New World Order" a conspiracy or fallacy?

[kaibo 开 博]

 The international community exists on multilateral fronts. For any would be NWO oligarchy to unilaterally polarize patriotism is a heavy and seemingly impossible task.

Consider the “World Passport” (google it) - most nations support and accept the ideal, including China.

Yes, you read it right!

If you have a world passport you can use it to enter the PRC legally. A World passport is available via an online application.

Does that mean that the current international administrations are unpatriotic or that any nation who accepts it is likewise? 

Just cast a memory back to the Beijing Olympics and the national pride of the Nations of the World – It appears patriotic passion is alive and well, as is competitive patriotism and individualistic patriotism.

Can any would be conspiratorial oligarchy achieve unilateral cohesive polarity without a major international treatise brought about by a catastrophic event or a cataclysmic event of apocalyptic proportions?

The answer I suggest is – seemingly impossible!

Any cooperative front to pull off world oligarchy would have to be achieved by unilateral multinational and multiethnic forces with the blessing and treatise of ALL major world leaders in almost every major sovereign state.

That is highly unlikely because even in this day and age there are no chances of unilateral agreement on all fronts - with border and territorial disputes, civil skirmishes and stubborn “separatist” mules, proud and arrogant leaders and militants who will in no wise bow out gracefully; it is perhaps impossible!

It has been stated that the former target for a unilateralised New World Order and resultant oligarchism was set at the year 2000.

With Sarkozy previously nosing his way into the international affairs of sovereign nations like China and backing-down and backtracking at the recent G20 Summit, it seems the cohesiveness of their efforts are being somewhat questioned in the Asiatic regions. Add to that, the fact that China is fast gathering support in central America and African states and is now the indisputable leader of ASEAN.

Another economic bonus is perhaps the most important event in the modern era for trade and international relations in the "Oceania" region by China-ASEAN approving the FTA with NZ & Australia. It also seems that with many nations also recently supporting and attending the SCO summit there is definitely a shift in bases away from the seemingly centralised efforts under US or Euro led dominions.

Therefore the whole scenario for the possibility of a unilateral NWO oligarchy, perhaps brings us to these sci-fi options:
•   nuclear war - highly possible
•   apocalyptic catastrophe -highly possible
•   simulated or actual alien invasions (UFO’s are man-made?) - possible
•   internationally unified multilateral forces on every front – possible, but unlikely because of sovereign patriotism
•   bio-engineered cataclysmic deaths - highly possible
•   total and utter economic catastrophe – highly possible
•   bio-engineered environmental disasters to wipe out entire food/water supplies – possible
•   embodiment of powerful evil Luciferian Angels with evil signs and wonders of Biblical proportions - possible if one believes in apocalyptic theories
•   embodiment of a false Messiah with Biblical supernatural powers to deceive multitudes - possible (as above)
•   passive acceptance from the entire human race – highly unlikely or indeterminately impossible

For the record:
I clearly support the One-China policy and territorial sovereignty over Tibet and Taiwan. (see prior posts on Tibet)

Mainland territorial sovereignty over Taiwan is not even an issue as the One-China policy rightfully stands secured. Any “critique” should go back and check their history books.
 
On the rise is an essentially idealistic China promoting a peaceful idealistic front, which is a highly delightful prospect and some hope for international balance and equilibrium. Let's hope the west too can abandon their lust for power and dominance and endeavour to render due benevolence to sovereign states that assimilate into international directives for peace and cooperation.

The Chinese peoples of this world are a one-third cooperative majority which ever way you look at it, socially, economically, politically etc., and that is a mighty powerful position but one that also carries with it a responsibility, to not only the ethnicity of Chinese internationally, but also to cohesively protect and unite the CHILDREN of the world in a tolerant, harmonious society.

Children are everywhere - with beautiful little black, yellow, brown, pink, white – faces and big beautiful eyes that say – all we want is peace … please give us food, shelter, care, medicine, hope, clothing … education in truth and peace! Not war! Not lies! Neither rhetorically inspired responsive conditioning but proactive codependent participation to make a better world for our future.


I support fractionalization and multilateral measures to maintain a balanced international and culturally relevant equilibrium for all nations.  The more problems any potentially conspiratorial oligarchists have to cohesively integrate all nations, the more delays they will face to bring their plans to pass.

Currently, there are perhaps no better solutions than the ones that present alternatives such as multipolarised cooperations, like SCO, that seek to balance the initiatives of future planning for the internationalised communities to potentially work together.

I have this hope that a great shifting paradigm will occur and the balance of power will be restored to "just" governments and judicial controls.

Bring it on folks! Let's get the voice of justice, truth and wisdom for fair and honest people to be heard in the presence of just and honest judgements.

Selah!
[/color]

[rht1786]

Mostly in response to kaibo... since he seems to be having a debate against himself here...

Let me start by providing a background on my perspective of global economics behind the possibility for global governance.

Yes, I agree with you that the New World Order "conspiracy", as it has come to be called, is an absolute reality. The Bilderburg group, United Nations, G20 (G8, G2, GX) groups, and other secret/semi-secret societies (freemasons, Illuminati, etc.) all exist and play their individual parts in contributing to a global governing system that is constantly evolving. In order to approach any semblance of realization as to how the system works, a lengthly deconstruction is necessary.

The trick to judging the international political situation at any given moment is, first, to realize what events are taking place and then measure it against a thorough analysis of what the media and government of each individual state has to say bereft of all spin. To see through the twist of truth that governments and national media establishments place on the information released to the public is the key to understanding any global issue. In today's media- and entertainment-driven society, control of information is paramount. Secondly, you must objectively understand the political cultures of each political actor (states, corporations, international governmental organizations (IGOs), non governmental organizations (NGOs), etc), without a subjective judgment of whether that actor is good or evil.

In this world, good and evil are subjective labels placed haphazardly on opinions, persons and groups through the influence of religion. In order to make sense of the international political stage, you must be able to identify where these labels of intent are placed and separate them from the actual intentions behind human action.
In China, the heavily communistic system is in nearly complete control of information. Evidence to this is the 'TTTF' agreement among Western teachers. If you haven't heard of this, it stands for Taiwan, Tiananmen, Tibet and Fanguangdong (sp?) - the taboos of teaching anything in China. On all of these issues the Chinese government strongly controls what information it wants its people to be allowed to understand and process. For a more detailed synopsis of the current situation in Tibet, see The Economist at this link: http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13358182&source=most_commented

Tibet is a prime example of a nation-state seeking self autonomy or sovereignty over its territory. Quebec in Canada, the Flemmish nation in Belgium, Kosovo, South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia, Chechnya in Russia,... the list goes on. Since the World Wars, sovereignty has been a huge issue as the world undergoes a vast unwinding from the era of colonialism and imperialism. The latter half of the 20th century was a time of nationalistic independence movements across the face of the earth from South America, to Africa, to the Pacific. This era is slowly coming to an end, and the result is that where before the European nations ruled the globe with their vast naval armadas, colonial agendas, and strong grip on global trade, now regional powers are the major players.

The European Union was the preliminary test for the possibility of a credible, functioning regional body. The project is still in progress, but is faring tremendously well. The euro is a major international player in currency markets. Although there is an ongoing debate about the stability of the Union, in reality it would be tremendously difficult for any kind of unwinding to occur short of global war. The economies of the European states are so tightly intertwined that short of complete catastrophe, it makes no sense for any individual state to secede.

Other regional blocks are using the EU as a model. The Union of South African Nations, ASEAN, the African Union, the Arab League, the Pacific Union, and NAFTA are examples of other regional blocks in various stages of economic and political unification. Economic union across a larger geographic area makes tremendous sense; taking advantages of larger economies of scale, solidifying international trade, fostering cultural and political solidarity, and, most importantly, preventing widespread military conflict. The EU shows that the result is almost unanimous prosperity for all parties involved. Granted, some EU economies are struggling as a result of the financial crises, but they are far from failing.

Even if an economy fails, there is a semi-functioning global safety net in place to prevent the collapse of society - the IMF. See Iceland. The entire country was unhealthily over leveraged and after the banks defaulted, the government followed. Nevertheless, through inflationary monetary policy (to help pay off debt) and a little help from the international community and select other countries, the country still exists. It has taken a hard fall from its place as one of the most technologically sophisticated societies on the planet, and was regularly in the top 5 regularly in freedom, transparency, and quality of life rankings. Nevertheless, the world is progressing from colonialism, through imperialism (late 20th century / early 21st century) into global government.

