Keelan

You hate the lizard man assumptions, yet tinfoil hat wearers always assume that the people who don't buy into that believe everything the media and politicians tell them. Somehow, I think it's a projection of that conspiracy mindset where you want to believe the supposed evidence so badly, you'll totally accept it at face value. If you really think the majority of people believe in their governments or aren't suspicious and aware of their lies and the lies* of the media, then I don't know what internet you've been reading.

 

*regular lies, not David Icke style bollocks.

Excellent post, Woyzeck. I'm fascinated by this aspect of conspiracy nuts as well. They ignore and dismiss the sane, valid criticism that people heap at the government constantly. If you're not screaming that the NWO is going to enslave us all, you must be a government-controlled sheep.

I don't see that at all, in fact I think most conspiracy theorists agree with most of the "legitimate" crticism of the government and obviously a lot more on top. In fact I find it more common that a lot of people agree with 90% of what I say, but just don't join the dots. Because I might use the term new world order, everything becomes a whacko conspiracy theory, despite it being more or less what they agree with.

I'm anti-EU I see it taking my rights

I'm against the banking system

I think the war on terror is blown way out of proportion and events like 9/11 are a bit fishy

I think Blair is a cunt and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan should end now

CCTV is getting out of control

etc etc

Most people I've ever spoke to agree with this. But if you say

The idea of a EU has been down on paper and pushed long before now

The banking system was hijacked and is now flawed

9/11 has all the hallmarks of being allowed to happen as a false flag

the wars are based on lies because...

Then its ohhhhhh shit man must be conspiracy theorist.

You can lead a horse to water...

On Google video:

The Century Of The Self - Part 1 of 4 - By Adam Curtis

 

If this is the correct one I'm thinking of it shows how people have been manipulated by appealing to the individual. This is how Thatcher and Bush were successful in the 80s, a great example of we have the have the wool pulled over eyes. In one hand Thatcher gave people the right to buy their council homes then with the other she took away jobs by closing the coal-mines.

Curtis also did a great documentary on the contrived threat of terrorism:

The Power of Nightmares

A real eye opener when I first saw that.

Quick question, please clear up if you can -

 

Wouldn't you be worried that your vote wouldn't count for anything? I mean, if everyone is as corrupt and hell-bent on world domination as you say, surely they'd nullify any dissenting votes and just do what they wanted anyway? In that situation, where the elites ignore your vote and do what they like regardless, what's the point in demanding democratic process?

 

Just wondering, is all.

While there is still a voting system, votes will count. But we're moving in to a post democratic world, where they count less and less. As Europe expands, we may have a general election, but still answer to Bureaucrats in Brussels. A lot of our laws now come from Europe.

I've seen no evidence of vote fraud, although there was some hoohah about George Bush in the US that I haven't really looked in to.

I don't think every one is corrupt. It's a top down system, a chain of command. It's not as though the local lady taking in the voting slips is in on it. But she'll happily take votes from people who might have only been exposed to information from the BBC. (not that i'm for taking anybody's vote a way, but you catch my drift).

Like the other analogy. Bob the bank clerk doesn't know when he takes people's savings that he's holding up a multi-national banking cartel.

Britain wasn't given a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. I don't like that.

Neither do I to be honest.

I see it as our leaders thinking they know better than us, when they are supposedly elected to represent us. A simple vote is all I ask. It comes back to this elitist attitude.

So they want a new order under a global structure. Is it their right to move us in that direction without input from the people? Whether their intentions are good or not? I don't think it is.

For goodness sake it's a common phrase. You know that, I know that. You'd probably be agreeing with me if this wasn't a "conspiracy theory" thread where you're hellbent on playing devils advocate with everything.

Nobody elected labor with Gordon Brown at the helm. He didn't lead a party in to election, he simply took Blair's place.

The 2007 leader election wasn't voted by the general public. In fact papers carried stories asking whether they should just call a general election and get rid of labor.

Ironically Brown then handed a lot of power to the Unelected Mandelson.

He did go through an election though. The General Election of 2005.

That was Blair.

It was only the other week that unelected Fabian-Socialist Bilderberger Gordon Brown called for a New World Order.

 

How is he unelected?

 

In that he wasn't put before a general election.

 

What? He won his seat in a General Election, so he was elected. You don't vote for a Prime Minister, you vote for the person running in your constituency. Unless there was a meeting in which we changed to voting for the Prime Minister and I missed it.

 

I don't like the idea that when one steps down another can just take their place because they are from the same regime that was initially elected.

 

So because you don't like an idea, it makes it to be the truth?

Did Gordon Brown go through an election? No.

So was he elected, not really.

The term unelected has been used long before me. This is irrelevant.

It was only the other week that unelected Fabian-Socialist Bilderberger Gordon Brown called for a New World Order.

 

How is he unelected?

 

In that he wasn't put before a general election.

 

What? He won his seat in a General Election, so he was elected. You don't vote for a Prime Minister, you vote for the person running in your constituency. Unless there was a meeting in which we changed to voting for the Prime Minister and I missed it.

I'm well aware of that, but if the leader of a party does such a cack job that he is forced to resign, I personally think there should be a general election.

It was only the other week that unelected Fabian-Socialist Bilderberger Gordon Brown called for a New World Order.

 

How is he unelected?

In that he wasn't put before a general election. I don't like the idea that when one steps down another can just take their place because they are from the same regime that was initially elected.

Yes a lot of this stuff has been going on since the dawn of civilization and thankfully the people stopped it each time before it could take grip.

 

What people and when?

I'm referring to empire building.

All empires and regimes have fallen because they never became world empires and still had oppositions or dissenters.

Bush Snr. coined it? He must have invented a time machine as well and taught it to Churchill & Wilson.

I'll give you that one.

Bush's speech is the most overplayed. Of course the ideology goes further back than all of them.

.

Then why don't you all stop playing Devil's advocate. You honestly think the powerful people in this world want a one world system for peace? Or is peace just the same old politician BS they tell us so they can consolidate power?

 

They can't be that powerful. People have been harping on about the new world order for decades. If haven't pulled their fingers out by 2010, you probably shouldn't hold your breath.

 

Tell that to those going through house foreclosure or whom are below the bread line.

Tell that to the poor starving African that might now be forced to go Green instead of eating.

Tell that to the mother's of dead soldiers.

Tell that to the regular Muslims that are now supposedly terrorists.

 

The fuck's that got to do with a new world order? Read a history book, that kinda thing's been going on since, ooh, the dawn of civilisation.

The banking crash was a controlled implosion by design, because the private banking system was set up by criminals and yup globalists. I got this from the history books. Dr. Ron Paul should help you with that one.

The poor starving Africans is due to greedy monopolists and the western banking model, the same people pushing for a NWO because it gives them even more consolidated power.

Mother's dead soldiers? Well Iraq and Afghanistan are wars based on lies perpetrated by neocons and one worlders like Bush and Blair. Both who have often used the term NWO. In fact daddy Bush coined it. And most historical wars were down to empire building. So that's basically a one world ideology.

Muslims and Terrorists? Well parts of the Middle-East are that last regions that haven't yet been forced to adopt western democracy, central banking and rule by corporations.

Yes a lot of this stuff has been going on since the dawn of civilization and thankfully the people stopped it each time before it could take grip.

.

Then why don't you all stop playing Devil's advocate. You honestly think the powerful people in this world want a one world system for peace? Or is peace just the same old politician BS they tell us so they can consolidate power?

 

They can't be that powerful. People have been harping on about the new world order for decades. If haven't pulled their fingers out by 2010, you probably shouldn't hold your breath.

Tell that to those going through house foreclosure or whom are below the bread line.

Tell that to the poor starving African that might now be forced to go Green instead of eating.

Tell that to the mother's of dead soldiers.

Tell that to the regular Muslims that are now supposedly terrorists.

.

So it's only when they're meeting to rip off their human skins and lounge around in lizard form that you have a problem with it? Just to clarify.

 

Back to that shit are we.

 

You'll probably be there as one of their rent boys. "Oh yes Mr. Politician, whatever you say...yes take me to this new world order full of gum drops and pixies - it sounds so magical and peaceful".

 

You hate the lizard man assumptions, yet tinfoil hat wearers always assume that the people who don't buy into that believe everything the media and politicians tell them. Somehow, I think it's a projection of that conspiracy mindset where you want to believe the supposed evidence so badly, you'll totally accept it at face value. If you really think the majority of people believe in their governments or aren't suspicious and aware of their lies and the lies* of the media, then I don't know what internet you've been reading.

 

*regular lies, not David Icke style bollocks.

Then why don't you all stop playing Devil's advocate. You honestly think the powerful people in this world want a one world system for peace? Or is peace just the same old politician BS they tell us so they can consolidate power?

All of the lies I refer to are regular lies. I just put them in a pot to see a bigger pattern.

.

So it's only when they're meeting to rip off their human skins and lounge around in lizard form that you have a problem with it? Just to clarify.

Back to that shit are we.

You'll probably be there as one of their rent boys. "Oh yes Mr. Politician, whatever you say...yes take me to this new world order full of gum drops and pixies - it sounds so magical and peaceful".

The naivet

Keelan, seeing as you ignored me other point (YOU JUST AREN'T WILLING TO DEBATE ) here's a bit of a personal question that I'm genuinely curious about. What do your family make of your beliefs? Does it ever come up? I keep trying to imagine how I'd cope if one of my family members was swept up in all this stuff, and just how tiresome Christmas dinner would be. Are you always berating your parents for being credit card using sheeple?

My Dad's all "lets nuke them all"

but my mother now shares pretty much everything I'm saying now that I've sat her down and presented her with the information.

My sister somewhat agrees but openly admits that she'd rather just not know.

Dinner in my house is now very enlightening. Before it would be neighbors on the TV. Now it's often quite intense discussion.

I for one am hugely glad that we're moving to more of a united world. The sort of issues which face us are global in nature - environment, poverty, food shortage, universal healthcare, and only by working as a consensual community of nations can we hope to improve the lot of everyone at the same time.

It's a nice ideological view you have there and I don't doubt your sincerity but I think you're being naive and unrealistic. Generally speaking the problems you list are problems caused by the very people pushing for a globalist structure. Poverty, health and food issues in the third world is almost exclusively caused by money hungry globalists. Henry Kissinger even made is US policy to prevent the third world from developing because it would pose a threat to him and his banking buddies. Read memorandum 200. Yet he and the likes of Rockefeller are at the forefront of wanting a one world system and have deceptively pushed for it their whole life.

The history of the twentieth century shows a relentless improvement in the overall standards of life and the explosive spread of democracy and liberalism, both of which are positive forces for good.

Invading and bombing countries, staging coups and forcing other countries to fit in to the peg hole of democracy has done nothing but cause huge bloodshed and more conflict.

The United Nations, which you seem to see as some sort of bogeyman, was created specifically to put an end to the sort of spiralling world conflict which had engulfed the world in the previous few decades. That's a role it's actually achieved extremely well.

No it was not, it was created in smoke filled boardrooms by businessmen. The US public initially didn’t want it did they (you know under democracy). So they went underground where they formed the Council on Foreign Relations under David Rockefeller, who’s purpose was to push forward the agenda by covert means until public perception had been swayed.

Peace might seem to be their intention. They certainly talk a lot about peace in their speeches. If the world is united then there will be world peace right? But if corrupt bankers and corporate monopolists with dubious pasts and inhumane views on the general public are the ones controlling this new order, we might want to seek an alternative to their vision.

They have had their hand in most modern wars and conflicts – most of which they declared. So to get this peaceful one world we need to bomb every other country and take everybody's freedom until they accept it?

We need to concentrate on ensuring that the process has appropriate checks and balances and that the new global infrastructure is open and transparent.

Yes and having studied our leaders I know it won't be. You and your clan on here said it's impossible for our governments to do anything right, so there cant be a conspiracy. You expect them to create a world government that's fair? pffffft

Has any empire been fair?

And another thing worth pointing out is that you've now accepted that we're moving towards a one world system. So you can't simultaneously deny its existence whilst touting it's virtues. I'm simply saying hooooooooold on, we need to seriously reconsider where we are headed.

make it illegal and enforceable for officials/bankers/businessmen to meet under chatham house rules

 

First off its Chatham House Rule, not rules, theres only one rule. I dont understand quite what you mean here, Are you saying that any attempt to block media reporting by any business should be a criminal offense?

No let me be clear. What I mean is I'd ideally make it illegal for heads of state and other powerful people to meet behind closed doors without declaring the purpose of the meeting and inviting the media.

In other words ending Bilderberg.

I don't mean a couple of politicians, but for example like Bilderberg various heads of state, royalty, big business and bankers from all over the world.

double post, wtf lol

Why would anyone want to go through all that hassle at the airport nowadays?

Because it lessens the chances of their plane exploding?

 

Are we all going to be watched 24/7 on an individual basis? If so, what kind of shifts would the monitor-watchers work? Presumably there'd need to be about five or six watchers to every person, to cover shift patterns and weekends and all that.

Using the Detroit Bombing as an example which is now openly admitted on US media as being an Intelligence error, in that they LET him on the plane. At what point is a lapse in security at fault? Having body scanners would have done nothing because he was always going to be allowed on the plane.

The war on Terror is extremely over-hyped and contrived.