Earwicker wrote: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.

Yes, the common desires of the oligopolists and their financing make them willing bedmates even if they don't travel to the same bed by arrangement. That's the heart of my argument- common sourcing of funding makes for shared evasion of democracy, morality, laws, without the need for a central planning body. The origins of the money is the only leverage needed- orders don't need to be given.

Earwicker wrote: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.

Agreed. I am designing an opposition strategy that borrows from the propaganda wars and cloaking mechanisms of our opponents. Playing fair has allowed us to keep more of our self-respect but it has also lost us territory. We can't win a game if the only cards in play are part of a marked deck. We must accept the marked deck and play it as marked. The more progress we make ( if we do make it ), then we move back to the straight and narrow.

On a grand scale, this is all part of my agnosticism. I feel like god has sentenced us to fight evil alone, and so we must not restrict our weapons to kill our targets. I am prepared to make quasi-harmless lies to shake the future victims from their doldrums.

Earwicker wrote: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.

It is if I never get the chance to issue the caveat that a referral to the UN is not a referral to the organization that meets on 48th Street but a referral to an organized movement to unite world governments and economies. I would prefer a better one- New World Order is nearly as good ( and more accurate ), but it has been appropriated by the evangelicals and the bigots- not that UN hasn't, but UN is a better compromise synonym, in my opinion.

If you are optimistic about building opposition that relies on a playbook that spreads blame around to twenty enemies, great, but I'm not; you live in a more thoughtful and aware country.

50% of Americans are currently dead as citizens; they care about only what they feel in their little worlds. I wish they were unnecessary to victory, but I can't help but say that they are, despite the fact that I regard them as utter shite, as you Brits say, unworthy of reaping the benefits of a brighter future. They are gross numbskulls, and on many days, I hate them worse than the exploiters, because at least the exploiters are showing some initiative, even if it's bad.

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.

Earwicker wrote: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.

Maybe it's too radical. I may change my mind. I just want to translate the threat for our fast food culture. I saw a country's citizens celebrate an attack on Iraq because they thought we would prevent a future attack by al Qaeda by doing so, and that statement leaves out what we both know about the real origins of the 9/11 attack. That's our audience. How do we make them see, some of them for the first time in their lives?

I see. First, when called on this UN idiocy, you say the UN is "what the public sees" of "globalism."

Then you admit that you are using them as "shorthand" for something else entirely.

Bob: A does not equal B.

It should be telling you something that you are willing to abandon ethical rationality in order to "translate the threat."

You are thrashing around in search of a mythology, in order to create emotional resonance and thereby effect systemic change.

You are as ready to misplace the UN in a geopolitical discussion as Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Feith, Kristol, Fukuyama, et. al. are ready to tell the "Noble Lie" of Socrates-cum-Leo Strauss.

You are ethically Straussian.

Which means you are a liar. For example, you are ready to mythologize the tragic, impotent UN as some kind of object of threat.

It apparently does not matter to you that Dick Cheney and Kofi Annan couldn't be more different in upbringing, training, philosophy or career. Nor does it serve your myth that they couldn't be more separate in degree of responsibility for the contemporary geopolitical landscape.

Well, it matters to me.

You have done nice work I think on the nature of the financial plumbing and magic capital creation engines of the modern age. To know that the M3 was pulled from publication, and related discussions as to why, well, I think these are valuable things. So, thanks.

But your geopolitical worldview is mythological and highly suspect.

-r

warmowski wrote:I see. First, when called on this UN idiocy, you say the UN is "what the public sees" of "globalism."

Then you admit that you are using them as "shorthand" for something else entirely.

Bob: A does not equal B.

A can be part of B. The UN can be a Trojan Horse that assists the infection of globalism, and I don't know where all the roots run- it is certainly a collaborator with the IMF and World Bank. I see the UN today as part of a 'good cop, bad cop' routine being played out on the world stage, the carrot before the stick.

warmowski wrote:It should be telling you something that you are willing to abandon ethical rationality in order to "translate the threat."

I'm open about my motives. I want to defeat the enemy. In my lifetime, in this country, I see lies defeating truth over and over. I see a country where capitalism is a more well-protected dogma than that of Christianity, our other permanently entrenched ideology that consigns people to waiting for the bus that never comes, unless death really is all that it's cracked up to be.

