quite contradictory.
    An all powerful UN/new world order agenda setter one minute, and not able to do anything about American the next.
    A coherent argument might be nice.

    I think you said the EU.
    The 'Eurozone' is something else.
    I said that it does not really impact my life.
    I said my city and I might have benefited from an EU social fund.
    http://www.leicester.gov.uk/your-council-services/ep/economic-regeneration/european-social-fund/

    How has
    Agenda21 and the SAT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.N._Small_Arms_Treaty
    impacted your life?

    They don't. Because there isn't such a thing.

    http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=474442&f=36

    I know it's complicated and very boring.

    How I see it is that the EU and the UN etc are umbrellas that countries have decided to shelter under.
    It isn't one 'elite' (whatever) telling the rest what to do, they all seem to be deciding what to do (or not to do) together.
    They all joined the party.
    What you seem to want or think should/is happen(ing) is that the US should be or is 'the one'.

    I'm not sure how much of all of these entities activities you tune into.
    I would imagine, like me, it is very little - but I suspect I read about it more than you do.
    Maybe if you read more it would not seem so insidious.
    I know it might be a little boring, though.
    Global agendas are so much more fun.
    Is that unfair/patronising?


    Do you mean that not every vote has value, rather than they do not count all of the votes?

    Something like this: http://www.voterpower.org.uk/

    In Leicester West, one person does not really have one vote, they have the equivalent of 0.064 votes.
    The power of voters in this constituency is based on the probability of the seat changing hands and its size.

    While you might think that every vote counts equally, where you live in the UK has a huge effect on your power to influence the election.


    http://www.voterpower.org.uk/leicester-west

    How much of the world is at peace and how much of the world is racked by war?
    How much and what is affected by US foreign policy?

    ''See you somehow accuse my views of destroying this country' - Pardon?
    I think you might be mistaking me for somebody else.

    No country has complete sovereignty or independence - sorry.
    But you are vague a lot of the time, and always seem to throw the baby out with the bath water.
    The idea of a NWO/OWG is vague and suggests a lack of knowledge.
    I don't mean any offense by that.
    I don't know an awful lot myself.
    It's too vast.
    I just choose to believe, on the whole, these institutions are not bad or evil or trying to rule the world.
    I spend a little bit of time reading about UN education and vaccination programmes etc, and don't think: Good grief, population control etc.
    To me it is ridiculous.
    I think we would agree on a lot of issues if you were specific and brought more facts to the table, rather than opinion.

    My sense of safety is not dictated by me holding or not holding a gun in my hand.
    My sense of safety is tied to my experience.
    I feel quite safe, and am probably lucky enough to never be a victim of crime etc.
    There is not some national outcry about not being able to own a gun.
    I've said it elsewhere - we'd probably prefer to get ourselves a burglar alarm, rather than a smith and wesson or what ever gunslingers prefer these days. An AR15?

    I think at some point that you are going to be at the end of the slippery slope, and a decade or more has passed and non of the predictions/opinions you have have been born out.
    You could decide to abandon them or not try and defend them anymore (like many people seem to have done) or continue spinning the same old same old regardless of reality.
    I hope you choose the former rather than the latter.

    We can all dream.

    Have you noticed you have just diluted your theory about a one world government?
    I imagine sooner or later your theory will be a sub-sub-sub-sub global governance.
    You do seem frightened of a lack of American global power and authority.
    Bildebergs? I'm laughing here, seriously.


    I think you say 'not China' because it is doing a good job of it itself.
    You see helping to improve the lives of people living in abject poverty, and economic ruin due to rich countries raping the crap of them for decades as a bad thing?
    You've never pointed out anything specific regarding Agenda21 - just 'well, it doesn't actually say that'.

    When are you talking about? The 70's? What did they (the UK (London, how quaint) do? What did they do about it?
    Where does the UK rank now with regards to GDP?

    This is really, really boring. Sorry.
     
  8. graxton

    graxton Member

    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    1
    NWO = al Qaeda = bogey man
     
  9. odonII

    odonII O

    Messages:
    9,803
    Likes Received:
    25
    :sleeping:
     
  10. StpLSD25

    StpLSD25 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    11
    No, I don't. Because even people like me support trade and, countries working together, there's just no reason to have World Government troops, and it's not right when the World Government is used how it is now, to expand free market, so they can buy oil and other goods for a worthless piece of paper.