Various IGOs are currently in place and play minor roles in facilitating an international community, but the United States of America, and the Bush administration in particular, has played a dominant role in impeding the progress of global governance and sustaining the era of imperialism. The "War on Terror" was spun by the United States government to be the ultimate counterattack to the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon in 2001. An objective analysis of the 9/11 attacks immediately shows that the official story is contrived. Currently I strongly believe that the Bush administration knew that the attacks would happen and turned a blind eye, for a variety of reasons that can be found by searching for "9/11 conspiracy" on Google and digging for facts (Warning: avoid opinions, there are too many).

Whoever was the ultimate mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, the result was massive American military action in the Middle East. First, the destabilization of Afghanistan, which ultimately served to provide a cover (along with the myth of nuclear weapons) for the removal of Saddam Hussein's government. This served two main purposes: to assure Western control of the Iraqi oil fields and to sustain the dollar as the global reserve currency. If you do a little research you will find that ultimately the Iraqi government, which at first was a de facto U.S. puppet institution, gave all oil field contracts to Western oil companies. Additionally, Saddam Hussein was planning on opening an oil bourse in Iraq - a bourse is a market making institution like the NYSE, which deals only stocks - in which he would trade oil internationally in currencies other than the dollar. Mainly euros and yen. This would effectively end the dollar's hegemony over currency markets.

Following Bretton Woods, the dollar was pegged to gold and became the international reserve currency. The United States pretty much took everybody's gold and said "Look, we won the war, so this is how it's going to be." Nearly all international trade was denominated in dollars. The dollar as a currency enjoyed this unparalleled strength because people knew that if they wanted to convert their paper money into something real, they could go to the US government and demand gold. In 1971, the US closed the gold window. Basically, the Americans were worried that there would be a run on gold and everybody would want to claim their fair share. Unfortunately, there wasn't enough gold to satisfy the amount of dollars in circulation. The Federal Reserve had printed money to sustain the war in Vietnam and there was so much in circulation that if everybody tried to claim their gold, the US government would default.

Enter fiat money - paper money backed by the word of the government. Your money is worth something because the government says so. I could find a long list of quotes by famous scholars, financiers, economists and politicians who all say that a fiat money system is unsustainable, prone to massive volatility, open to corruption, and will inevitably fail. The method the U.S. has used since abandoning the gold peg has been constant deficit spending. For a complete and detailed description of how fiat money works visit www.chrismartenson.com and watch his powerpoint presentations. Since 1971, the US has financed all of its federal spending by going into debt. If it needs money, it sells treasury bonds. China owns some 1/3 of US treasury bonds, Japan owns a bunch, Saudi Arabia owns a bunch, American citizens own a whole lot, etc. Here's the kicker: the US never intends to repay these debts. Recent actions by the Federal Reserve have served as a definitive confirmation. Instead of allowing its over leveraged and poorly invested banks to fail following the debt and housing bubbles, the US government is giving them money to pay off their debts. In order to fund these "investments", the US is simply going further into debt by selling more treasury bonds and printing more money.

I can go on about the financial crises here, but we were discussing NWO. So... back on track...

By invading Iraq, the Bush administration singlehandedly destroyed the progress that Clinton had made towards fostering international community. Not only did, Bush & Co. destroy the American image of an international role model and leader, but they prevented progress towards the evolution of the global community. The UN was basically sidelined after it, led by France, refused to help the US on what was an unjust war based on a false assumption (nuclear/biological weapons). Following that event, the US stopped paying its dues, hamstringing the UN's already weak effectiveness. The UN became an institution that serves as an international forum and loudspeaker for human rights, that is all. During the recent Israeli incursions into Gaza (January 2009), the UN did nothing at all. A proposal by Libya to release a press statement condemning Israeli aggression was blocked by the US.

NATO, an organization created to counter Soviet aggression during the Cold War, is a terribly outdated institution that exists only as a tool for the U.S. Where before it was a forum for operational coordination between the Western powers, it is now merely a military alliance that the U.S. can use to tap its allies' armed forces in order to augment its own. Realistically, the organization serves no other purpose. At the moment, it is employed to "fix Afghanistan". For a country that is in dire need of diplomats, political direction and political unification, military strength is exactly what is not needed.

The IMF - all I have to say about the IMF is that the weighting system by which member countries have a voice is insultingly disproportional to any measure of influence other than political power. This is unfortunate considering the main benefactors from the existence of the IMF are developing countries, who end up not having any say at all. Sadly, the developed countries who control the purse strings are too stingy to provide amounts of aid that would effectively sustain developing economies and bring them out of poverty. For a peerless analysis of this issue read Jeffrey Sachs' "The End of Poverty" and "Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet".
After the financial crises plays out, it will take another year or two, the United States will no longer be a global power. This is based simply on the fact that the United States economy doesn’t produce anything of value. The US automobile industry, what was once a bastion of strength and American economic power, is a joke. Technology and telecommunications have been almost entirely outsourced. The American legacy abroad is Coca Cola, Walmart and McDonalds. You can’t sustain an economy off of branding, soft drinks, wholesale and fastfood. There has to be some heavy industry. There has to be some agricultural production. The US has run an account deficit (it has imported more than it has exported) for YEARS. This is evidence to its role as a consumer nation. Too bad it’s a consumer nation that has been completely financed by debt. Once those debts are due, and the government defaults, then we will see what happens.

Keep in mind that one sector where the US continues to excel is the defense sector. The US has the largest military in the world, and its defense companies are by far the most advanced. Will the US just allow itself to be relegated to a minor player in the global economy? How the US acts in the next four years will dictate which direction global governance will go and what powers rise to supplant the US as international leaders.

Getting back to the idea of NOW, I think that many forward-thinking politicians are very eager to continue development of global governance. In the ‘90s when the EU came together, we experienced a strong period of globalization and unification. 9/11 served as a sort of backlash against rapid globalization and we are now in a period of strong nationalization. Especially given the financial crises, countries more and more are resorting to protectionist measures to solidify national economies in order to move forward internationally on more stable footing. Like all movements, the idea of global governance has its ebbs and flows. And while high profile elected officials may use the term ‘global governance’, a very positive sounding peaceful phrase, we also have the counterculture that demonizes these political figures and harshly criticizes them for destroying liberties and freedoms.

I got news for you. Those liberties and freedoms aren’t destroyed because of New World Order. They’re destroyed because we allow our governments to pass laws restricting them and we do nothing. The vast majority of individuals on this planet care very little for their own national politics. They say they care, but when it comes down to it, the only thing they do is complain, criticize, and vote. They vote based on their interpretation of the media’s spun stories.  In the States it amused me to watch the entire election process this past year. It was entertaining that the media seriously gave McCain a fighting chance, and said he was going to come back, when it was clear that most people thought Palin was a joke and the chances of McCain falling deathly ill and the fate of our country being in the hands of an Alaskan bimbo governess were too high to take the Republican campaign seriously. Maybe even more hilarious: the fact that the media seriously considered McCain a legitimate shot at President after his campaign blunders.

Roughly 60% of the American public voted in the ’08 election. 40% of American DIDN”T VOTE. That’s disgusting. How could you have such disregard for your own government. The majority of Americans don’t understand politics, don’t understand government, and don’t understand democracy. After not voting, the majority of Americans go out with their friends and bitch, whine and moan about how their President his horrible or about how he’s fucking everything up.

With regards to “evil” dominators…etc. etc. … I hesitate to point fingers in such a way so hypocritically. You can’t demonize theocratic influence on governing systems while using theocratic terms like good and evil or right or wrong. I agree with your motive, just not your language, and I urge you to reconsider your words. Not everybody can agree on what is right or wrong or what is good or evil. Culture and society are so different that these ideas change from one person to the next. What we can agree on is what is right for society as a whole. We can agree on ‘peace’, ‘prosperity’, ‘equality’, ‘justice’. We can compromise on what is right or wrong.

One thing that does need to change is criticism. It is commonplace for people to point fingers at others and say “I think you are wrong because of x, y and z.” The term constructive criticism has almost completely lost meaning. And what’s worse, popular culture encourages everyone to have an opinion. When everyone has a different opinion, nothing gets done. Everyone just points fingers at each other, saying why they think everybody else is wrong and why they are right. Nothing gets done. Most internet chat rooms are prime examples. Someone tries to say something intelligent, but then is ripped apart by a bunch of people who can’t read or write, butcher the English language by replacing ‘you’ with ‘u’, inserting numbers into words seemingly at random to replace letters, and ultimately don’t have anything to contribute to a real conversation or debate.

I made a handful of large conceptual leaps in this post, while trying to address all the points I had in mind. I’m a bit tired now, as it is midnight and I need some rest, but let me know what needs clarification.