Is there no ethical line that can be crossed to get where we are going? Why is it permissible to kill for a just cause ( even the bible says so ) but to lie about your enemy isn't? Who are we answering to, but ourselves? Doesn't the ethical barrier stretch in an emergency?

I don't see the UN as charitably as you; I'm pretty sure I can do without it. It looks like it's either toothless or on the 'ethical' side of many issues, but it is also a people-conditioning factory, and I don't think Rockefeller would have gifted it the land it sits on if it was intended to be anything other than one more bulldozer pushing autonomy into the graveyard so the Global Mall can be built on top.

warmowski wrote:You are thrashing around in search of a mythology, in order to create emotional resonance and thereby effect systemic change.

If I can succeed on parts two and three of that sentence, doesn't that justify some thrashing?

warmowski wrote:You are as ready to misplace the UN in a geopolitical discussion as Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Feith, Kristol, Fukuyama, et. al. are ready to tell the "Noble Lie" of Socrates-cum-Leo Strauss.

You are ethically Straussian.

Okay, literally, in this one instance, maybe, but I do mean well, and I'm not prescribing it for anyone else. They're just posts on a newsgroup- I'd like them to have resonance, but I'm not delivering all diamonds. Some should be seen as trial balloons, because that is what I use this forum for on occasion- to test ideas.

As I said in my post to Earwicker, it is not the most well thought out position I've ever taken. I don't think that by suggesting it, I've strayed from my ethics at a core level - and if I conclude that I have, I'll compensate.

warmowski wrote:Which means you are a liar. For example, you are ready to mythologize the tragic, impotent UN as some kind of object of threat.

I'm ready to make small sacrifices in a truthful overall message for larger gains. It isn't so much deception as a reluctant acknowledgement that maybe it is time to operate at a more Machiavellian manner in the movement. I just have this constant nightmare of the fat cats laughing at the noble crusaders sticking to clean warfare and rarely drawing blood.

warmowski wrote:It apparently does not matter to you that Dick Cheney and Kofi Annan couldn't be more different in upbringing, training, philosophy or career. Nor does it serve your myth that they couldn't be more separate in degree of responsibility for the contemporary geopolitical landscape.

You've really thrown me hard into your neo con analogy with that one. That's a reach. I am instantly open about why I make these suggestions and called myself on it before anybody else had to.

warmowski wrote:Well, it matters to me.

You have done nice work I think on the nature of the financial plumbing and magic capital creation engines of the modern age. To know that the M3 was pulled from publication, and related discussions as to why, well, I think these are valuable things. So, thanks.

Well then, you should not read my posts or only read part of my posts or tell others to not read my posts or write posts telling me to shut the fuck up; I'm familiar with all of that over the last six months.

warmowski wrote:But your geopolitical worldview is mythological and highly suspect.

Follow your own course. I'll continue to judge your future posts as separate entities. If we disagree, then that will be a self-contained matter. You came down solidly on the right side of the 9/11 debate, so you can never really say much to piss me off.

My grandparents/aunts and uncles like searching for 'the real truth' etc, almost in x-files fashion. In the 60s they were into the Church of God.
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/wcg.html
Now it this New World Order conspiracy stuff. Like an evangelical cult, people into New World Order conspiracy stuff feel the need to tell other people about it and convince them that they are right. They might send you pamphlets you didn't ask for. They might post on unrelated message boards about it. They might get annoyed if you say you didnt believe it and tell you to mail the pamplets back, so that they can be sent to people who will appreciate them. What? You don't know the melting point of steel and the burning temperature of jet fuel? Sigh. I guess you are just like every other Lemming out there, believing whatever Big Brother Media tells you. I hope that someday, you too are able to join the search for the real truth. Until then go drink some Bud Lite.