    I have heard this bit before. Sure, it is a little bit of everyone in the UN, but America is the #1 Contributor to the UN, in troops and finances, so it's mostly Americans, although I would love peace and stability for the world, but that takes individuals on all levels working togather, NOT Government force. The Security Counsel shares the power of the UN, and do what they like. Most wars are pointless and unconstitutional, so we should've/could've had alot less wars since the UN.
    That's not what I'm saying. UN has "Rules" and "Rights," all of which can be taken away by government. Look at Snowden, it says in the UN "Human Rights" everyone has a right to asylum, why is the UN not defending him? I don't want it both ways; I am trying to prove to Liberals that the UN doesn't support "peace and stability," they enforce imperialist type world policies, which has contributed to poisoning all of us.


    A lot of the problem in the US, is the UK bankers taking our money, and spending it overseas.

    The Federal Reserve Secretly gave 16 trillion dollars to all overseas Europian banks, Whereas, if the people would've gotten a "bailout" for once, instead of the banks, that'd be well over 10 grand, for every citizen over 18. I Contend the government wastes our money, and money goes further in the hands of consumers rather than stockpiling the banks. Furthermore, most banks that got bailed out fired people, stopped giving out small business loans etc.
    No. it's like politicians always do "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." The US uses the UN to give the war on terror, torchering practices and, spying some legitimacy. But I believe the US would just as easily commit genocide, than any of the "regimes" they go after. If it was about freedom, they wouldn't be taking it away.

    They're totally capable of stopping America; They don't want to because they all have similar agendas (maintaining a stable population, by dominating the worlds resources.) That is to say, the Security Counsel. Little countries are probably just crossing their fingers and hoping America wont attack them for oil, if they play along. I'm sure they also get alot of bribes from Lobbyists. From all the actions I've seen from the UN, and the actions of the US since what George HW. called a NWO.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsXKhR8vwb0

    "Shared Interests" meaning shared Business Interests. Furthermore, in another speech he says "A World in which the vision of the UN founders, not the 'law of the jungle,' governs the conduct of Nations."


    Actually, there is such a thing; it's a UN Document, there have been all types of books written about it, and the UN's policies reflect the policies of Agenda 21, for example, Agenda 21 calls for government to Control all land use. Obama sign NDRP which allows him to take whatever property he want during peace or war. I'm not worried about living 80 years, and dying; I worried about he future safety and happiness of my children and grandchildren.

    The security counsel is over the rest. Yeah, they are hiding under an umbrella, because the most elite countries are in charge, and they are probably afraid of being bombed.

    No, you don't. Did you even second guess the official story that Gaddafi was executed his citizens? He said it was Al Qaeda, and I believe him, considering Al Qaeda hung a flag from their capital building; you didn't read about any of that. I think you're ignoring the facts that most government's in history are bad. The UN did nothing to stop Iraq or Vietnam, in fact played a part by not punishing the US for obvious war crimes. The truth is, they want to go help citizens combating their government where there's oil, but watch the UK, America or, any other Security Counsel Country rise up, and see how quickly those governments commit genocide to keep power.

    Many people like you truly want to believe everything is fine, cause it's easy. Sometimes I wish I could ignore the Worlds problem since a great work government is helping. But when you look at the policies they support; it's the same imperialist policies that got us here, and the same system that didn't defend the 4 hippies killed by our government. I don't want the best of both worlds, I want bad governments to move out of the way, and allow people to be free. The whole problem with this vision, is they force their will onto others. Stupid laws at home, stupid policies abroad; and it's collapsing here in America. If the UK is fine, good for you guys, but this is unsustainable (boring or not)






    Now you're just being an asshole. This is probably why I didn't respond to you. There is nothing diluted about my theory. If anything, there's something diluted about the theory that we're "Spreading freedom" worldwide, when we don't even have freedom here at home. I am only thankful, the government here has shown it's ass to enough people, that most know they are corrupt. I think people like you wont rebel until they put a camera in your bedroom and a police in your livingroom.

