David Ray Griffin is a globalist.

[rik st albans]

David Ray Griffin agreed with George Monibiot that there should be a one world government-why was he SO up George's passageway?

[gareth]

Whale: At the time it happened though George it (9/11) certainly did wonders for George W Bush's image didn't it?

Monbiot: No question and it also allowed him to pursue all sorts of crazy plans including like invading iraq for example where he blamed Saddam Hussein for the destruction of the Twin Towers

Whale: And we all allowed him to do it, that's the even worse thing

Monbiot: Yes and some of us tried quite hard to stop him but what could we do? Our voices were unheeded

Whale: Well it just went to prove that democracy is actually more of a fallacy than anything else i think

Monbiot: Well certainly in it's current form i mean i'm very very sceptical about genuine democracy in this country and in the United States i think there's a power shift between two parties that are almost identical in both nations, which has very little to do with what people might or might not be calling for and is very closely controlled really by the media

Whale: Well lets before we blame ourselves too much for this George and before we move onto another topic that i'm sure will make another programme lets bring Professor David Ray Griffin on and you're staying on with me George.

Monbiot: Yeah sure

Whale: The professor is considered by many i think as the most respected leader of the 9/11 movement. Professor good evening and welcome to the show

Griffin: Thank you James

Whale: You heard what George has been saying, would you like to reply to George's comments first of all?

Griffin: (Laughs) Well sure. You know i think George and i agree on a lot of issues even one that is considered quite controversial in 9/11 circles. That is, the need for global government global parliament, we agree i think on all most social and political issues...

Whale: Let me just get that right professor, what you're saying you and George actually believe there is a need for a world government?

Griffin: Yeah but lets not get into that now, lets do another programme

Whale: Alright, ok

Griffin: I was just saying on most issues we agree, but i think the reason we disagree on this probably has to do with the amount of time that we've looked at the evidence....

[Rest of interview continues]

[marndin]

I'm very concerned with his promotion of a 'one world government' along with his promoting of 'global warming'.

I feel he's either being manipulated unknowingly or worse...

What on earth makes him think that global governance (which is where the 'global warming' argument will also take us) will be any less corrupt than the current system?

Martin

[SHERITON HOTEL]

If there really is a anthropogenic lead environmental crisis, and Jeremy Clarkson is wrong ,it can only be solved globally as the environment doesn't recognize human animal borders, maybe this is where DRG is coming from on this?

[gareth]

GazeboflossUK posted this on the Monbiot/Griffin thread


Link


David Ray Griffin on Global Governance

[marndin]

[SHERITON HOTEL]

I have great difficulty with this, Alex Jones would probably call me chicken little, but we can't just leave the global environment to the free market and let 'mother nature' take the consumer choice to eliminate her only mistake ...human beings, can we?

[marndin]

The people currently in charge cannot be trusted! So why should we believe that they can be trusted with our environment.

Look at the environmental damage depleted uranium is doing around the globe. The damage that an oil tanker does to the eco-system when accidents happen. The nuclear waste that gets buried in the ground from power stations, nuclear accidents, genetically modified food etc etc. Most of these problems are at some level caused by governmental bodies.

THEY CAN'T BE TRUSTED and we shouldn't trust them.

A one world government is what has been planned for a very long time, and buyinmg the global warming scam will speed up the process dramatically IMHO!

[scubadiver]

There is no guarantee that I will find the quote by I will see what Mr Griffin says about "one world Government" and I am positive it has nothing to do with an NWO we all think it means.

[Stephen]

I dont need to be governed or policed.

No Thank You.

[landless peasant]

[Keith Mothersson]

Because we don't want to allow the secret and mega Frats wreck our one planet, we need organised ways to know what they are up to - we ourselves can usefully see ourselves as participating in a world network of surveillance by the people - and then ensuring that certain people stop them, deconstruct their coalitions and disarm the hardnuts as swiftly as possible or necessary and as peacefully as may be .....

For that we need maximum legitimacy, so people realise they can trust certain information and certain people who try to at on that information on behalf of the rest of us .... which may not be policing or military action mainly, but can also be Boycott and Disinvestment campaigns (e.g. in defense of Palestine).

In 1990 astro and I were part of starting the World Court Project which got the UN General Assembly to agree to refer the issue of the legality of the threat and use of nuclear 'weapons' [poison-scattering devices]. The decision was taken in an electric atmosphere after the nuclear powers had pulled out all the stops to block the ICJ ruling on this issue. When they did this gave a big boost to the anti-nuclear movement, both nations and people's movements to press for law-enforcement, including direct action to check and disarm the criminal conspiracies. Authoritative rulings on nukes are also be the sort of information which Francis Boyle has been educating the US airforce with - who recently refused to carry nukes to the Middle East - (just as knowledge of 911 has also emboldened those who want to dig in against the neocon madmen, citing their duty to resist illegal commands).

The World Court's judgements are far from untainted by global power realities, but the judges are chosen by all the nations, not just the powerful ones. It drives the US rulers wild to be controlled in any shape or form, and the elite pass this on the the people to suspect ANY system of world governance, even relatively benign and decentralised ones which could maybe help check the worst Frats.