I'm sure to people who were already Christians, there was alot of things in the Church of God that made sense to them, as well as some new things that appealed to sentiments that mainstream religion was lacking in some areas. Like the Church of God, New World Order conspiracy stuff has a lot of fundamental things that are as mainstream as a Micheal Moore movie. Global corporations profit off of war and have too much power? Check. Media companies are owned by large corporations, and therefore are incaple of critizicing said corporations and the governments they own? Yup! There have to be morsels like this to draw in people. But I am lost when it is supposed to be understood that a shadowy, omnipresent global organization controls the world... and that that organization is the UN. As said better by previous posters, most of these predictions are correct in spirit but completely backwards in details. And anyone appropriately skeptical and knowledgable could make those predictions correct in spirit. But the details? Like the anti-war movement would be dismissed as a bunch of far-right wing wackos? I hear that about Cindy Sheehan and Micheal Moore all the time. However, when you are making predictions intended for an audience that already feels like they are dismissed as far right wing wackos, well, most of these 'predictions' just write themselves.

djanes1 wrote: But I am lost when it is supposed to be understood that a shadowy, omnipresent global organization controls the world... and that that organization is the UN.

It isn't. The UN is a front organization.

I sincerely regret the time I wasted discussing the UN in this thread and I regret trying to explain my methods. I'm a little puzzled by the need to distinguish between the UN as a docile accomplice of globalism and the UN as some visible arch enemy as presently viewed, and furthermore- who cares? Is there globalism? Yes? Then why are we debating the terminology? To be good lefties? We all know which side we should be on.

Everything is 'follow the money'. The system of interlocking central banks is the highest layer ( measured by breadth and depth of influence ), the military industrial complex is the second layer, capitalist and psuedo-capitalist governments and trade organizations are the third layer, corporate media another layer, university curriculums contribute, various think tanks and policy advocacy groups contribute. It's a construction project, contractors and sub-contractors.

I could make the list longer, but to boil it down- you are who you know and, to a great degree, who you owe. Everything is based on investment and the fealty you pay in return for your credit.

Every plan for changing the world that doesn't focus on the banking system and the distribution network of debt is trash and is either generated by an idiot or a NWO stooge.

Bob,

What is your definition of "globalism?" Do you define it in terms of corporations or people?

What do you think the role of the UN should be?
For that matter, what about The World Court?

Are you aware of the US voting record at the UN?

How do you feel about democracy?

I am curious. Frankly, there are so many long winded exchanges that attempt to cover many subjects. It leaves me confused.

I do not want to presume your position on any of these issues. So a succinct reply to these questions would provide clarity and be very much appreciated.

Bullshit:

Unfortunately, they have all come to pass.

These have either not happened, or are way too obvious to really impress. A country is attacked and its people rally around its leader, agree to trade in their freedoms for increased security, and moves toward a more militaristic/fascist mindset? Boy, when has that happened before?


I also wanted to point this out:

warmowski wrote:...literally shit the bed...

No!

nihil wrote:Bob,

What is your definition of "globalism?" Do you define it in terms of corporations or people?

I might define it as 'line of sight'; can you see who you work for? Can you see where the money comes from? Do you know whether you elect your politicians, or are they 'sent' as your only options?

Basically, how much of your economy and government lies beyond the horizon? It's about accountability- can you, as a citizen, enforce it? Do you and those you share your political views with have the ability to make real change to the government and the economy, or is it mysterious-complex-distant? As in 'global'?

nihil wrote:What do you think the role of the UN should be?

It should not exist. The message of one world, one people, grow together in peace together, it's a lie. People can share common values across borders without meeting to plan them.

Tend to your world inside your borders, make your economy and government accountable to your fellow Americans or Canadians or Malaysians, and then arrange trade agreements with outside nations that spread benefits across all internal classes of your nation, not deliver more poker chips to some asswipe straddling a bank vault in Geneva.

nihil wrote:For that matter, what about The World Court?

Awful idea.

nihil wrote:Are you aware of the US voting record at the UN?

Of course. Do you have a specific point?

nihil wrote:How do you feel about democracy?

Show some to me. Just kidding- a little. Democracy can only exist without a wide gulf between richest and poorest and without corrupting influence by those who do not hold votes overpowering the will of those who do. Central banking and globalism have chained all industrial democracies. They exist, but they can't move well or far.

nihil wrote:I am curious. Frankly, there are so many long winded exchanges that attempt to cover many subjects. It leaves me confused.

You weren't too confused last week to accept Andrew L.'s word that a book you hadn't read would destroy your brain if you did read it. If you want to be less confused about how banking ( and consequently, the world ) operates, then read The Creature From Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin. Would you pay $20 to be less confused?

Then read A People's History Of The United States by Howard Zinn, if you haven't done so already.

Everything else is available on-line. Read an hour on the web every day, minimum.

nihil wrote:I do not want to presume your position on any of these issues.