    The truth is, we're safe! we're totally safe! With/without government. Most of what government does is put away people for victimless crimes, we don't NEED that. Most cops wont get to a "shots fired" call for hours, but they'll be to a drunk teenager right around the corner in 5 mins. I can only hope people like you will wake up, but you've been conditioned to believe this is normal, and nothings wrong with world governance initiating wars and violence for the sake of "peace." This creates a backlash, most Muslim extremist and, more hate. Moreover, as I said you can bet our governments wouldn't allow a peaceful uprising of the people. #OWS proved that as police beat innocent people- That's how the Revolution started!
     
  11. odonII

    odonII O

    Messages:
    9,803
    Likes Received:
    25
    StpLSD25

    '...there's just no reason to have World Government troops'

    Perhaps there isn't a need for soldiers all under blue helments.
    But what would be the alternative?
    I think you would be happy if there were no American troops wearing blue helments.
    I'm never quite sure how far your concern reaches - it always seems about as far as the American borders.

    'Sure, it is a little bit of everyone in the UN, but America is the #1 Contributor to the UN, in troops and finances, so it's mostly Americans, although I would love peace and stability for the world, but that takes individuals on all levels working togather, NOT Government force.'

    'The Security Counsel shares the power of the UN'

    It isn't a 'government' per se. Like you say 'it is a little bit of everyone'.
    Perhaps a little bit more of some than others.
    I know you can differentiate between a government and a union.
    It's not the 'united states' it's the 'united nations'.

    'That's not what I'm saying. UN has "Rules" and "Rights," all of which can be taken away by government. Look at Snowden, it says in the UN "Human Rights" everyone has a right to asylum, why is the UN not defending him?'

    Countries can refuse asylum. They do it every day.
    'UN has "Rules" and "Rights," all of which can be taken away by government' - not a very good 'world government' is it?


    'The Federal Reserve Secretly gave 16 trillion dollars to all overseas Europian banks.'

    I think it was 3-4 t that was loaned to 'European banks' and it wasn't all of them.

    'I don't want it both ways; I am trying to prove to Liberals that the UN doesn't support "peace and stability," they enforce imperialist type world policies, which has contributed to poisoning all of us.'

    'imperialist type world policies' - such as? (not Agenda 21 again, please)...

    'Whereas, if the people would've gotten a "bailout" for once, instead of the banks, that'd be well over 10 grand, for every citizen over 18.'

    Approx' $70875.973925 each.

    'They're totally capable of stopping America; They don't want to because they all have similar agendas (maintaining a stable population, by dominating the worlds resources.) That is to say, the Security Counsel. Little countries are probably just crossing their fingers and hoping America wont attack them for oil, if they play along. I'm sure they also get alot of bribes from Lobbyists.'

    'US since what George HW. called a NWO.'

    '
    '"Shared Interests" meaning shared Business Interests. Furthermore, in another speech he says "A World in which the vision of the UN founders, not the 'law of the jungle,' governs the conduct of Nations."'

    It's a little unfair to make up quotes/change the context...
    That's your biggest problem right there: making things up/changing things around to suit your opinion.
    It's rather dishonest, isn't it?

    'This is an historic moment. We have in this past year made great progress in ending the long era of conflict and cold war. We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order, a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders. We have no argument with the people of Iraq. Indeed, for the innocents caught in this conflict, I pray for their safety.'

    'Clearly, no longer can a dictator count on East-West confrontation to stymie concerted United Nations action against aggression. A new partnership of nations has begun. And we stand today at a unique and extraordinary moment. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective — a new world order — can emerge: a new era, freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, east and west, north and south, can prosper and live in harmony.'

    http://historyquotes.org/george-bush-quotes/

    'Agenda 21 calls for government to Control all land use.'

    Where?

    http://www.dementedagitprop.com/


    'The security counsel is over the rest. Yeah, they are hiding under an umbrella, because the most elite countries are in charge.'

    So, different countries are in charge?

    'There is nothing diluted about my theory.'

    Apart from most of it doesn't hang together/make any sense/is not true.