Among those who heavily promoted the World Court Project were members of the World Order Models Project, which was looking for a pluralistic counter to the [Illuminati] version of Western-dominated, banker-controlled global Governement. And whatever we think of George Monbiot's appalling abuse and ignorance about 911, George's concern for a new model of UN power is all tied up with his/our desire to check the out of control superpowerful companies and governments.

So please lets avoid kneejerk lumping in together of all systems of governance as necessarily tyranny - there are useful, helpful rules shaping this forum, for example, and I would encourage everyone to help the moderators spot abuse, threats, etc.

If we don't want tyranny or oppressive centralised government (at any level) then we need to create an order of inter-related arrangements aka governance which can help empower people to take decisions collectively, defend their norms and persons and environment, and deal with the Global Unilateralists We'll do What the F*** we like tendency.

[hatsoff]

Lets not start knocking David Ray Griffin about his other beliefs when he hasn't had a chance to explain them. As he said on the programme last night - lets keep the talking about the evidence of 9/11 and stop getting off the subject.
This world needs a global watchdog, we were supposed to have this with the United Nations. The world needs a set of rules that we can all live by, instead of this terrible mess we have at the moment. I do believe the majority of people on this planet are good, we all need to unite to overpower the minority bad. I am sure that David would have that in mind - not some global dictatorship.
Anyway, back on 9/11, I don't want to insult George Monbiot by calling him a 'gibbering idiot' like he called truth seekers.
I know he's a very clever man as he speaks a lot of truth, especially about the state of democracy in this country and the US, and he also outspoken about the war.
But, please George, go and get some physics lessons! and stop trying to tell physics professors that they're wrong!
It's not quantum physics, it's simple physics. Just look up Newtons Laws of motion and gravity.

[TonyGosling]

I'm not a globalist but I'm glad DRG is. I'd be really annoyed if I agreed with him on everything.

Why are the same people always the first to knock leading 911 Truthers? The people who have actually made a difference over the last six years.

DRG is entitled to express his disillusion with the current system of nation states.

That doesn't detract one jot from his analysis of 9/11 - though you wouldn't believe that reading these posts.

Moving to controversies

[Stephen]

[chek]

[rodin]

It is absolutely obvious that the planet needs some global husbanding at this point. Resources are being stretched and enviroment polluted. Its citizens, via the internet, should do it in plain sight. Then the SUV hoax can be exposed for what it is. etc.

Otherwise the polluters and resource pirates will continue to make the rules.

Who should make the rules?

He who has the gold?

He who has the internet?

[John White]

Its a massive fallacy to assume that in order to be pro 9/11 Truth one has to be anti global government: its a quest for truth, not a defense of a status quo

Equally its a fallacy to assume we can have a global government if the consensus reality doesnt understand whats wrong with what we have now and the role of the citizen in being responsibly for democracy

I'd therefore certainly accuse DRG of idealism and require him to explain his views a lot more

But on the basis that we all live on one tiny speck of rock in an infinate void, its also a form of insanity to expect us to cope with the awesome power of technology without the wisdom of universal equaity and justice for all: and for idealists, that is clearly what the idea of global governance represents. The question is whether our current perception of that could deliver. I suspect not

[rodin]

[Stephen]

[John White]

[Stephen]

[ian neal]

It is not an accident that the movement opposed to the 'neo-con', 'neo-liberal', 'free-market', 'washington concensus' model of globalisation was named by the media as the 'anti-globalisation' movement. This is/was a misnomer. The movement for people, planet and justice is not anti -globalisation, it is 'alter-globalisation', for an alternative form of globalisation, a globalisation where people and planet come before profits and carnage

The forces opposed to the crazies in the 'washington consensus' are not opposed to globalisation per se. Globalisation (the process of closer integration of systems, technologies, economies, knowledge, peoples and cultures) is happening anyway whether we lioke it not. That is not the debate. The debate is what form should 'globalisation' take.

And the same can be said about global government. Basically whilst the crazies, gangsters and puppet-masters remain in power, whilst their lies remain secret, whilst the people are mindless consumers of manufactured realities, then it goes without saying that any centralisation of power is to be opposed.

But at the same time let 'us' not be painted into a corner. That we are opposed to global solutions, that we are narrow minded 'nationalists' or 'little englanders'. I remember how Claire Short SoS for Int Dev described 'anti-globalisation' campaigning NGOs as ludites standing in the way of poor countries development. Patronising bollox obviously but that will be the way the globalists will try to portray their critics.

So in response we shouldn't be opposed to global visions and global futures which inevitably will rely on working together at a global as well as a local level. What we should be crystal clear about is that any call for global government made by the crazies must and will be opposed.

Another world is possible, etc, etc..........

[ian neal]

[TonyGosling]

Oh yes you do,
Or there is no law which means no justice & mob rule.
If you find someone breaking into your car you'll call the cops I bet.

On the wider world the League of Nations and the UN were both fundamentaly flawed because they were undemocratic and put the military in charge.

If the UN General Assembly could tell the Security Council what to do and all was televised on cable that would be a positive move but still not enough for Britain to give up sovereignty.

The EU has only managed this by sneaking sovereignty out the back door.

[Andrew Johnson]

Once it gets out that almost infinite almost free energy was used to destroy the WTC on 9/11 and people understand this reality, everything will change.

[Stephen]

[John White]

[Stephen]

[chek]