Hopefully we can have a real debate in this forum.

[rht1786]

Following up on one of my later points about political activism in the United States, I want to point out that the word “conspiracy” is by-and-large used by groups of people who are outside the international political system. The “conspiricists” are seen to be conspiring because the critical parties who point fingers neglect to take part in legitimate political debates. Of course, at the same time, the “legitimate” political debates are steeped in spin, technical jargon and grandiloquence. Contemporary politics in the majority of Western countries are complex social dances where you must watch your words carefully or you will be cast from the stage. The system works as so to promote people who say exactly what everybody wants to hear, but once officials are elected they oftentimes have free reign over their decisions for their term.

Granted, in some countries officials and governments are not so stable. In some countries it is easier to replace elected officials or to replace the entire government. However, in many countries, especially China, the UK and the US, national security forces are sophisticated enough to prevent massive protests through advanced crowd control and crowd dispersement. The recent G20 protests in London are a testament to the effectiveness of these tactics. Protesters were prohibited from entering a handful of locations, separated into four zones, and then allowed to disperse at a rate controlled by British police forces. This ensured order, but also resulted in a massive imbalance in “the free market”.

World leaders, bankers and politicians did not witness the full extent of public rage against the current mishandling of the financial crisis. Consequently, they were not and will not be motivated to the extent that is necessary in order to realize the true roots of the problem that faces our global financial and political systems.

However, back to the point on “conspiricists”.

The debate rages between politicians, who are labeled as “conspiritors” by these external groups of people, who are labeled as “conspiracy theorists” by the politicians. The public is victim to the torrent of information that is thrown at them by both sides. The deciding factor for public opinion is the media, which is often, unfortunately, seen as a trustworthy source of information. This is based both on tradition and the media’s image of legitimacy. Since the politicians control the media, the public is left clueless to the real issues at hand. Oftentimes the media spins the story so well that the public’s attention is diverted completely to something completely moot and unrelated.

For instance: Georgia. In the US the story initially read along the lines of “Russia invades Georgia”. In reality, Georgia attacked South Ossetian troops in response to Russian troop movements towards the Russia-South Ossetia border. On FOX News in the States, the anchor interviewed a South Ossetian woman and her daughter. The daughter broke down in tears and begged the American people to realize that the Russians were helping them, and that the Georgians were the aggressors. The FOX News anchor cut to a commercial as soon as this happened, and when the broadcast returned, assured viewers that the girl was delusional from extreme stress and fear. The interview continued and the girl continued to plead her case, but the anchor cut quickly and in closing reassured viewers that the Russians were the bad guys. This video is available online if you do a little searching for “Russia Georgia FOX interview” or something like that.

In this case, the public’s attention is diverted to Russia, an unwitting victim of just action. The real demon is George W. Bush, who supplied Georgia with military aid to the extent that it felt confident enough to directly confront the Russian bear. No doubt the CIA or George were whispering in the Georgian leaders’ ears inciting the conflict. Very disgraceful. The rest of the world knows what happened, but Americans are conveniently clueless to the ridiculous image that George has painted on the outside of the bubble that is their life.
When this is applied to more significant issues like September 11th, then you have a similar situation projected onto a much more critical topic. The United States Congress went so far as to conduct an investigation on the events of September 11th and published a book, the 9/11 Commission Report, on the topic. The American public’s anger was quelled as people thought, “Oh, a book… well then it must have been Al Qaida.” The book is steeped in political rhetoric and highly technical legal jargon. I doubt that 50% of readers finished the book, and even then no more than 10% actually understood it. I did not read it, but several people I know who have told me that it’s the biggest bunch of bullshit ever. The evidence is in no way decisive and it is completely contradictory both to itself and to the media stories from September 11th.

This event led to a drawn out occupation of the Middle East that has extended American resources for nearly 8 years now, compromised the national image, destroyed the country’s legitimacy as a global role model and cost the average American taxpayer a bunch of money. When the reasons for such a critical national decision are spun by politicians and the media, there will undoubtedly follow a strong public backlash.  Once again, Americans are ignorantly blissful. Although some are frustrated and have taken action to try to raise public awareness of the disinformation / information campaigns run by the CIA and Washington, the majority of American people just don’t care. They honestly don’t give a shit. They would rather watch their reality TV shows and sitcoms, chase women and get hammered. When confronted with serious political issues like the Obama-McCain campaign or the 9/11 Truth movement, they just side with the mainstream media or their group of friends and laugh any problems away.

True.

Frightening but true. 

In closing, I want to point out that for the most part many politicians initially mean well. Once they become part of the game, they realize that in order to accomplish some thing, certain vices must be accepted. Even those who are seen as corrupt are under the impression that they are acting righteously. Personally, I refuse to believe that in any situation someone would think "Oh, by doing this I am doing evil." That is simply not rational and I am a strong believer of rational thought. In some way, Steve Blagojevich thought, "Selling Obama's senate seat is a reasonable thing to do", before he did it. I'm sure that there is a rationalization there. Either he thought nobody would find out or somebody told him that there would be no issue with it. It is nonsensical to think that he acted with the knowledge that someone would find out what he was doing and he would be sent to jail. That is completely irrational.

My belief here is based on the economic theory of Praxeology, an underlying principle of the Austrian School of Economics. Google it, very interesting stuff.

[kaibo 开 博]

Thanks for your words of wisdom and the great insight and information as well.

I don't know if you are aware that I had posted much more info via "credits" to journalists or sites from net sourced searches along with some personally paraphrased edits, personal threads, viewpoints and comments on the NWO topic. As I said I would, most have since been deleted and due to softening the negative output, I am also editing posts that might remain.

To a certain extent, some of my personal trains of thought, posted prior to the current threads, echoed some parallels of your personal views and opinions but I won't bore you by running into details.

I endeavour to remain teachable and correctable when misquoting or misinterpreting events in error, misinformed by propaganda or segregationist views or simply out of order by default. As well as that, I do not thread for personal recognition or popularity but out of an interest in the affairs of internationalisation efforts that may or may not shape the cosmos into a workable & sustainable model for future generations.

However, as you have noted, in some of those posts I unashamedly expressed a strongly negative opinion of some reported objectives of radically extreme conspiratorial masterminds throughout history. Perhaps, in this current era, there are still some "dark horses" looming in the shadows to potentially bring forth fruits of destruction and desolation, in the fullness of times.

I won't be going back down the road to the abyss again in the context of these threads but also at the same time, I will not support the views of extremists who plan on terrorising planet citizens for unilateral dominion of planet earth.

I take on board the following statement as quoted, but I beg to differ that sometimes it is a case of calling a "spade a spade."

With regards to “evil” dominators…etc. etc. … I hesitate to point fingers in such a way so hypocritically. You can’t demonize theocratic influence on governing systems while using theocratic terms like good and evil or right or wrong. I agree with your motive, just not your language, and I urge you to reconsider your words. Not everybody can agree on what is right or wrong or what is good or evil. Culture and society are so different that these ideas change from one person to the next.


Granted, as I had also formerly stated in prior posts, many an individual in leadership follows the path that is the conviction within their own heart and mind  and they might genuinely believe that the outcome will not be detrimental to the sum of the whole - howbeit, sometimes they might be blindly ignorant that the outcome will undoubtedly produce adversity for planet citizens.

Some people can perhaps be somewhat excused due to their inherent conditioning but if a "mastermind" body with sinister motives has set the plot wilfully and sadistically, then I will unashamedly call them or their plan a "dirty spade." It may not directly effect the outcome but the overall silencing of the lambs will not stop the slaughter either.

Some "western" NWO strategists and co-conspirators "demonised" ethnicity down through the ages, fueled "cold war" mentalities and ignited and financed the insane passions of oligarchial supremists who lusted for "messianic" style leadership of the nations. History, if researched soundly, can and does reveal some obvious signs that there are those who were "for" planet citizens and those who were not.

Can anyone conclusively prove that all the current leaders in this topsy-turvy cosmos are theocratically governing from a sound-mind of internationally deemed justice that will ultimately benefit all planet citizens and their children's children? Can it be conclusively proven that all current leaders in the world system today are not theocratically "demonizing" the sovereign wills of humankind?

If internationalised "humanism" is the ultimate answer for sustainable liberation of the masses then so-be-it!

There are many world leaders who could take a leaf out of the PRC governing book and demonize certain theocrasized western concepts that are destroying the societal moraise of developed nations and destabilising nationalized unification.
 
Perhaps another worthy note is the Chinese policy to consult with and advise their people of wise investment strategies and limit unsustainable financial investments that will take the rug out from under the feet of the investor.