    'Stupid laws at home, stupid policies abroad; and it's collapsing here in America. If the UK is fine, good for you guys, but this is unsustainable (boring or not)'

    Wouldn't it be the case that all countries are not fine?
     
  12. StpLSD25

    StpLSD25 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    11
    Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none. – Thomas Jefferson

    I think individual countries should have a strong defensive military, and no use for offensive military such as Drones. I would be happier with NO UN.
    I think the UN is the biggest imperialist in the world, bullying the world for the last scraps of resources. I'm not just about America, but I don't live anywhere else. I base my principles off the true Rule of Law, not the whim of some Apes.
    I know the Security Counsel yields more power than the rest, so 4 people make all the world decisions in most existing countries. Plus, it is a government. It is a government of government, and much, much more powerful and deadly than any union. The ACLU can't even get Obama to repeal the Patriot Act, but you think some type of "union," of gorvernment, is better than your adverage Mobster? No, the same way mobs steal money from people, the UN established itself, without the consent of every people in every nation; Yet, used their money to do it.

    Don't play dumb. I'm saying we would have no freedom under a world government; I know countries can "refuse" asylum- Under the UN, they can deny you of ALL your rights !
    Like, all of them! Here's just one article on it.I could find a bunch, but I think you'd relate better with whoevers writing this, cause he seems to love the preemple of the UN like you guys.
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-imperialism-international-law-and-the-united-nations/5314381


    Well, that's what I'm saying. That's money our father, grandfathers and us have been paying our whole lives, yet the government just wastes trillions overseas. That's why our government is no longer "of the people," cause we wouldn't just dump our money into 3rd world countries.

    You're insinuating it is. Perhaps I was paraphrasing cause I wasn't directly looking at the speech. You're all capable of using Google; Plus, it means the same thing.(You paraphrased me as well! If I'm dishonest, you are as well.) Desert Storm was another pointless war the UN did nothing about. The whole idea of the UN is to force the whole world to be "capitalists" and sell off their resources and manual labor for pennies on a dollar. If one cares about human life in these little countries, they shouldn't support the UN.


    Again, it a really long document, but some in the U.S are already experiencing the effects.

    - See more at: http://www.themainewire.com/2013/03...an-horse-big-government/#sthash.NotmqZnd.dpuf

    http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_126th/billtexts/HP018101.asp
    The Security Counsel of the UN is in charge. Maybe other countries aren't fine; I personally believe 99% of Government is corrupt; However, I can't tell you as a US citizens, how to feel as a UK citizen, except about the UN. You should be vigilant on your government. (However, I feel as though you wont, cause you've already placed so much trust in them, they can do no wrong in your eyes)
     
  13. unfocusedanakin

    unfocusedanakin The Archaic Revival Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    11,308
    Likes Received:
    3,598
    Odon are you a disinformation agent?
     
  14. sunfighter

    sunfighter Hip Forums Supporter HipForums Supporter

    Messages:
    3,814
    Likes Received:
    286
    When the UN was established during WWII, it was much better than it is today. It was given the power to deal with genocide, nuclear weapons, and preventing war. I wish it was still like that.

    But over the years, the divisions in the Security Council and the lack of support by the right-wingers in the US have weakened it greatly to the point it's kind of a joke. Anyone who worries about the UN doing something bad to the US is just plain silly and paranoid.
     
  15. odonII

    odonII O

    Messages:
    9,803
    Likes Received:
    25
    StpLSD25

    'Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none. – Thomas Jefferson'

    It's about 100 years too late.
    The title of the thread is: 'How can anyone doubt the NWO is the end goal...'.
    We are living in a NWO. It's already here!
    There has been one massive NWO (recently), and plenty of smaller changes to the worlds order.
    If every country followed Thomas Jefferson's words (above), then that would be the order of the world.
    But, unfortunately, they didn't - Including the U.S.A.
    How many U.S bases are there around the world?
    I would suggest the UN is an attempt for there to be order in the world - a general consensus.
    I have not seen any evidence each country around the world is exactly the same and has no autonomy to do precisely what they wish.

    Just think it over - Jefferson was trying to order YOUR world to HIS will.
    YOU want EVERYONE to bend to the will of ONE person?