Good progress for you. Be careful with presumption. Like, don't presume that conspiracy theories are always invented from thin air. Don't presume that books that aren't published by Simon and Schuster are necessarily bad.

nihil wrote:So a succinct reply to these questions would provide clarity and be very much appreciated.

Okay. I wrote it for me. I tend to 'presume' that you're simply fishing for more material, but prove me wrong. Give your side now- globalism: good or bad?

Linus Van Pelt wrote:Bullshit:

Unfortunately, they have all come to pass.

These have either not happened, or are way too obvious to really impress. A country is attacked and its people rally around its leader, agree to trade in their freedoms for increased security, and moves toward a more militaristic/fascist mindset? Boy, when has that happened before?

Can you find two or three newspaper articles published on 9/14/01 or somewhere in that first week after the attacks that were bold enough to make these warnings about moving cautiously and protecting freedoms?

Other posters have made the claim that these were obvious and common predictions in the aftermath of 9/11- I'd like to see some evidence, because I remember this trend beginning a little later.

nihil wrote:Bob,

What is your definition of "globalism?" Do you define it in terms of corporations or people?

I might define it as 'line of sight'; can you see who you work for?

Yes I can.

Can you see where the money comes from?

Yes.

Do you know whether you elect your politicians, or are they 'sent' as your only options?

Sent by whom? They're mainly just rich people. Nothing more.

Basically, how much of your economy and government lies beyond the horizon? It's about accountability- can you, as a citizen, enforce it? Do you and those you share your political views with have the ability to make real change to the government and the economy, or is it mysterious-complex-distant? As in 'global'?

I'm sorry, I don't follow. That really doesn't make sense.

nihil wrote:What do you think the role of the UN should be?

It should not exist. The message of one world, one people, grow together in peace together, it's a lie. People can share common values across borders without meeting to plan them.

That's some hardcore disdain for democracy and international law. The current administration would be proud of you.

Tend to your world inside your borders, make your economy and government accountable to your fellow Americans or Canadians or Malaysians, and then arrange trade agreements with outside nations that spread benefits across all internal classes of your nation, not deliver more poker chips to some asswipe straddling a bank vault in Geneva.

That is a little too simplistic and a tad reactionary, don't you think?

nihil wrote:For that matter, what about The World Court?

Awful idea.

Again, that's some hardcore contempt for democracy and international law. The current administration would be proud of you.

nihil wrote:Are you aware of the US voting record at the UN?

Of course. Do you have a specific point?

Yes. US abstention speaks for itself.

nihil wrote:How do you feel about democracy?

Democracy can only exist without a wide gulf between richest and poorest and without corrupting influence by those who do not hold votes overpowering the will of those who do.

True to some extent. But the majority has tremendous power, if well organized. This is how real change is accomplished. Organization is the answer. That is, if you believe in democracy.

nihil wrote:I am curious. Frankly, there are so many long winded exchanges that attempt to cover many subjects. It leaves me confused.

You weren't too confused last week to accept Andrew L.'s word that a book you hadn't read would destroy your brain if you did read it.

I don't recall him saying anything about destroying brains. But yes, I was confused by most of what you argued. He made sense. You did not. It's that simple.

If you want to be less confused about how banking ( and consequently, the world ) operates, then read The Creature From Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin. Would you pay $20 to be less confused?

I spent some time looking into this fellow and his book. Frankly, I don't see any point. He may have done a good job with his research, but I really don't see it as a serious perspective. I'm comfortable with other sources.

Then read A People's History Of The United States by Howard Zinn, if you haven't done so already.

I have read this book. I love this book. I am constantly rereading this book. What do you think about Zinn's ideas regarding borders?

Everything else is available on-line. Read an hour on the web every day, minimum.

Gee, thanks for the advice.

nihil wrote:I do not want to presume your position on any of these issues.

Good progress for you. Be careful with presumption. Like, don't presume that conspiracy theories are always invented from thin air. Don't presume that books that aren't published by Simon and Schuster are necessarily bad.

There are many underground publishers that are serious and reputable. Tabloid publishers aren't my idea of independent and underground.

Give your side now- globalism: good or bad?

Good: International integration. People. The World Social Forum. Equality.
Bad: Multinational corporations. Inequality.

Simply stated, but that's the guts of it.