On the other hand, where were the warnings from the instigators of the financially engineered crisis that took away the compusorily invested funds of Mr and Mrs Joe Average? It is time for me, as for many others too, to pull out the monies from under their slippery-soled mismanaged investment companies and find a credible system worthy of trust.

 As did the Chinese, it is time for action, not reactive ramblings and philosophical gibberish and arrest the problems before they escalate. They, the Wall St gang and their merry band of "pay the fat man first" knew in 1997 that the "financial crisis" was looming but they escalated the problem instead of reining it in.  If certain sectors stop beating around the bush with rhetorical ramblings and take initiatives to put the money back into the system that underscores sustainable societal development they can bring forth fruit from the aftermath. 

If humanism can't rein in the runaway horse and cart and bring to bear workable and sustainable solutions then perhaps it is best to hand the world over to the women and the grandmothers - who like the earth - brought the "fruits of the womb" to manifestation through the pangs of birthing, but forgetting the pain - joyed exceedingly because the fruits of their labour were manifest.

This mother-earth, along with the patriotized motherlands of the sons and daughters, is labouring under the strain of misguided, ill-directed and historically inept governances that has brought many current "responsible" leaders to the valley of decision or derision. The earth is labouring under the strain of the husbandmen who were given dominion to subdue and sustain the fruitful and peaceful paradise that we call home.

 Teetering on the edge of the precipice, are the hopes of every man-woman and child who longingly trusts, hopes and prays that our supremist leaders, in their wisdom, are men/women of justice with fatherly/motherly hearts, to cause the earth again to bring forth an over-abundance of goodness.

Yes there is hope! There are still opportunities and time to bring about the necessary cooperative framework to take action. If not soon, it might be all too little, too late!

At my level of interaction with Chinese clients, spanning more than three years, I have noted and observed the progressive traits of the educated and business oriented people. Perhaps I have been privileged to work with people within the upper eschalon of society, but when asked the question; who do they most admire in life - their answer almost universally is their Mother or Father, with many choosing the latter paternal choice. Some choose a G/parent, a teacher, a famous Chinese leader etc.

The facts are that the overwhelming majority have not chosen some idol who is a mass-media manipulated "superhero" of megalomanian influences and one who exhibits values that do not give creedence to either the respect of family values or the respect of cooperative societal values. If the traditionally intrinsic values of societal structure and unified behaviour are eaten away, as has been the case in some countries like the USA, then when the wave recedes from the the overwhelming tidal surge, there is little left but the filth of a massive and expensive clean-up operation or the cessation of functioning progressively as a society.

Within certain parameters; the collective whole, once gathered and assessed for value and quality, is the sum of all the "fruits" brought forth under duress and conditioned seasoning. In that, from an oppressed and somewhat subdued and darkened past, at the hands of invasive subjectors; credit is paid to whom credit is due.

I must add that in this current hour I am referring and paying that credit to the PRC socialist administration. "Socialist" - idealistically, has to connotate society.

There is fruitfulness being brought to bear in this land that is worthy of note and the nations of the earth are beginning to pay creedence to the second most intelligent ethnic group of planetary citizens - the Chinese. To reunify and redefine national parameters, they have done it simply but admirably. It puts to shame the nations that have become increasingly enslaved in a system that is perpetually designed to crash in around the one's who do not counteract it by facilitating civil economic control.

If you know how the most intelligent ethnic group, the Jews, have inspired international banking by formulating and designing international control mechanisms to enslave the nations in crippling debt, then simply copy the Chinese model and counteract them with self perpetuating wisdom to control: - national reunification, nationally defined enterprise strategies, national productivity, as well as attracting an influx of international investment with attractive and alluring necessitation; all the while perpetually maximising available outgoing investment capital for outsourcing an overabundance of material requirements to in turn, astoundingly produce everything materially at an internationally deemable bargain supply rate and last but not least - take advantage to maintain or regain control of your centralized banking powerhouse and generate your own deemable counteractivities by establishing, maintaining and retaining your most valuable assets - state owned/state run profit bearing national enterprises.

Then when they attempt to come in for the carpet call, as has been recently shown in the financial crisis, step up to the plate and show them your trump card - the "Ace of Hearts." That my friends is perhaps not text book material, but it sure as heck looks good on paper and possibly how they have trumped the hammer in this current hour and remain on their feet by holding the bag of generated surplus with pride of place and face.

Another wise and notable value of Chinese policies is to stand your ground and only war in defense - not offense. Offensive actions and unproductive militaristic powerplays senselessly and needlessly costs valued productivity and causes notably regressive setbacks for progressive establishments.
Throughout modern history as I see it, there are those who have become enslaved in the struggles of being led by a "ring in the nose" to enter into agressive warfare, all the while being externally financed into massive and crippling debt by taking the bait and performing the offensive action.
 
The Chinese on the other hand, largely under the brilliance of Mao, defensively maintained composure to hold the fort and negotiably and defiantly, as on the Korean peninsula, just demanded the UN led forces to hold the 26th line and come no further.

If you don't offend, there is little need to defend and a lot of lives and capital is reserved in the process.

 It may well be said: they may maim or kill the mortal body - but they can't maim or kill the heart of a united people under unified leadership. That statement I penned in relationship to the "Ace of hearts"

There are few doubts in the minds of many a credible researcher, journalist or historian, of the sinister blueprints of some "masterminds" - that have not objectively been fulfilled to date. In absolute hope of the goodness and inherit wisdom within "world changing - history making" international leaders of the current era; I hope those sinister plans will never come to fruition in their entirety.

As I stated in clear terms previously: I support the "fractionalisation" and the multi-polarised trajectories and initiatives that are currently being exercised and experienced in the international arena.
With more choices and voices of creditable value for future generations, then perhaps a multinationally and ethnically balanced harmonious accord can be struck. 

 As long as planet citizens can live their lives with controlled justice and sovereignty in a multilaterally cooperative peaceful world - there is hope for our children and future generations.

As Mr "Sting" rightfully sang: "the Russians love their children too" or words to some effect like that and I am sure that the Chinese do too!

I wholeheartedly support the following statement that you made and I wholeheartedly support the current objectives of internationally responsible leaders such as the current and ongoing objectives of Socialist and reunified reforms, as outlined by President Hu, for the betterment of harmonious relations between all Chinese nationals and beyond to all multi-ethnic citizens who also seek peace and harmony on an international front.

What we can agree on is what is right for society as a whole.
We can agree on ‘peace’, ‘prosperity’, ‘equality’, ‘justice’.

[rht1786]

Before I address your recent points, I want to clarify my previous post, specifically the discussion of the motivations for the Iraq War. I cited Western control of Iraqi oil fields and defense of the dollar as the global reserve currency, but I failed to complete my explanation of the latter point. I went so far as to explain the gold peg and its removal, but not justify this in terms of the Iraq War.

When the gold peg was dropped by Nixon in 71, the reputation of the dollar became staked not only on the word of the U.S. government, but also on the critical fact that the United States controlled the world's oil markets. The United States expressed this control through direct ownership of oil fields, a mutual understanding of the importance of the dollar's global hegemony through friendly relations (in the case of the UK and Norway), or imperialistic political influence (South American nations, African nations, the Middle East and Central Asia). The US's imperialism doesn't necessarily dictate that it holds a given oil exporter in political or military control, as in the case of today's Iraqi government. In many cases, it is simply the most efficient way for countries to sell oil, because (1) it is business as usual that the market for oil is in dollars, (2) oil is priced in dollars so it is easier to conduct transactions in this currency, and (3) oil exporting developing countries don't have an impetus to sell it in their own currency, because their national currencies are not in high demand (Brazil, Algeria, Nigeria, Venezuela, UAE, Canada, Russia, Mexico).

After dropping the gold peg, the United States effectively transitioned to an oil peg, whereby the legitimacy of the US dollar came to rest on the ability of US dollar holders to turn in their dollars for oil rather than gold. The US essentially bet that the market for oil would be strong enough to be able to sustain the credibility of its currency. Additionally, the US counted on the fact that three trends would continue: (1) the American people would be financially uneducated enough to understand the importance of a currency backed by gold as opposed to the weakness of fiat money and (2) the rest of the world would continue to demand oil in gold-like proportions, thus sustaining the importance of the dollar.

This underlines the importance of the current financial crises. If the Federal Reserve has indeed acted correctly in buoying the dollar and the American financial system, then the dollar will remain the global reserve currency. Unfortunately, what the Federal Reserve has done to fix the problem is go trillions of dollars into debt. In the past two years, the Fed has run up a debt of nearly $5 trillion. In the first 200 years of the existence of the United States of America, the Fed ran up a similar deficit. For this amount of money to be spent in merely two years is astonishing and frightening. Where is it coming from? Some of it is being lent to the US by countries with current account surpluses: Germany, Norway, China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc. However, there are only so many treasury bonds that the Fed can print before people simply won't want to buy anymore. For the vast remainder (several trillion dollars worth) of this debt, the Fed is simply printing the money itself.

Ben Bernanke (current Fed chairman) is counting on several things: (1) other countries will likewise be printing money, thereby causing all currencies to inflate at the same pace, preventing imbalances; (2) the rest of the world will recognize the importance of the American Dollar and buy up all of the treasury bonds, because in world without the dollar as a reserve currency, who will reign? -- note: this is slightly arrogant... only slightly; (3) the American economy CAN "recover" quickly; (4) other countries won't realize that the American economy really isn't doing that great... considering the fact that 20% of its profits have been generated by the FINANCIAL sector (that really doesn't produce anything of value and that's earnings have undergone an enormous bubble in the past 20 years); the American automobile industry, once a bastion of strength, is decrepit and refuses to accept technological progress and the United States is a net importing country that has run a current account deficit of nearly $800bn for the past several years. In order to pay off its older debts and the interest on its loans from other countries, the US is simply going further into debt. There is a name for this: it's called a Ponzi scheme.

Only a matter of time before this is realization goes mainstream.

To clarify your points:

I don't know if you are aware that I had posted much more info via "credits" to journalists or sites from net sourced searches along with some personally paraphrased edits, personal threads, viewpoints and comments on the NWO topic. As I said I would, most have since been deleted and due to softening the negative output, I am also editing posts that might remain....

Yes, I was confused as to the long list of websites that followed your first posts, mostly because many of them didn't work. My bad. I'm familiar with the vast majority of your reasoning and the information you have drawn it from because before I began to comprehend the views that I now am a proponent of, and have upheld in this discussion, I read deeply into 'conspiracy' and had a similarly negative perspective.

I realized, however, that the "conspiracy theorists" that you have cited are on one extreme of a debate, while politicians and "conspiricists" are on another. This debate does not take the form of a traditional left / right or good / evil forum, but rather one where the perspectives are drawn apart by those who feel like they have a voice on the international scene and those who actually do have a voice on the international scene. The "conspiracy theorists", those who accuse politicians of constructing a New World Order, by and large don't have a voice. They are on the sidelines. Much of their criticism is born out of frustration from the fact that they perceive that they have no control. The "conspiricists" on the other hand, those who work in government and who we see on TV, those who run the show, they do have the control. The battle being fought in this spectrum is based on the control of information to the public and how reality is interpreted. "Conspiracy theorists" deduce interpretation from fact with the intention to discredit establishing government, while "conspiricists" create information from reality in order to maintain order in society - to the "conspiracy theorists" this is seen as "big brother"-esque controlling. In some ways it is, in some ways it isn't. Without order society would be far more chaotic than it is now. At the same time, without transparency, there will always be people who feel left on the outside.

The "conspiracy theorists" are those of us outside the political games being played on Capitol Hill, Wall Street and other venues of political activity who have the intelligence, courage and strength of will to speak up and be heard. Some "conspiracy theorists" are just as bad as government, and misinterpret everything to their own individual perception of reality, then try to convince others that they are right (Kaibo... I am not pointing a finger at you here, you are not doing this at all). Others are fighting for more transparency and objectivity from our elected political representatives, so that society as a whole can take part in a debate without spin, disinformation and misinformation. Still others are simply trying to find out just what the fuck is actually going on. I'm in the latter category, I think you are, too, Kai.

However, as you have noted, in some of those posts I unashamedly expressed a strongly negative opinion of some reported objectives of radically extreme conspiratorial masterminds throughout history. Perhaps, in this current era, there are still some "dark horses" looming in the shadows to potentially bring forth fruits of destruction and desolation, in the fullness of times....

Agreed, among all humans there are those who have just, peaceful, constructive intentions, and then there are those who ultimately have conflicting, unjust, destructive intentions. Of course, those with unjust, destructive intentions probably ultimately have good intentions in some respect, but their intentions are bent by their culture. For instance, a warlord in Africa may have good intentions: protecting his people and his family and promoting their success. However this same warlord, being brought up in a culture where violence is a norm and where harsh control over others (imperialism / colonialism) is a way of life, may be every bit willing to commit what those in the West, or at the UN, would label as "human rights violations", and spin information in order to win the upper hand. His intentions are good for his own, but his means and methods are evil. In the long run, for the good of society and humanity as a whole, he has no respect or maybe not even any awareness, of the fact that on this planet, we are one race. Unity, mutual respect, justice and peace are all prerequisites to any kind of long-term progress, be it economical, technological, spiritual, cultural, religious, political, or personal.

There will always be and without a doubt are "dark horses" who thrive on chaos, and who have no care or understanding for the words "mankind", "society" or "humanity".

Your following points center around the idea of "sustainable social development", which I certainly agree with. 

It is interesting that you suggest "handing the world over to women and grandmothers". I read an article at one point, which I lost track of in all of my rambling readings, that also suggested that in the history of man, woman at one point was superior for a variety of reasons that are supported by scripture (including the Bible) and artifacts.

Above all there is always hope, for it is what fuels our souls and inspires us to continue a struggle towards attaining a quality of life that we can be happy with, for ourselves, for our families and friends, for our cultures, and for our planet as a whole.

Yes - the Jews have it pretty good considering they have the entirety of the USA in their back pockets. To them I say, well played, sirs, well played. I worry there however, because they have the capacity and audacity to utilize the US as their own national defense mechanism, and perhaps prompt a third World War. Especially given the insanely extremist rhetoric that Christian and Jewish conservative religious figures constantly spew forth concerning the apocalypse, this is frighteningly possible reality. That would be devastating indeed.

On your comments on Chinese foreign policy and the personality of Chinese leadership - I wholeheartedly agree that their governing system is worthy of great respect and legitimacy. A strong sense of morality underlies Chinese culture on every level. Looking back to the founding fathers of the United States of America - if you read the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence, you will find similarly respectable morals and ideals. I'm sure that looking back to the founding of the United Kingdom, and beyond that to the empires of Rome and Greece, those same solid, respectable ideals were present. Unfortunately, the idea of all empires rising and falling always applies. At the dawn of the 20th century the United States of America was, as the PRC is today, virtuous and seen as a land of opportunity and freedom, representing a quality of life that could outweigh all others. China's overall quality of life may not be near the US's today, but their morals are certainly in the right places, and development is on pace to provide a quality of life similar to the US's soon.

The main difference between the US and China is political ideology. Capitalism and communism. This infiltrates to the very core of economic potential. China is slowly privatizing its state-run operations. Economic theory and history shows that privately run corporations do much better, as they are free to operate outside the constraints of a government budget, government political influence and petty political squabbling. They are also given over to the hands of businessmen and entrepreneurs who specialize and make a living out of running an efficient business. Politicians, sadly to say, know little about economic theory or business organization, as their main focus in life is on consensus building, diplomacy and public image.

Yes, Mao was brilliant, but he also managed to destroy the Chinese economy. If you could rationalize that for me, that'd be great, because right now my impression of him isn't too hot. He was a great, charismatic leader, but he didn't know anything about economics.

Finally, I'd watch what you wish for. You wrote:

As I stated in clear terms previously: I support the "fractionalisation" and the multi-polarised trajectories and initiatives that are currently being exercised and experienced in the international arena. With more choices and voices of creditable value for future generations, then perhaps a multinationally and ethnically balanced harmonious accord can be struck.

History has proven that increasing multi-polarity on the global political stage serves to greatly increase the chances of war, as competing cultures vie for control of scarce resources and governments and people have greater confidence over their ability to win control over these resources. Global government does not necessitate a destruction of choice, voice of creditable value, multi-nationality or ethnically balanced harmonious accord. In the narrow-minded approach of many "New World Order"-conspiracy theorists, global governance may take the form of a tyrannical, one-leader dictatorship where human rights are ignored and uniformity is enforced by military strength. Global governance CAN be multinational, multi-ethnic and even handed. The United Nations is evidence to this. What it lacks is the political will from its members to give up national political and economic sovereignty to the extent that the United Nations could influence national agendas. This is mainly due to the fact that many national politicians and national citizens are frightened by the prospect of protectionism, which, sadly to say, still runs rampant through the international economy.

Have to go teach some English now... let me know what you think.

[kaibo 开 博]

I do hope the world can make the transition to be more cooperatively peaceful, whereby humankind may prosper & social equity can reign supreme. Unified international leadership is perhaps the forerunner to bring the ultimate good measure of control and this world definitely needs a renewed social "order."

I echo the following statements (1)(2) that you made and I add that, I do not fear any “New World Order” as long as it is driven by leaders with an equitable framework for social stratification & one that coexists on a multilateral cooperative & cohesive international front that can lead the world to a more sustainable social, environmental & economic future. ‘Just’ internationalised laws and parameters are the basis and structure for societal development & international justice must be carefully measured to balance socio-political & socio-economic spheres.

It is impossible to totally eliminate macro-inequities by idealistic or socialized political reforms because at a base demographic level, micro-inequities are inherently and perpetually fundamental within any given society. One underlying fact of any given society is that “you will always have the poor with you.” Demographic distinctions in society are indeterminately uncontrollable and are predetermined by diverse factors such as the disposition of intellect, disposition of kinship, disposition of cultural beliefs; be they socio political, socio-theocratic or socio-logistical fundamentals. It remains that there must be a systemic social hierarchy within a stratified society for any NWO to be fundamentally acceptable.

Summarizing on this train of thought; effectual globalization requires a fundamentally sustainable social order, having been formulated from multiplicative agreements at all levels of society, across a multi-spherical logistical front that essentially must predetermine an equitable egalitarian model society whereby the ‘ideals’ of a sustainable & harmonious society might materialize.

I suggest that therein lay the whole problem. It is harder to frame the parameters of an equitable, workable and sustainable international society, that is acceptable to every creed, race and religiously affiliated social group than it is for a “camel to go through the eye of the needle.”

Therefore, how can an achievable strategy be mechanized multilaterally?  Perhaps, the effectual mechanisms by which the hierarchy and working party of a unilateral or multilateral NWO may bring about cohesive & cooperative changes is by manipulative control measures of the masses through the mechanisms of passive acceptance, fear, economic dominance, militaristic might, enforced reasoning, predetermined conditioning, demographic population determination, wars, biological determination etc.  In other words, it is an extremely difficult task to polarize human reasoning.

(1)Without order society would be far more chaotic than it is now. At the same time, without transparency, there will always be people who feel left on the outside.
...
(2)Unity, mutual respect, justice and peace are all prerequisites to any kind of long-term progress, be it economical, technological, spiritual, cultural, religious, political, or personal.

Transparency will perhaps always be an issue and lack of transparency is perhaps the breeding ground for mistrust and conspiracy theorists.

There are bizarre theories ‘out-there’ such as the theory proposed that part of the “conspiratorial” NWO is in strategic planning & dialogue with 4th Dimension reptilian aliens. There is a multiplicity of theories on that but therein lies the problem – many have an unclear sense of virtual reality if they are driven by assumed theoretical sense or theoretical nonsense, whichever classification the said theory might fall.

Is it possible that the conspiracies are all part of the plan to make us think they have the penultimate card to trump all other cards being played?

“The truth is out there!”

 “Truth is …” – Truth is absolute.  Truth is the Alpha and the Omega – the Beginning & the End. Even in that statement, what is truth to one may be unfounded nonsense to another.

A lot of what might be proposed as truth may be nothing more than the ranting and raving of crazed theorists or religious fanatics who promote their own cause for reality.

One thing is surer than certain, and that is that ‘Truth’ is being played-out right as we speak and plan our next breath of borrowed existence. ‘Truth’ above all other characteristics, instilled in humankind by providential intelligence, is at the core of all “cosmology” and be it known that none can alter that absolution of existence or predetermination of direction & purpose, from an eternally truthful perspective.
 
Another good example of this has to be the "mystery" of UFO's, Aliens and the “Roswell Incident” that occurred in 1947.
The overwhelming evidence presented to me, via written and audio-visual material, is that a craft with aliens in it did crash-land in the USA around the 1950’s and a lot of advanced technology came from examination of that craft. I have seen a documentary produced on the issue, whereby, high-level former CIA officials, military commanders, technical specialists & a host of other everyday normal people give their accounts of the resultant issues.  Due to a lack of transparency and the shroud of darkness that hovers over the whole issue, there has been a plethora of conspiracy theories taken root.

Perhaps the secretive mystery is that it may be part of a conspiracy to “blind the minds of humankind” and “tell them only what they need to know” in order to have the “trump card” to play at some strategic point in the future.  

If the incident is true or if it is purely conspiratorial, will they ever come clean and tell us what really happened or what they really know?  If there really are aliens and UFO's then why in this modern-day is there still the shroud of mystery?

As long as the common people of planet earth are kept in the dark there will be mistrust and the grounds for conspiracy theorists will continue.

As with many early conspiracy theorists, whether based on facts or sensationalism, sales were generated by sci-fi styled presentations/media/literature etc., that proposed the advanced technological ‘masterminded’ status of the conspiratorial hierarchy of an “illuminati” led NWO.  

For some current day sensationalized examples of threads; just google search ‘Denver International Airport’ and read the threads and links around that issue. It is proposed to be one of 120 to 130 secret underground establishments in the USA linked by Maglev systems which has led to the death of a former “top level” illuminati inductee who reported on the horrors of the Denver site and their proposed strategies. That said inductee was the grandson of a German U –boat commander in WW II (from memory) and was a star recruit inducted from childhood but, I suggest, grew up with a social conscience and responsibility to the world and the families of the world.
  
It is also proposed that, Denver is the headquarters and site of the US/British led NWO model that does not have the current backing or support of the international community. It is also proposed that the Royal family of the Commonwealth (Queen) has bought lots of land in the vicinity and has knighted non-Commonwealth subjects for services to the crown in relationship to the Denver region and for subjects’ services to the NWO. It is also proposed that the current Commonwealth Royalty is of German origin and that the hierarchy of the Anglo-US led NWO are neo-nazist supporters who plan population reduction through famine, disease and of course war.

I am not proposing any of this info to be fact, perhaps it is all fiction and unfounded extremism. What I am proposing is that the current world system is just not sufficing to offer all the answers for global harmony. I don't think it will be posible to totally harmonise the world in its current state but we can certainly do better than the current system.

That is perhaps why one should support the SCO, hopefully in order to see a multi-polarised NWO advancing with a social conscience for world peace. It requires representatives from all nationalities to balance global objectives and can in no wise be accomplished unilaterally by the domination of capitalistic reasoning that is fraudulent in its objectives for domination of the masses. 


With all the info that one can find, the plot thickens like a coagulating mess. I will be cutting this first answer short to regather and attempt to completely answer your requests for info or views. In future posts, I hope to have some very intriguing views to put forward on Mao, Putin and the current administrative reasoning being offered for an NWO.

To be continued...

[rht1786]

Waiting for you to finish...

[kaibo 开 博]

Once again, I state that this planet needs a “New World Order” but what kind we get is yet to be determined. However, that is also not to say that the advancement and hidden objectives of an “illuminati” style NWO are totally false as there may well be foundations of truth in some reports.
 
Back to sci-fi mysteries and an example that changed the way we view our world, its’ origins and future.

Enter:> Erich Von Daniken.

His writings were sensationalized at the time they were written and generated a lot of controversial interest. Erich Von Daniken's most successful book - "Chariots of the Gods" was perhaps a little nonsensical to some, but nevertheless a forerunner and a trend repeated since the seventies. The theories were opposed vehemently by the ‘status quo - religious sects’ and skeptics alike but nevertheless, his printed media and his books sold like wildfire, followed up with TV shows, talkback show discussions, debates and forums and live interviews with the author himself. The controversial interest that was generated sweept almost hysterically across the cityscapes. He was somewhat elevated to celebrity status but perhaps is best known as a man who opened the minds of those who had little concept of inter-stellar theories and the possible pre-existent realms of other worlds and their possible effects within our world. I never read his books but they were widely touted “bestsellers” in many countries but took off particularly well in Germany and the USA.

Having been extensively inducted and educated within an International College framework that networks across many nations but originates in the USA, and furthermore by interactive and proactive association as both a participant and delegate representative at seminars, forums, leadership development sessions, symposiums etc., in historical, contemporary and prophetic life principles, primarily via US men and women of integrity; it stands that I  was and still am supportive of the USA but perhaps somewhat disillusioned by the Bush era in particular. One however, should weigh up the pros and cons of the former and current policies and determine the intrinsic value to the international community overall. I am widely-read & supportive of US based authors from bygone eras, as well as the 20th century and beyond. One should also understand what is currently happening in the socio -political environment and the input that Germany has made or predetermined. They too have given the world the legacy of some fine liberally minded contributors throughout time that have shaped generational influences that impact current generations. Not only that, but they maintain contributions to the technological advancement of the international society and are an important and essential link or catalyst to establish an NWO with a ‘social conscience’ for the sustainability of future generations. They are being proposed as possible leaders of the new reforms being currently promoted, following after the pending demise of the US-British led dominance and the soon to be installed, new international ‘benchmark’ currency when the US dollar finally bows out. One should perhaps consider the great influence that "shift of knowledge" has had from Europe to the USA with German led dominance in that field. There are some views that I shall perhaps expand upon in future posts.

I was a firm supporter in the 80’s and 90’s of both the USA and the true Israel, but one learns many things and reflects on the “mirrored image of intellect” that perhaps is tainted by conditioned beliefs based on the topographic and demographic origins of one’s existence. When one crosses the international borders to reside in a former "cold war" entrenched country, one can then begin to see the other side of the coin more objectively and perhaps change one’s views internationally.
 
Formulating new perspectives perhaps comes from ‘stepping-out from under the shadows’ of rhetorical influences and unilateral conditioning mechanisms designed to formulate the “status quo” to a passive acceptance of the ‘norm’ within a given westernised society. Add to that the extensive media influences of the US led movie, printed, TV industries etc., in Australia; one can certainly become tainted with the brush of western theocracy. As well as that, being stirred by "latter day" (90's + post-2000) associations with international citizens of the USA and their personal accounts of the US led Bush admin, and one can certainly begin to paint some grey clouds on all those rainbows that seemed so logical at one point.

A fact of the human psyche can be considered as follows; to change the conditioning of one’s mind – a principle to follow is that one must be removed from the ‘camp of familiarity’ - where the chain of external influences that surround the individual can be broken and a broadened perspective can be entertained by the seat of the intellect – the human soul. The result can be the absolution of new perspectives that can lead to changes of discourse that may be considered positively liberating or on the other hand negatively and potentially soul destroying.

In reference to the heart and soul of the USA, in recent times I am renewing the formerly inducted sentiments to recall my support of the " land of the free" - being defined by me as those predestined according to promise of an inheritance for the rewards of meekness; a people and a culture born and carried on the winds of time. Their "spirit" perpetually echoed from ‘generation to generation’ - to produce men and women of conviction, faith, courage, integrity, sincerity etc. They were and still are, the men and women who based their principles on - " a person's word is a person's bond."

They set the stage for liberty, assisted and trained the weak and socially disadvantaged to battle [including the Chinese to battle the Japanese] educated the masses in character definitions & prophetically envisioned & proactively inspired international targets for reaching the impoverished and poor-in-spirit and soul, they formulated technological advances in medical sciences & international relations etc.
There was nothing that could not be done by their determined willpower, unity and self-sacrificing labors in love as they set about laying the foundations of truly great international heritage for the peoples of the earth.

The glory of the "American" people was that they targeted dreams that built the foundations of a "strong fortress" that could stand the test of time. Time will reveal that they will not fail but re-emerge triumphant in another place - another time perhaps – once their reformation has taken root.

However, the current situation is that the US must regroup and reintegrate nationally and internationally or be seen as a perpetual crumbling fortress of disrepute. Many from within the "walls" and without the "walls" have turned their hopes to the horizon that a new nation will be birthed that can lead the world to a peaceful-end. It appears that the foundations of truth are being torn from under the USA by an external/internal "war of deceit" in these modern times. Just how, when and why this has occurred is in the "lap of the ‘false’ gods" or perhaps determinable by the support of the US people themselves to resolve the ‘rot’ that appears to have set-in.

The problems have largely arisen more and more from the "atmospherically" induced decline of the moraise of their society. A formerly unified and great "world changing" nation, with a heart for the "children of the world," is steadily being torn by a progressively "internal" disintegration of their unified direction and cohesiveness. When any nationalized people lose faith in their leadership and turn inwardly on themselves, it is only a matter of time before the internal framework that supports it is torn from within the very walls that stood it strong and admirable. They got their independence - but it appears the face that is seen today - is not the face that established the constitutional rights of democratic benevolence that once graced the world stage.
 
I read a book in the 70's called the "Cosmic Conspiracy" by an author named Stan Deyo (USA - now Aust.) Stan was and perhaps still is a credible writer and although kind of "out there" – the somewhat “sensationalized” book he wrote was believable and changed my life, but it also created in me the shadows that were later enlightened by new ground breaking thinking.
He perhaps is not a sci-fi proponent but a former scientist/physicist from memory, who worked on secret CIA establishments in the 70's. His original book was tainted with the feelings and "message of the day" with an element of belief in ‘apocalyptic’ projections.
Stan carried the persona and appearance of a ‘mystic.’ I perhaps came from the same ‘mystical’ kind of camp so his writings tempered my soul for a season and still do to this day, in a residual like measure.

One needs to understand that "doomsday" dogma was common in that era and still is today and many of us did not think we would see this day. I myself was a "prophet of doom" having been tempered from various beliefs that were circulating in those times.

Stan's writings were largely based on facts and experiential findings such as Einstein’s EMP (UFO-Maglev) principles.  Like Roswell, everything was "top secret." There are many others (even in this day) who come clean and reveal what they know and some were "popped-off" for their troubles. Stan relocated to Australia and I remember he stated that he wrote primarily to avoid becoming a daisy-pusher. He also had some involvement working at the secretive "Pine Gap" (CIA) facility in outback Australia.
He became a writer, lecturer and "revelator" and toured the world sprouting informative warnings and lectures of the hidden agendas and secrecy surrounding cosmology, aliens and theoretical or actual UFO conspiracies within the USA and beyond.

The beliefs that were circulating post 60's after the dawning of the "Age of Aquarius" were and still are influential in unsettling "status quo logic" For those who took onboard the "terminal 'new age' philosophies" - there was an expectation of a world soon to enter a “period of transitory momentum” and the ushering in of a more peaceful post 2000 ‘millennial’ rule. Many of the theories by some sensationalists have been exposed as groundless, particularly by those who predicted dates, but much of it has just moved with the ground and still stamps a certain air of expectancy for a cataclysmic apocalypse and a new providential era of peace.
It is associated with the Judeo-Christian and Muslim beliefs of providential post-millenial rule. Prophetically, provided the understanding of revelatory knowledge is correct, it is believed to be ushered in under tribulation.

It is unsure how the transition will phase-in but both Islam and Judeo-Christian fundamentalists propose a battle at the end of this age. The ‘Jihadists’ are non-conformist at their radicalized extreme and likewise many "pre-raptural tribulationists" (particularly USA proponents) are quite willingly talking-up and propagating storms to hasten the battle of the end. The USA military and defense forces are all taken-up with the belief that everything they do is in the name of God too. Which god - is it "air-power" or "light-power?"  I am not the judge but there is One who was, who is and who is to come! Selah!

 Sure there are agnostics in the military-mix (plenty) and other radicalized proponents of "multi-coloured 'technicoat' dreams" in their mix but they generally are inducted and materialize to fight for "God and country" - irregardless of personal leanings - from the top down.

They are professionals – there are perhaps few better - they do their job and do it well but the question from an external viewers analysis has to be just which or whose God they are subjectively fighting for. Which god - is it "air-power"-"the prince of the power of the air" or "light-power" - "the 'true light' that shines in darkness?" Perhaps that depends on where your feet are standing providentially I suggest and whose brush painted your imagery.

The classic example of this was Operation Desert Storm - circa 1991. When George " Daddy" Bush Snr. and the foreign forces attacked Saddam "deceased" Hussein's Iraq; Hussein tried valiantly to incite Arab nations to sing to the tune of "Jihad…Jihad" and join the battle.  From memory, he called it the "mother of all battles to end all battles" and he called "Baba" from the "brotherhood" Bush, a "white satanist."
Hmmm! I recall my eyebrows raised a curtain at that call. Really!  I kind of got intrigued by that!

It was a little like the Iranian President calling the instigators of the Jewish holocaust of WW II – ‘Zionist Jews.’ I am not saying they were the instigators but there are plenty of conspiracy theorists that do say they were. The hat-ma-technicoat- brigade walked off citing "anti-semitism." Just how does a "semitic Muslim" incite anti-semitic comments?
The same "Baba" Bush Snr, was an envoy (ambassador) in China, (late 70's) perhaps espying his future as Mr. CIA Chief - or was he paving the way for reforms after the Maoist era. I am clueless to that possibility. The "puppetised boy" Bush was not half the man his Daddy was and barely raised a flicker of Daddy's intelligence.
 