    THE RIGHT TO DEMOCRACY:

    1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

    2. Everyone has the right to equal access to public service in his country.

    3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.


    'I know the Security Counsel yields more power than the rest, so 4 people make all the world decisions in most existing countries.

    Where does the four come from?

    There are 15 members of the Security Council.
    This includes five veto-wielding permanent members. (Did you mean five not four?)
    There are also 10 non-permanent members, with five elected each year to serve two-year terms.

    You think four people are capable of making all the decisions in all the countries around the world? Mmmm, Ok, if you say so!

    'Don't play dumb. I'm saying we would have no freedom under a world government; I know countries can "refuse" asylum- Under the UN, they can deny you of ALL your rights !'

    Well, there isn't a 'world government', you can say that is the goal, but it's speculation.

    'Like, all of them! Here's just one article on it.'

    The article seems to suggest that, predominantly, the U.S is ruining/running the the UN.
    Perhaps if the US followed Jefferson's doctrine of: 'Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.' - the UN and the world would be a a lot better.
    The article doesn't talk about 'UN policies' it talks about the influence and power of individual countries.
    Which is why there will never be 'one government'.
    I would suggest that if you removed the idea of 'one government' and a 'new world order' from your rhetoric, and focused on the foreign policies of all countries - it wouldn't appear so asinine.

    It's a good article but it drops in too much opinion (like you):
    'President Bush boycotted the HRC for criticizing Israel too much.'
    Really? where is the evidence?
    'According to Mahmoud Jibril, Libya’s interim Prime Minister during the Western-backed armed insurrection in 2011, Gaddafi was killed by a French intelligence operative “acting under direct instructions of the French government”.' - where is the evidence?

    'Well, that's what I'm saying.'

    The devil is in the detail! If you got the details correct - that would help.

    'You're insinuating it is. Perhaps I was paraphrasing cause I wasn't directly looking at the speech. You're all capable of using Google; Plus, it means the same thing.'

    '(You paraphrased me as well! If I'm dishonest, you are as well.)'

    Well, no, it doesn't mean the same thing or you would have been happy to quote his words verbatim, rather than chopping and changing his words.
    So, you accidentally quoted his words out of order and out of context?
    What you were trying to imply was the he said that the UN governs nations - which isn't what he said or meant at all.
    Where have I been dishonest with your quotes?
    Where have I paraphrased your words?
    Are you saying you were being dishonest?
    If so, could you remove that dishonesty and be honest?

    'The whole idea of the UN is to force the whole world to be "capitalists" and sell off their resources and manual labor for pennies on a dollar. If one cares about human life in these little countries, they shouldn't support the UN.'

    Isn't this capitalism?: 'Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none. – Thomas Jefferson'

    'Again, it a really long document, but some in the U.S are already experiencing the effects.'

    Did you read my article? The e.g you mention is good e.g of what my article was saying. It's your argument not mine, so perhaps be a little more specific.
    What 'policies comply with UN Agenda 21.'?
    'CHAPTER 22

    PROTECTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS'
    - seems to be as vague as you are.
     
  16. odonII

    odonII O

    Messages:
    9,803
    Likes Received:
    25
    'Disinformation is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. For this reason, it is synonymous with and sometimes called black propaganda. It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth'

    Absolutely not, the complete opposite, actually.
    I've tried to find disinformation in StpLSD25's posts, and have hit gold.
     
  17. RIPTIDE59

    RIPTIDE59 Banned

    Messages:
    923
    Likes Received:
    17
    Funny , these euros so easily succumb to dominance and control. england and france seemingly the most passive. hitler took them in days. LOL. How long for NWO? islam?
    Do euros have even the slightest clue what property rights actually consist of?
     
