|
Is U.S. in Slow Motion to Socialism? (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
I'm rather suspect of them. I believe that they were created in order to destroy my country's sovereignty. |
Riiiiiiight... |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
That's also what they say about the CFR |
Lol, I thought we hashed this one out? Is every association of policy-makers and intellectuals necessarily conspiratorial? |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Lol, I thought we hashed this one out? Is every association of policy-makers and intellectuals necessarily conspiratorial? |
No, just the ones which belong to the Rockefeller-Rothschild and other such globalist/banking networks, IMO. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Riiiiiiight... |
Thanks for agreeing with me :)
That's based upon the greedy and well documented motivations of the people who created those groups as well as what several notable individuals in history have publically spoken out about.
| quote: | "The most powerful cliques in these elitist groups (Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, and others) have ONE objective--to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and independence of the United States of America. A second clique of international members in the CFR comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government. They would probably prefer that this be an all powerful United Nations organization; but they are also prepared to deal with and for a ONE-WORLD GOVERNMENT controlled by the Soviet Communists if U.S. sovereignty is ever surrendered to them."
- Rear Admiral Chester Ward USN, former CFR member, Review of the News Apr. 9, 1980 pg. 37 |
|
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | "I made it quite clear that Socialism means equality of income or nothing, and that under Socialism you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live you would have to live well."
― George Bernard Shaw, Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism |
:haha: :tongue2
I'd much rather stay FREE! |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
Thanks for agreeing with me :)
That's based upon the greedy and well documented motivations of the people who created those groups as well as what several notable individuals in history have publically spoken out about. |
Ok well I can't really comment on the other organisations you referred to (altho Chatham House I used quite a bit while at uni and would say that is just a journal/think tank as well) but I was specifically referring to our conversation regarding the Fabians. I don't see how a left wing/socialist policy think tank can fall into the category of "greedy" individuals or even elitists (as you mentioned earlier). Fair enough for right-wing think tanks, but surely not for left wing socialist think tanks as that would run counter to their very ideology
Every think tank with an ideology has as an aim 'changing the world' but please don't confuse that with conspiracies or plans to rule the world... |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Every think tank with an ideology has as an aim 'changing the world' but please don't confuse that with conspiracies or plans to rule the world... |
+1
In regards to CFR, it is a bi-partisan group of individuals, which makes it all the more difficult to envision any kind of global governance consensus - particulalry since some of the things they produce are so critical of global governance in the first place. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
+1
In regards to CFR, it is a bi-partisan group of individuals, which makes it all the more difficult to envision any kind of global governance consensus - particulalry since some of the things they produce are so critical of global governance in the first place. |
Of course that's how it's made to appear superficially but in order to truly understand it for what it is you need to look much deeper than it's surface. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
Of course that's how it's made to appear superficially but in order to truly understand it for what it is you need to look much deeper than it's surface. |
True, and I can only do that by going to youtube or wikipedia. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
True, and I can only do that by going to youtube or wikipedia. |
No, you really have to research the history and the background through books, lectures, quotes, news clippings and other accounts but that's something that most people (yourself included) seem unwilling to do.
YouTube and Wikipedia are for the most part (there are always exceptions) just good sources of easily manifested infotainment posted for the sake of mere convenience. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
No, you really have to research the history and the background through books, lectures, quotes, new clippings and other accounts but that's something that most people (yourself included) seem unwilling to do. |
Insult aside, I am fairly confident that I have done a great deal more academic research on global governance and international institutions than you will ever do. And all of that leads me to conclude that your theory on the CFR is completely unsubstantiated bollocks. The opinions of four or five lesser known members of CFR conveyed through Youtube videos can offer nothing more than anecdotal evidence that there are indeed members of CFR that want a greater role for institutions like the EU, UN, or ASEAN. However, that says nothing about the organization as a whole (which represents a tremendously wide range of political perspectives), nor does it prove that there's a vast conspiracy within the organization to take America's sovereignty. Does David Rockefeller forfeit his own personal political beliefs when he becomes associated with an organization?
A video of him saying he likes free trade areas doesn't really do a whole lot of justice to your argument - add to that the fact that it was a youtube video produced by who knows and you can imagine why I don't trust it. Unless you can bring to me academic (and I stress that word) arguments about this conspiracy, I will remain skeptical. Quote out of context and post all the videos that you want, but I am starting to think this is a smoke and mirrors show.
| quote: |
YouTube and Wikipedia are for the most pasrt just a good source of easily manifested infotainment brought up for the sake of convenience. |
And yet that's 90% of what you back your arguments up with. If you get things from books, let's see it. And be sure to include the name of the publisher please. In an academic setting, these arguments would never fly because they are not cross-referenced with anything reliable. And I'm sorry, maybe I'm stuck in my academic ways, but it takes more than a quote and a youtube video to convince me of anything contrary to every piece of academic evidence I have ever observed firsthand. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
Insult aside, I am fairly confident that I have done a great deal more academic research on global governance and international institutions than you will ever do. And all of that leads me to conclude that your theory on the CFR is completely unsubstantiated bollocks. The opinions of four or five lesser known members of CFR conveyed through Youtube videos can offer nothing more than anecdotal evidence that there are indeed members of CFR that want a greater role for institutions like the EU, UN, or ASEAN. However, that says nothing about the organization as a whole (which represents a tremendously wide range of political perspectives), nor does it prove that there's a vast conspiracy within the organization to take America's sovereignty. Does David Rockefeller forfeit his own personal political beliefs when he becomes associated with an organization?
A video of him saying he likes free trade areas doesn't really do a whole lot of justice to your argument - add to that the fact that it was a youtube video produced by who knows and you can imagine why I don't trust it. Unless you can bring to me academic (and I stress that word) arguments about this conspiracy, I will remain skeptical. Quote out of context and post all the videos that you want, but I am starting to think this is a smoke and mirrors show.
And yet that's 90% of what you back your arguments up with. If you get things from books, let's see it. And be sure to include the name of the publisher please. In an academic setting, these arguments would never fly because they are not cross-referenced with anything reliable. And I'm sorry, maybe I'm stuck in my academic ways, but it takes more than a quote and a youtube video to convince me of anything contrary to every piece of academic evidence I have ever observed firsthand. |
You obviously don't get it so I'm just going to put you on ignore and will continue to post for others that might. |
|
|
|
|
