i guessed all of those exact points.

i remember being in my goverment and politics group just after 9/11 and we were all saying that pretty much all of this was going to happen. we even said about the invasion of iraq as i recall. it has been rather predictable i think.

tommydski wrote:i guessed all of those exact points.

i remember being in my goverment and politics group just after 9/11 and we were all saying that pretty much all of this was going to happen. we even said about the invasion of iraq as i recall. it has been rather predictable i think.

I commend you, then- you were thinking more clearly at 17 than some of the contributors to this forum have any hope of thinking for the rest of their confused lives. But, still- did you include the UN and the New World Order in your predictions? If so, do you want to take a shot at explaining those views to some of the others who replied to this thread? They seem to think that introducing the term 'UN' is enough to derail any discussion of globalism- I think it speeds the whole discussion up; it's good shorthand for 'global government', whatever name it eventually takes.

clocker bob said

they seem to think that introducing the term 'UN' is enough to derail any discussion of globalism- I think it speeds the whole discussion up; it's good shorthand for 'global government', whatever name it eventually takes.

this is just petty bob, if you want to discuss globalisation then stick to the bloody facts, talk about the real villains of the piece, international patents on crops, restrictive aid and trading agreements, the issues of debt and immigration. The UN has sweet fuckall to do with anything, it is not a model for global government, it is rife with petty nationalistic squabbling and is slow to reach consensus on anything. Your ire and suspicion are unfounded, so you'll have to excuse us if we don't take you seriously

clocker bob wrote:I commend you, then- you were thinking more clearly at 17 than some of the contributors to this forum have any hope of thinking for the rest of their confused lives. But, still- did you include the UN and the New World Order in your predictions? If so, do you want to take a shot at explaining those views to some of the others who replied to this thread? They seem to think that introducing the term 'UN' is enough to derail any discussion of globalism- I think it speeds the whole discussion up; it's good shorthand for 'global government', whatever name it eventually takes.

It just FEELS accurate, doesn't it?

ivan wrote: if you want to discuss globalisation then stick to the bloody facts, talk about the real villains of the piece

The UN is deliberately kept inconsequential in appearance to provide a diversionary layer of propaganda around the engine rooms. When I refer to the UN, it's as a future synonym for global financial concerns, interlocking shadow governments and multi-national oligopies; the UN ( or some progeny of it ) will spring out of its baby blue robin's egg as a Tyrannosaurus one day when the superstructure built by all the evil cousins is ready for it.

And I'll discuss globalization on my own terms. I didn't sign up to be anybody's hoop-jumping seaworld dolphin. Make your own dinner, I'm cooking mine.

But the UN is a specific institution, with specific capabilities and membership. You can't randomly substitute "The UN" for other aspects of globalization, because it is the UN and not other aspects of globalization.

If your local economy is being messed up by the interference of a multinational corporation, you say "Oh shit this multinational corporation is destroying my local economy!" not "Oh shit the UN is destroying my local economy!" If your family was murdered by secret agents operating under an alliance between The USA, China, and Australia, you say "Oh shit the eaglekangadragon alliance sent secret agents to kill my family!" not "Oh shit the UN sent secret agents to kill my family!" becuase Kofi Annan is just sitting at home reading the comics section.

"Oh Garfield! You are so hungry always!"

My grandparents are into this "New World Order" garbage, passing out 'the government knew about 9/11 before it happened' type pamphlets. The people into the "New World Order" garbage are usually pigeonholed as 'right wing wackos', so it makes sense that a prediction about that happening would appeal to them. These preditctions were made for a specific audience that believes that all of them have come true. But they believed those predictions were already true before 9/11/2001, anyway. So for them, I don't think much has changed. If its not the UN, maybe the Illuminati? I've been watching old 'Gargoyle' cartoons lately.

Antero wrote:But the UN is a specific institution, with specific capabilities and membership. You can't randomly substitute "The UN" for other aspects of globalization, because it is the UN and not other aspects of globalization.

Under normal conditions, I would completely agree with you and would hate to be so sloppy with my attributions of blame, but because I'm convinced that the globalism movement is marching relentlessly forward under so many different flags, I'm willing to resort to imprecise arguments in order to get people to at least take a long glance at what is rapidly occuring.

The compartmentalized globalism mechanisms are so hard to track in unison ( surely by design to frustrate committed critics and also to benefit from the general apathy of those who want their enemies served on silver platters ) that I will attempt to get an audience for these warnings by almost any means necessary, quickly conceding that the UN is umbrella shorthand for an ideology that encompasses multiple organizations, under control of organizations very similar to the UN but not demonstrably under the control of the specific UN.

Essentially, it's cheating to win, because to lose is worse than being called inaccurate with your arguments.

djanes1 wrote:My grandparents are into this "New World Order" garbage, passing out 'the government knew about 9/11 before it happened' type pamphlets.

The government knew about 9/11 before it happened. Maybe your grandparents have lived long enough to have a better understanding of what governments are often capable of?

I learned a great deal about the Great Depression by talking to two late grandparents, and some of what they had to say was underreported or missing in my school books of the time- I suppose that's typical of most text books, but I also know that histories are full of subtle diversions of blame, and sometimes even outright lies.

When it comes to history, the controlling class decides what constitutes the cream that rises to the top of the histories that follow events, and you'd have to be very gullible to believe that their primary goal is accuracy.

clocker bob wrote: The compartmentalized globalism mechanisms are so hard to track in unison ( surely by design to frustrate committed critics and also to benefit from the general apathy of those who want their enemies served on silver platters ) that I will attempt to get an audience for these warnings by almost any means necessary,

Why by design? Could it not just be the case that there are many different groups working to further their own desires sometimes bringing them into collusion with other groups sometimes into collision with them. Often the groups being colluded/collided with being the same.
This seems to me (looking at how people interact on apersonal level in friendship groups/workplaces etc) to be far more likely than an over arching plan. As likely as there is one is that there are hundreds of plans.

I think you are seeking to place a plan where there might be one but also might not be one. To back up the idea that they might be some over all strategy to take over the world you seem to be agreeing with Griffin that, in the absence of any better organisation you'll use the UN.
I don't see this helping your argument.
It's going to discredit it.

clocker bob wrote:quickly conceding that the UN is umbrella shorthand for an ideology that encompasses multiple organizations, under control of organizations very similar to the UN but not demonstrably under the control of the specific UN.

Essentially, it's cheating to win, because to lose is worse than being called inaccurate with your arguments.

Again, I don't think this type of argument is going to enhance the chances of you winning any argument. At least, if an argument of this sort is meant to peruade others of seeing your position (or Griffin's) and agreeing with it.