  18. StpLSD25

    StpLSD25 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    11
    How very observant of you. 100 years, around the same time the English Bankers (JP Morgan etc.) Highjacked our federal reserve system. They claim they're "owned by everyone" and "not profit making." But if you trust these bankers, that makes one of us.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/federal-reserve-bank-ownership/
    Well, that's why us Libertarians would like to see US embassies out of most countries worldwide. (especially where people hate us though.) Moreover, I agree that the NWO is here. But, it's not out in the open as you'd suggest. For example, we didn't go into war with Gaddafi for killing citizens, nor are we going after Assad for "gassing" his citizens; the real reasons are quite trivial, and (I believe) wouldn't have the support of the general public, if they knew the truth.
    Do you think us Americans consent to controlling the World? Most of us we're taught to believe government is based off of the "will of the people," but today, it's obvious, they run for the will of corporate dickheads, with eliest interests including war, and keeping some countries down.

    That's totally not true. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton were 2 people actually fighting for our Rights. They represented freedom and rebellion of tyranny. Others wanted to make a monoarchy, Jefferson disagreed with that.

    I've read this, and it means nothing to me. (Especially when the Article I posted can nullify it 'for the general welfare of society.') But also, America has been corrupted for a really long time. UN can play the 'good guy' peacekeepers, however they support a group that is worse than Al Qaeda (the US Government.)

    If we were truly able to take place in government, than most people in office wouldn't leave mostly due to death/retiring, (as they do now.) I have a hard time believing we keep putting these dumbasses in power!
    I meant the Five veto-weilding countries. All conspiracies all everything aside, the UN has supported America's war mongering and has done nothing to deter it. Saddam also let UN inspectors check for WMD's, they found nothing- still, we went to war. The UN did nothing because we are a contributing member, and they can't lose their foundation. But it also makes me believe, that like the US government, the UN is under corperate control.
    Either way though, it essentially means that if the UN recognizes someone as the "official government," they are allowed to take our Rights, and be more powerful than everyone else. They are trying to take away our Constitution and give us made up laws at the discretion of government likes/dislikes. This is what's Already happening here in the US with dumb drug laws and teenage aspiring rappers getting arrested for "terroristic lyrics!" I mean the constitution doesn't leave any room for what can only be accurately described as Government-Endorsed Bullying WorldWide! That's the problem.
    You're living in a matrix of non-reality; why should I change my 'rhetoric' to fit you? You know what that would sound like?; "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. I ask only that you accept my love of our leader, Obama; Anything him and the UN does is inherently correct, and we shall ask no questions, because government is born better than us. We are petty serves who can't think or do for ourselves, so we need government to stuff us with rules and regulations, for our own safety."


    I am saying that I wasn't being dishonest. I'm not gonna search to where you've paraphrazed me, you should know you have done so. I meant it still says the same thing. This is what he said (not the whole speech)

    "Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order. In the words of Winston Churchill, a "world order" in which "the principles of justice and fair play ... protect the weak against the strong ..." A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfil the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations. The Gulf war put this new world to its first test, and, my fellow Americans, we passed that test."~GhwB

    The Gulf war was a war to fight Iraq, when they invaded Kuwait. So essentially the "dream" he's speaking of, is this group of bully-nations, who decide which dictators are good and which are bad, and many times, deciding if other peoples government best represents those people. It's absurd. Gaddafi was part of the UN, and went to their meetings not 1 year before he became an "evil dictator." It's all theatrics, you know they have to distract us if they're gonna rob us. it's the oldest trick in the book!


    Agenda 21 is nothing more than suggestions. The problem is Clinton had local governments start implementing parts of Agenda 21, and it's only getting worse as time goes on. Population Control, possibly even genocide could come, due to it's suggestion that America should be less populated. How do you get fewer people in a world where people breed? Abortions, chemical deaths and, wars have been sky high, still, it's not enough to truly lower the population. If you think i'm talking out of my ass, read into it...


    This is all I'm going to say. Freeminded people who are not obsessed with Big Brother can fill in the dots.

    Me, "I write to you as a dead man."
     
  19. odonII

    odonII O

    Messages:
    9,803
    Likes Received:
    25
    Pardon?

    StpLSD25

    Hi. Thanks for the response. I'll respond soon (I have 8 days, too, right?)
    I'm off for a few beers right now.
    I don't really want to respond within the next ten - fifteen minutes.
     
  20. StpLSD25

    StpLSD25 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,987
    Likes Received:
    11
    You have as long as you'd like. Enjoy your night!

    I need to fix some typos in it anyway
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice