| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Do you want a Global Government |
| Yes |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| No |
|
90% |
[ 9 ] |
| Not Sure (need to do more research) |
|
10% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 10 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Stephen
Moderate Poster
Joined: 03 Jul 2006
Posts: 819
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 4:22 pm Post subject: Global Government: for or against? |
 |
|
Don't be takin in by it, this has been the goal of the Illuminati for a very long time. 
We don't need leaders we need people thinking for themselves David Icke |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Stephen
Moderate Poster
Joined: 03 Jul 2006
Posts: 819
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry I've put this in the wrong section  But who cares if
THE ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT comes in, we will all be strung up anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This depends hugely on who the government comprises.
If there are a number of really bad individuals bent on running the planet to the detriment of the majority, then there will be an even bigger number of people who could staff a world government that is intent on making it a better place for the majority.
To simply say a world government is a bad thing is daft - you mean a world government run by those in it just for themselves. What if David Icke was world leader,? What about Rolf Harris? I am all for a well-organised, sensible bunch of people overseeing things - only problem if Ant and Dec got to run things, egos might get in the way a bit.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stephen
Moderate Poster
Joined: 03 Jul 2006
Posts: 819
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | This depends hugely on who the government comprises.
If there are a number of really bad individuals bent on running the planet to the detriment of the majority, then there will be an even bigger number of people who could staff a world government that is intent on making it a better place for the majority.
To simply say a world government is a bad thing is daft - you mean a world government run by those in it just for themselves. What if David Icke was world leader,? What about Rolf Harris? I am all for a well-organised, sensible bunch of people overseeing things - only problem if Ant and Dec got to run things, egos might get in the way a bit. |
But dont you see this is the New World Order/Illuminati Agenda
| Quote: | | bigger number of people who could staff a world government that is intent on making it a better place for the majority. |
thats what they want you to think, theres no chance they will allow that mate
| Quote: | | What if David Icke was world leader,? |
Icke Doesnt belive in Leaders.
Rolf Harris, Ant & Dec Then the people deserve the Government they get.
We dont need this, every single person is there own sovreign government, policeman/woman and morale guide. We dont need rulers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
simplesimon
Moderate Poster
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
Posts: 249
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:16 pm Post subject: Idea of global government is intrinsically fascistic |
|
|
The idea of global government is intrinsically fascistic. Discovering that some people (purporting to be?) trying to expose the truth about the WTC psyop would consider it for more than a minute terrifies me more than that event itself.
Of course, we have de facto global government already. The fascist "global elite" are seeking to consolidate their stranglehold over the people of the world, in part by manipulating well meaning people into calling for it.
Truly, if ordinary people think that such an evil construct could ever be good for US, then THEY are winning.
"Countless people ... will hate the new world order ... and will die protesting against it." - H.G. Wells
There it is.
The belief that they (globalists) are motivated by benevolent intent can only be born of gross ignorance and naivete.
I would rather die fighting it than live under it's yoke. To submit to it would be a betrayal of myself, my family, all those I love, and humanity itself.
Simon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stephen
Moderate Poster
Joined: 03 Jul 2006
Posts: 819
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:56 pm Post subject: Re: Idea of global government is intrinsically fascistic |
|
|
| simplesimon wrote: | The idea of global government is intrinsically fascistic. Discovering that some people (purporting to be?) trying to expose the truth about the WTC psyop would consider it for more than a minute terrifies me more than that event itself.
Of course, we have de facto global government already. The fascist "global elite" are seeking to consolidate their stranglehold over the people of the world, in part by manipulating well meaning people into calling for it.
Truly, if ordinary people think that such an evil construct could ever be good for US, then THEY are winning.
"Countless people ... will hate the new world order ... and will die protesting against it." - H.G. Wells
There it is.
The belief that they (globalists) are motivated by benevolent intent can only be born of gross ignorance and naivete.
I would rather die fighting it than live under it's yoke. To submit to it would be a betrayal of myself, my family, all those I love, and humanity itself.
Simon |
F*ckin right on! I agree 
Search and Destroy this Shills like Agent White! New World Order, my arse.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bongo
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 17 Jan 2007
Posts: 687
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mankind is way too primitive for one world government.
Only a highly advanced race who believe that conflict will always cause failure and subsequently, that to help others around you is the only way to advance your own (and more importantly) the united cause of the entire race, could ever be successful under a one world government.
Humans are too full of greed, fear and self interest. Hence, we are not equipped to undertake the responsibility of a one world government.
In any event, if we were that highly advanced and selfless race, it is highly likely that we would not require any government whatsoever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | "Countless people ... will hate the new world order ... and will die protesting against it." - H.G. Wells |
I'm curious as to why this gets quoted a lot but no-one ever gives a full quote:
| Quote: | Nor does it alter the fact that even when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people, from maharajas to millionaires and from pukkha sahibs to pretty ladies, will hate the new world order, be rendered unhappy by frustration of their passions and ambitions through its advent and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to estimate its promise we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people.
Ant it will be no light matter to minimise the loss of efficiency in the process of changing the spirit and pride of administration work from that of an investing, high-salaried man with a handsome display of expenditure and a socially ambitious wife, into a relatively less highly-salaried man with a higher standard of self-criticism, aware that he will be esteemed rather by what he puts into his work than by what he gets out of it. There will be a lot of social spill, tragi-comedy and loss of efficiency during the period of the change over, and it is better to be prepared for that. |
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/new_world_order_hgwells _pt2.htm
or actually explains what the full work is about or explains why Mr Wells just going on about his political ideal is so amazingly significant.
Just wondering.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
simplesimon
Moderate Poster
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
Posts: 249
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote]Quote:
"Countless people ... will hate the new world order ... and will die protesting against it." - H.G. Wells
I'm curious as to why this gets quoted a lot but no-one ever gives a full quote: [/quote]
I lifted that partial quote from Wikipedia. I think it's perfectly fair, and represents his mind set, his "world view" if you like.
[quote]http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/new_world_order_ hgwells _pt2.htm [/quote]
Clearly written from an elitist position, shows Wells to have been an unabashed fascist.
[quote]or actually explains what the full work is about or explains why Mr Wells just going on about his political ideal is so amazingly significant. [/quote]
The significance is that the phrase "New World Order" elicits a conditioned response from most people (like "conspiracy theory"). By drawing attention to the fact that movers and shakers like Wells seek to impose this tyranny on us, one hopes to relieve them of their deluded self protecting denial.
Add: Can't figure out how to delete this clunky version - would someone who can please delete it?
Last edited by simplesimon on Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:12 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
simplesimon
Moderate Poster
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
Posts: 249
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | "Countless people ... will hate the new world order ... and will die protesting against it." - H.G. Wells
I'm curious as to why this gets quoted a lot but no-one ever gives a full quote |
I lifted that partial quote from Wikipedia. I think it's perfectly fair, and represents his mind set, his "world view" if you like.
| Quote: | | http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/new_world_order_ hgwells _pt2.htm |
Clearly written from an elitist position, shows Wells to have been an unabashed fascist.
| Quote: | | or actually explains what the full work is about or explains why Mr Wells just going on about his political ideal is so amazingly significant. |
The significance is that the phrase "New World Order" elicits a conditioned response from most people (like "conspiracy theory"). By drawing attention to the fact that movers and shakers like Wells seek to impose this tyranny on us, one hopes to relieve them of their deluded self protecting denial. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | I lifted that partial quote from Wikipedia. I think it's perfectly fair, and represents his mind set, his "world view" if you like.
|
Given the full text of the work, in what way? Why does the passage need to be quote mined to remove the context?
| Quote: | Clearly written from an elitist position, shows Wells to have been an unabashed fascist.
|
H G Wells certainly had some elitist ideas - for example, in common with many people of his era he had an interest in eugenics, an era most people regard as being thoroughly discredited these days. And you could argue that anyone seeking to propose an overarching political philosophy is in some way elitist but how so more than, say, William Morris? Or anyone with a grand political idea? To me he seems more idealist.
What's fascist about it the work?
| Quote: | | The significance is that the phrase "New World Order" elicits a conditioned response from most people (like "conspiracy theory"). By drawing attention to the fact that movers and shakers like Wells seek to impose this tyranny on us, one hopes to relieve them of their deluded self protecting denial. |
I agree it produces a conditioned response - the phrase NWO instantly makes people think "they're part of the elite plotting our downfall" but how did H G Wells - as someone who was in the Fabian Society for a bit and quit and ran as a labour candidate twice - constitute a 'mover and shaker'? Oh hang on, he liked the League of Nations - dun dun duhhhh!!! - that's like the evil UN!
If it wasn't for his sci-fi, would anyone even remember the guy? I simply don't get why this quote crops up a lot as it just doesn't seem to mean anything significant of relevance to today. Reinhold Neibuhr said sinister things and was more influential, but nobody seems to quote him.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
simplesimon
Moderate Poster
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
Posts: 249
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Quote:
I lifted that partial quote from Wikipedia. I think it's perfectly fair, and represents his mind set, his "world view" if you like.
Given the full text of the work, in what way? Why does the passage need to be quote mined to remove the context? |
To reveal the essence of globalist intent, in a few words. To avoid getting bogged down in pragmatics, in a thread titled "Global Government: for or against?"
| Quote: | | H G Wells certainly had some elitist ideas - for example, in common with many people of his era he had an interest in eugenics, an era most people regard as being thoroughly discredited these days. |
Fascist ideas and policies are still fascist, even if the elite manage to get them discussed in polite society without revealing their hand, and without provoking a backlash. "Discredited" simply means what "opinion formers" have decided (tactically, in this case) what shall not be credited. For the time being.
| Quote: | | And you could argue that anyone seeking to propose an overarching political philosophy is in some way elitist |
I am arguing that anyone seeking to impose an overarching political reality is in a very real way, a fascist. They want us to think it's "for the common good" but well, they would say that wouldn't they?
| Quote: | | but how so more than, say, William Morris? Or anyone with a grand political idea? To me he seems more idealist. |
His (Wells) ideals seem to be able to accommodate imposing his overarching political philosophy. Ergo...
| Quote: |
What's fascist about it the work? |
I suggest this is not the thread for contextual analysis, but see above.
| Quote: | Quote:
The significance is that the phrase "New World Order" elicits a conditioned response...
I agree it produces a conditioned response - the phrase NWO instantly makes people think "they're part of the elite plotting our downfall" |
Do you really think so? Surely it makes most people think "The person telling me this is one of those 'extremists' my TV is always warning me about. I am slipping out of my comfort zone. I will not listen to this person, and not consider the matter". That is the conditioned response.
| Quote: | | but how did H G Wells - as someone who was in the Fabian Society for a bit and quit and ran as a labour candidate twice - constitute a 'mover and shaker'? Oh hang on, he liked the League of Nations - dun dun duhhhh!!! - that's like the evil UN! |
Quite.
| Quote: | | If it wasn't for his sci-fi, would anyone even remember the guy? |
Don't you find it interesting that the vast majority of those who know of his fiction are completely unaware that he was a globalist?
| Quote: | | I simply don't get why this quote crops up a lot as it just doesn't seem to mean anything significant of relevance to today. |
Because it can be effective in alerting people to the most important and dangerous geopolitical dynamic today, as then - the elite's plan to enslave us in a global, totalitarian, police state.
| Quote: | | Reinhold Neibuhr said sinister things and was more influential, but nobody seems to quote him. |
Never heard of him, I'll try to read up.
Anyway. I respectfully request that we stay on topic, and I'd be interested in reading a few hundred words from you on your thoughts on the idea of a single world government.
What are the motives of those promoting it? Who are they? Why are they so secretive and devious? Is it not intrinsically totalitarian and fascistic? What kind of people want to rule the world? Why is "globalisation" never properly defined (for the masses), and what can it really mean, if not world government? Should I be able to opt out, or do I have to swear fealty? If a "nation" as presently arranged will not submit to it, is that permissible? If a leader swears to govern in the interests of the people who elect him, by which he claims legitimacy, but actually works toward undermining national sovereignty, and ceding power to an unaccountable, undeclared (as yet), supranational body, what of that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | To reveal the essence of globalist intent, in a few words. To avoid getting bogged down in pragmatics, in a thread titled "Global Government: for or against?"
|
It's not getting bogged down in pragmatics, it's deception. It's making the quote say what people want and assuming they won't bother to check where it's from and what it actually means.
| Quote: | | Fascist ideas and policies are still fascist, even if the elite manage to get them discussed in polite society without revealing their hand, and without provoking a backlash. "Discredited" simply means what "opinion formers" have decided (tactically, in this case) what shall not be credited. For the time being. |
Well, plenty of ideas are fascistic in retrospect, but because fascism is a pretty new ideology, many such ideas predate fascism existing as an ideology.
It's a grand sweeping say-so statement to say an idea being discredited is simply tactical. We used to think bleeding people was good medical practice - I would personally say this being discredited was due to advances in medical knowledge. Eugenics used to be a widely popular notion. So did thinking being gay means you're mentally ill or that women are less intelligent than men. Times change and not just because of some all powerful cabal.
But if "opinion formers" do 'tactically' introduce ideas, it stands to reason opinion receivers will follow them. By what criteria are you distinguishing who is who?
| Quote: | I am arguing that anyone seeking to impose an overarching political reality is in a very real way, a fascist. They want us to think it's "for the common good" but well, they would say that wouldn't they?
|
Wanting to impose your ideology on the world isn't intrinsically fascistic. it's what everyone with a political ideology wants to do. And if people get too carried away with actually doing it then they do tend to get rather totalitarian. But any political ideology will be imposed on some people even if the majority think it's great.
Ok, I assume you want to get rid of the global elite, yes? So you'd be happy if people saw the truth, rose up and got rid of their masters? And the world was run on whatever basis you think best - I dunno what you're into. Now this vision of a world without the 'globalists' calling the shots would represent the dawning of, well, a new world order. However, the globalists are currently sittin' pretty and won't be happy about being dislodged, nor will all those people doing rather well out the current system. By changing the current world order and imposing a new one on the globalists, it could be said your vision is fascist too and I imagine thousands of globalists will hate the new world order and will die opposing it.
If you say you don't want to impose anything on anybody then you may as well just get used to the world being the way it is as no-one in power is going to just come round to abandoning it out of the goodness of their heart.
| Quote: | | I suggest this is not the thread for contextual analysis, but see above |
But if you're using that term, presumably he endorses some of the themes inherent in fascism. His declaration of rights seems rather unfascistic to me, so I'm just wondering in what way he's a fascist.
| Quote: | Do you really think so? Surely it makes most people think "The person telling me this is one of those 'extremists' my TV is always warning me about. I am slipping out of my comfort zone. I will not listen to this person, and not consider the matter". That is the conditioned response.
|
And pointing to any manifestation of the phrase 'new world order' as an indicator of malevolent 'globalists' who are all working together is likely to reinforce that notion.
Just as many people are triggered by phrases like 'terrorist' and 'extremist', other people are triggered by words like 'new world order' or 'globalist'. It works both ways and in both cases people are conditioned against sitting down and thinking about what someone is actually saying.
I won't ask...
| Quote: | Don't you find it interesting that the vast majority of those who know of his fiction are completely unaware that he was a globalist?
|
This term 'globalist' is also thrown around with gay abandon and seems to encompass a wide variety of people with radically different outlooks. It's like saying everyone who isn't a 'globalist" is a "nationalist".
But what makes you think people need to know or are interested that he wanted a world government? I've heard H P Lovecraft was a bit of a fascist, but I'm not really bothered about that when I read the shadow over innsmouth as it's a cracking good apolitical yarn. People don't read H G Wells because they're arsed about his politics; what's war of the worlds got to do with New World Orders? Sci-fi novelist China Mieville is apparently a Marxist - do you really need to know that if you're going to read perdido street station? Knowing an author's politics can help you understand their writing better and is useful to know if they're writing propaganda, but who seriously researches the politics of everyone whose fiction they consume? What does Stephen King believe? Do you know or care?
| Quote: | | Because it can be effective in alerting people to the most important and dangerous geopolitical dynamic today, as then - the elite's plan to enslave us in a global, totalitarian, police state. |
What plan that actually has anything to do with H G Wells in a remotely demonstrable way?
| Quote: | | Never heard of him, I'll try to read up. |
Actually don't bother - he's really boring. But rather elitist.
Anyway, as far as I'm concerned if you want globalisation you need look no further than capitalism which is staring you in the face.
Other than that, though I personally don't like notions of global governance (being more anarchist communist in political influence), I can see why as an idealistic notion it makes sense. After all, nations are a dumb idea - people waving flags, singing national anthems and feeling superior to foreigners are just behaving like chimpanzees getting possessive over their bit of the forest. We're all human beings - why shouldn't we organise as a species? Would make war a lot harder for a start - without patriotism you'd lose the primary spur for getting people to kill strangers. Why do people feel all protective over their country? It's just an arbitrary line on a map, usually back from when some ground was conquered. Me, I think it'd never work, but I don't think it's evil to believe it might. Other people may want global slavery, but to say all people who have a theory about global government inevitably think the same way is about as sensible as saying all people who don't want a global government inevitably think the same way. What about the notion of the whole of humanity working together as one?
I haven't really paid much attention to what DRG thinks regarding his global government and until I feel arsed to check it out properly and understand exactly what he means I will refrain from knee-jerk hysterical reactions that make sweeping assumptions based on the premise that anyone wanting a global government must be evil!!!!!!
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 12:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Question is far too simplistic. I would say power should be devolved and transparent as possible. Power should carry full responsibility. However a metre should be the same length everywhere.
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
simplesimon
Moderate Poster
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
Posts: 249
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dogsmilk wrote:
| Quote: | | Wanting to impose your ideology on the world isn't intrinsically fascistic. |
Yes it bloody well is.
Tell me - do you want to impose your ideology on the world? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 3:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| simplesimon wrote: | Dogsmilk wrote:
| Quote: | | Wanting to impose your ideology on the world isn't intrinsically fascistic. |
Yes it bloody well is.
Tell me - do you want to impose your ideology on the world? |
How can you have a political system (which is basically a framework for how people are to interact) without 'imposing' it?
Whether by force or by consent, it still has to be imposed.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
simplesimon
Moderate Poster
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
Posts: 249
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
chek wrote:
| Quote: | | How can you have a political system (which is basically a framework for how people are to interact) without 'imposing' it? |
If party A imposes their preferred system on party B, it is fascistic. Simple as that. Note, the topic is world government. The parties are (supposedly) sovereign states.
| Quote: | | Whether by force or by consent, it still has to be imposed. |
Er... imposed by consent? Interesting use of language.
Interesting, that's all I'm saying.
Reminds me of Warburg's threat to the U.S. Senate:
"We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest."
Tell me - do you want to impose your ideology on the world? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| simplesimon wrote: | chek wrote:
| Quote: | | How can you have a political system (which is basically a framework for how people are to interact) without 'imposing' it? |
If party A imposes their preferred system on party B, it is fascistic. Simple as that. Note, the topic is world government. The parties are (supposedly) sovereign states. |
In an interdependent world, the concept of 'sovereign states' is largely illusory though anyway.
| Quote: | | Whether by force or by consent, it still has to be imposed. |
| simplesimon wrote: | Er... imposed by consent? Interesting use of language.
Interesting, that's all I'm saying.
Reminds me of Warburg's threat to the U.S. Senate:
"We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest."
Tell me - do you want to impose your ideology on the world? |
I don't have an ideology - apart from the old standby 'beware of 'isms'.
But nevertheless, a political system as with anything in the real world, will not be all 100% sunshine. It's always a matter of pros and cons, with the pros ideally outweighing the cons.
So regardless of the overall benefits of even the most inherently fair of systems to be adopted, there will always be an element of imposition.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| simplesimon wrote: | Dogsmilk wrote:
| Quote: | | Wanting to impose your ideology on the world isn't intrinsically fascistic. |
Yes it bloody well is.
Tell me - do you want to impose your ideology on the world? |
Not personally - I'm too lazy. Do you want to impose your own perspective on the current elites? I hear they're very happy with the way things are and do not wish to see anything change.But you miss the point - any political or economic system is imposed on people to greater or lesser extent. And until someone can find a political system that pleases everyone all of the time that will remain the case.
If you believe in a set system, you tend to want it to take over. So if you campaign for, say, UKIP you would want them to win a general election and get Britain out of the EU. This would then impose their ideology on people who want to be in the EU, but the UKIP campaigner would believe it's actually in their best interests Britain is not. This does not make UKIP inherently fascist. Though they are a bunch of right wing tw@ts.
Also, if you impose an ideology that does not automatically make it fascism, a specific ideology that has a distinct range of features.
Apologies to Chek for repeating what he'd already said, but it seemed necessary.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
simplesimon
Moderate Poster
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
Posts: 249
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
chek wrote:
| Quote: | | In an interdependent world... |
Somehow I expected you would say something like that. That is a statement of your ideology. It's a typical globalist phrase. We're told every day that we're "interdependent", to psychologically manipulate us into thinking that we should let those who rule the world do so overtly. For our own good, of course. What if a state wants to remain INdependent? Would you allow that?
| Quote: | | ...the concept of 'sovereign states' is largely illusory though anyway. |
You seem to be conceding that we have de facto world government already, and that it has been bought about by deception. I agree. That is imposition, and that is fascist.
| Quote: | | I don't have an ideology.. (but you say we have an) Interdependent world |
That is an ideology. Where did it come from? Who told you that? What does it even mean?
Now. before you take this in the direction I expect you to, don't get hung up on well intentioned thoughts of humanity acting in concert for the common good. I think that in the abstract, "We are all here for each other". But, we don't all have to suffer the same government.
| Quote: | | I don't have an ideology - apart from the old standby 'beware of 'isms'. |
Well, quite. But 'isms' exist, in that they are defined by their adherents or their opponents. And some are worse than others. One, global-ism, is the ideology of people who want to rule the world. I call those people "fascists".
| Quote: | | So regardless of the overall benefits of even the most inherently fair of systems to be adopted... |
You pre-suppose that there is a system (of world government) to be adopted. I respectfully suggest that you've been suckered.
| Quote: |
there will always be an element of imposition. |
And that is fascistic.
--
2c5201e9779ae4e3b8e25811e82df275 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Somehow I expected you would say something like that. That is a statement of your ideology. It's a typical globalist phrase. We're told every day that we're "interdependent", to psychologically manipulate us into thinking that we should let those who rule the world do so overtly. For our own good, of course. What if a state wants to remain INdependent? Would you allow that?
|
Sure. (if you meant britain) You could * off for Oil, natural gas and oh... FOOD though
I believe THAT is the kind of "illusion of independance" Chek is refering to
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
simplesimon
Moderate Poster
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
Posts: 249
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dogsmilk wrote:
| Quote: |
Tell me - do you want to impose your ideology on the world?
Not personally - I'm too lazy |
So, you are saying that you have no political ideology? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No - I'm saying I'm too lazy to try to impose it on anybody.
I'll ask again - do you wish to impose an alternative on the current elites?
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Last edited by Dogsmilk on Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:06 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
simplesimon
Moderate Poster
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
Posts: 249
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
John White wrote:
| Quote: |
I believe THAT is the kind of "illusion of independance" Chek is refering to |
He did NOT say that. You are misquoting. He said:
chek said:
| Quote: | | In an interdependent world, the concept of 'sovereign states' is largely illusory though anyway. |
Which means something else entirely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
simplesimon
Moderate Poster
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
Posts: 249
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dogmilk wrote:
| Quote: | | Wanting to impose your ideology on the world isn't intrinsically fascistic. it's what everyone with a political ideology wants to do. |
and
| Quote: | Tell me - do you want to impose your ideology on the world?
Not personally - I'm too lazy. |
Not to mention:
| Quote: | | I agree it produces a conditioned response - the phrase NWO instantly makes people think "they're part of the elite plotting our downfall" |
followed by:
| Quote: | Surely it makes most people think "The person telling me this is one of those 'extremists' my TV is always warning me about. I am slipping out of my comfort zone. I will not listen to this person, and not consider the matter". That is the conditioned response.
And pointing to any manifestation of the phrase 'new world order' as an indicator of malevolent 'globalists' who are all working together is likely to reinforce that notion. |
Forgive me if I say that you seem to be avoiding my argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| simplesimon wrote: | John White wrote:
| Quote: |
I believe THAT is the kind of "illusion of independance" Chek is refering to |
He did NOT say that. You are misquoting. He said:
chek said:
| Quote: | | In an interdependent world, the concept of 'sovereign states' is largely illusory though anyway. |
Which means something else entirely. |
NO. It doesnt
Look: its like this: we are all most certainly opposed to tyranny, and global tyranny especially
But, since the industrial revolution, it is our inability to sustain our society without massive influx of resources from elsewhere which has created this very pressure which has become "Globalisation" in the first place: the only "independant" states are those close to pre-industrial society
I can actually see us ending up back there: Peak Oil will knacker the "NWO" more efficiently than anything else. Peak Oil will knacker the expectations fo pretty much the whole planet
However, assuming we solve the Peak Oil problem, we still have to address our interdependant needs
What are you defending here anyway? The Nation State? An idea, nothing more
We enter unknown territory however we slice it
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Dogmilk wrote:
Quote:
Wanting to impose your ideology on the world isn't intrinsically fascistic. it's what everyone with a political ideology wants to do.
and
Quote:
Tell me - do you want to impose your ideology on the world?
Not personally - I'm too lazy.
|
I'm also too lazy to learn to play the piano. It doesn't follow I wouldn't therefore like theoretically to be able to play the piano except I don't actually want to do it because I'm too lazy and can't be arsed.
But you're continually ducking the central point which is you can't have a political ideology underpinning a society without it being imposed on some people.
| Quote: | Surely it makes most people think "The person telling me this is one of those 'extremists' my TV is always warning me about. I am slipping out of my comfort zone. I will not listen to this person, and not consider the matter". That is the conditioned response.
And pointing to any manifestation of the phrase 'new world order' as an indicator of malevolent 'globalists' who are all working together is likely to reinforce that notion. |
I actually said:
| Quote: | And pointing to any manifestation of the phrase 'new world order' as an indicator of malevolent 'globalists' who are all working together is likely to reinforce that notion.
Just as many people are triggered by phrases like 'terrorist' and 'extremist', other people are triggered by words like 'new world order' or 'globalist'. It works both ways and in both cases people are conditioned against sitting down and thinking about what someone is actually saying.
|
What argument am I avoiding?
Why did you omit the second paragraph?
Why do you refuse to say whether you'd like to impose a 'new world order' on the current 'global elites'?
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Last edited by Dogsmilk on Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:49 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | What are you defending here anyway? The Nation State? An idea, nothing more
|
Yes, this is another important point.
Nation states are rubbish.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| simplesimon wrote: | chek wrote:
| Quote: | | In an interdependent world... |
Somehow I expected you would say something like that. That is a statement of your ideology. It's a typical globalist phrase. We're told every day that we're "interdependent", to psychologically manipulate us into thinking that we should let those who rule the world do so overtly. For our own good, of course. What if a state wants to remain INdependent? Would you allow that? |
'Allow' has nothing to do with it, independence is an illusion if only because we are dependent on other states. Period.
I believe I read somewhere years ago that if the Germans had won WWII, they had calculated that GB could support a population of 12 million, with the rest deported or otherwise disposed of.
As far as I know the nearest thing in recent times to an independent state was the backward hellhole that was/is Albania, and even they still required Chinese support to be viable. At present I think 'NATO occupation' is their main industry, but frankly I can't see much of a long-term future in providing recreational facilities, drugs and prostitution as a national economy. Though Monaco seems to do quite well.
| Quote: | | ...the concept of 'sovereign states' is largely illusory though anyway. |
| simplesimon wrote: | | You seem to be conceding that we have de facto world government already, and that it has been bought about by deception. I agree. That is imposition, and that is fascist. |
In that it is de facto corporate statism, it can be termed fascist, in the definition sense. But it's more authoritarian as evidenced by the lack of effective representation of The People on the global stage, which is where the supra- and trans-nationals now make sure most of the important action takes place.
| Quote: | | I don't have an ideology.. (but you say we have an) Interdependent world |
| simplesimon wrote: | | That is an ideology. Where did it come from? Who told you that? What does it even mean? |
It's not 'an ideology', it means we'd have a radically meaner standard of living if not outright starvation without it. There are people - some on this board - who live the rustic life to a greater or lesser degree and that's fine.
At the moment though, they're not having to compete with 5000 other families in the vicinity for drinking water, herbs, food and firewood.
| simplesimon wrote: | | Now. before you take this in the direction I expect you to, don't get hung up on well intentioned thoughts of humanity acting in concert for the common good. I think that in the abstract, "We are all here for each other". But, we don't all have to suffer the same government. |
'Suffer' rather depends on the benevolence or lack of according to the regime lived under. I'm sure the people of for instance Romania would love to be suffering under the Swedish social model of government. Which although it has some admirable features is far from perfect.
| Quote: | | I don't have an ideology - apart from the old standby 'beware of 'isms'. |
| simplesimon wrote: | | Well, quite. But 'isms' exist, in that they are defined by their adherents or their opponents. And some are worse than others. One, global-ism, is the ideology of people who want to rule the world. I call those people "fascists". |
Well that's your perception of course, but it doesn't necessarily define the only available outcome.
| Quote: | | So regardless of the overall benefits of even the most inherently fair of systems to be adopted... |
| simplesimon wrote: | | You pre-suppose that there is a system (of world government) to be adopted. I respectfully suggest that you've been suckered. |
Oh deary me. Have I really? Dear oh dear.
| Quote: | | there will always be an element of imposition. |
| simplesimon wrote: | | And that is fascist.. |
Once again, (and leaving aside the accurate definition of fascism - I'll assume you mean 'authoritarian') it needn't necessarily be so. As they say you can't please all of the people all of the time, so somebody is going to be imposed upon by any system of organisation.
'For the greater good' is always a handy stick to beat down dissent with, but safeguarding the individual and the minority is not mutually exclusive.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
simplesimon
Moderate Poster
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
Posts: 249
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dogsmilk wrote:
| Quote: | | What argument am I avoiding? |
The question of whether imposing an ideology on the world is intrinsically fascistic.
| Quote: | | I'll ask again - do you wish to impose an alternative on the current elites? |
It's a nonsensical question. I cannot impose anything on the world, and would not seek to. The globalist elite can, and are doing so. However, to address the question as directly as it's flawed premise allows:
I wish to relieve the globalist elite of their power, because it is a self appointed totalitarian dictatorship. My chosen method, indeed the only one available to me, is to declare that their power is unjust, constitutes a self appointed totalitarian dictatorship, and seek to persuade others that I'm right, that it is in our common interest to resist.
The elite power structure already EXISTS as a fascistic hierarchy. It has been IMPOSED. They are trying to consolidate it, in part by manipulating people into thinking that global government is necessary, and would be benevolent and just.
To compare THEIR purpose and methods to mine is absurd.
FASCISTS impose their power over others, whether by force or deception.
NONFASCISTS seek to undermine FASCISTS by telling others what the FASCISTS are up to.
Feel the difference?
A reminder of my questions, re. global government:
What are the motives of those promoting it?
Who are they?
Why are they so secretive and devious?
Is it not intrinsically totalitarian and fascistic?
What kind of people want to rule the world?
Why is "globalisation" never properly defined (for the masses), and what can it really mean, if not world government?
Should I be able to opt out, or do I have to swear fealty?
If a "nation" as presently arranged will not submit to it, is that permissible? If a leader swears to govern in the interests of the people who elect him, by which he claims legitimacy, but actually works toward undermining national sovereignty, and ceding power to an unaccountable, undeclared (as yet), supranational body, what of that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