We were able to watch virtually the whole 'Desert Storm' war live with 24/7 coverage via CNN broadcasts to Australia. It was incredible watching the smart bombs and missiles home-in on their targets. It was an awesome display and unlike today there were few civilian casualties. They achieved their goals swiftly and quickly and there was no ‘battle to end all battles’ waged by Hussein.

In those days I was very pro USA (never anti Chinese/Asian either) but since having come to the "other side" of the "cold war" divided world, I believe I have witnessed and viewed a more complete understanding of reality and the nature of what we call the "kosmos" or simply "our world."

In closing, I hope some of our readers find our threads interesting. Blimey! I never could understand why nobody had much to say. Nobody piped up about much at all so I guess there are few trumpet blowers out there. The facts remain that most citizens are passive riders and rightfully so perhaps because we are unable to change much from an internet perspective but one must also remember it was individuals who fanned the flames to bring about major social reforms in past gone eras and what we have lived and enjoyed until this day has perhaps been partly due to their societal pressure to bring change.

I am not any kind of authority, just a rider and observer on this planet and one who hopes there will be a legacy that is worthy to hand down to our seed.

May the true providential God shine his light on the "fatherly/motherly hearts" of world leaders and sort this mess out.

Give the kids a break!
 
Let them live peaceful lives in a world with truth and justice.
Perhaps it should not be called a New World Order but a New International Cooperative Treaty of Interdependent Activities with one goal and one dream - to hand a better world to future generations.

To be continued...

[rht1786]

Heyo,

After your first post, I had written this, so I will post it here, now...

On Roswell and UFOs:

Last summer I researched deeply into this field and was left terrified, shaking and wide-awake for several sleepless nights worried that Greys were going to come and take me away simply because I was privy to the information at hand. These readings centered around a speech given by William Cooper, an ex-US Navy official who gave a handful of lectures in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s before his death, a suspected assassination by the CIA. They were especially relevant because two relations of mine simply disappeared in the mid-‘90s, and his accounts of the US government’s behind-the-scenes actions mirrored my relations’ actions and their disappearance. No doubt you can find his speeches online, although the one I found was on YouTube, which unfortunately is blocked here nowadays.

I strongly suspect and would be easily convinced that the CIA runs an undercover space program and has had contact with other races. What sealed the deal for me was the crop circle at the bottom of this page: http://www.astrojourneys.com/cropcircles.html, which seemed too intricate and relevant to what I’d read to actually be faked, which apparently is very common (crop circle faking). I am also vaguely familiar with the “Age of Aquarius” theories, moreso with the most recent 2012 Mayan et al / Niribu theories, and while I recognize the opinion of the people who have spent time gathering all of that information, it is difficult to discern truth from it, as evidence to the contrary is also replete (maybe from government disinformation campaigns? who can be sure without omniscience?). Perhaps most importantly, to concede that the world is going to end would be to give up on life, and given the possibility that the world does not end in 2012, then whatever I would do while having given up on life now would simply be a waste of time, and a waste of life.

Which plays into my next point…

On the Islamic / Judeo-Christian divide: (Warning: heavy doses of esotericism and spirituality follow)

There are many theories concerning: whether this is an age-old battle is a contrived scheme of ancient religious doctrines meant to produce Apocalypse and whatever comes after Apocalypse, a natural progression of human evolution, a tool used by those in power to control the masses, or what have you.

Personally, I believe that as a race, we are bound together by the energies of this planet. Many of these energy fields have been discovered and documented by modern day sciences, but others are still hidden in our past by the mists of time. Monoliths and megaliths were at one point used for something practical, and are not just meeting grounds or mere tourist attractions. Many of those that are known in the present day lie on gridlines that are strongly related to the magnetic fields of the planet. I’m sure that this played some part in whatever purpose they had.

One thing that all of our major religions have in common is an emphasis on love and purity of spirit. This is written as the core idea of all conflict in all scripture – the tainting of man by impurities and man’s fight to remain holy. It is the purpose of life, and yet on this planet man is given the choice to succumb to all range of vices and sins. Everything, however, boils down to love. Not in the sense of the romantic attachment leading to marriage, but the pure, spiritual feeling that binds each of us to each other and underscores all benevolent, positive feelings that occur when you actually communicate with someone and “vibe” or “get along” with them. Love is just the word we use to convey this idea, and it happens to have connotations strongly related to marriage. Probably because most people only end up loving their significant other and children, sometimes not even their children…

Most “New Age” religions and books promoting a “New Age” philosophy, center around this idea of the purity of love. Of course, like all things human, some of these books are good, some of them are great, and some of them are just shit. The only one that I’ve read, and strongly recommend, is “The Four Agreements” by Don Miguel Ruiz. I have this with me in Hefei, so if you’d like to borrow it, I’d be willing to lend it to you. It’s a quick read at 100 pages in a friendly-sized font. His core point plays off of the idea of love being The Answer – basically what also forms the core of The Secret and its extensive marketing campaign. To me, the majority of religions are just baggage around this central idea of love, with the intention being to create jobs, establish order, and (originally) keep a written record of the history of man. Unfortunately, today’s Bible has proven to be nearly indecipherable in a historical sense to most people, however, and provides more of a guideline, which most people surprisingly seem to struggle to follow.

Moving forward, humanity is reaching a crises point where the fate of civilization hangs in the balance. Everyone predicts something significant will happen in the next few years, but only a few people can actually be right, since everybody predicts something different… and even those few people will probably be a little off. No doubt something will happen (that’s how time works, right? shit happens…). The most interesting and applicable predictions (for me) come from Ervin Laszlo, a Hungarian physicist associated with the Club of Budapest (www.clubofbudapest.org). Laszlo and the Club of Budapest are on the cutting edge of global societal macroshift, and devote their time and money towards the study of how society is changing in the 21st century. I strongly suggest you look into this, also, as is greatly relevant to the direction of humanity and the sustainability of the planet.

Personally, I’d like to do what I can to help humanity, and to help people. A lot of people don’t want to be helped, while others think they want to be helped but when people try to help them they refuse it, while still others try to help other people but their morals and ethics aren’t based soundly on pure love, so they only complicate, lastly others go out of their way to hurt. Whether or not apocalypse occurs in my lifetime, I will still enjoy this life as much as I can, because I know somewhere deep in my soul that I would rather love than hate. While I search for truth on this world, I’ll do what I can to live with love in my heart. It is healthier for me on all levels of reasoning, from personal to societal, from physical to spiritual well-being.

On Mao:

I appreciate the history lesson. I still think Mao was a shitty economist, yet a great orator / politician.

I’ve stated before that I do not disagree with socialism. I also do not disagree with communism, in its purest form. Lenin was right – that socialism follows capitalism. Europe is evidence to this. What is happening in the United States is evidence to this. Unfortunately, for the past 50 years during the Cold War, the United States trumpeted forth a message of anti-communism so strong that anybody who so much as whispered the word was outcast from the legitimacy of Western, democratic, capitalistic society, which inevitably won out against Stalinist communism. What a lot of people from the Cold War-generation fail to realize is that Stalinist communism is not communism. It is a tyrannical form of autocracy with socialistic economic policies. Communism in its utopian sense works.

On US resistance to sustainable technology:

I've read deeply into this, as I plan to get my master's in this field, and I just the other day, actually, I found this article that is the most insightful, precisely written, complete analysis of the situation in the United States with regards to sustainable development in relation to the planetology (term courtesy of Frank Herbert's Dune) of Terra (name courtesy of Blizzard's Starcraft) that I’ve found to date. In fact, it's so important, that I am posting it in its entirety here, to assure you read it.

GEOENGINEERING AND THE NEW CLIMATE DENIALISM
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/009784.html

The Idea of Geoengineering is Being Used Dishonestly

Though we spend our time here at Worldchanging focused on solutions to the planet's most pressing problems, sometimes the politics around an issue become so twisted that it's necessary to address the politics before we can have a real discussion about the problems and how to solve them. That's the case with geoengineering. Some scientists suggest that certain massive projects -- like creating artificial volcanoes to fill the skies with soot, or seeding the oceans with mountains of iron to produce giant algal blooms -- might in the future be able put the brakes on climate change. These "geoengineering" ideas are hardly shovel-ready. The field at this point consists essentially of little more than a bunch of proposals, simulations and small-scale experiments: describing these hypothetical approaches as "back up options" crazily overstates their current state of development.

Indeed, almost all of the scientists working on them believe that the best answer to our climate problem would be a quick, massive reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions. None of this has stopped geoengineering from becoming part of a new attempt to stall those very reductions, though. The same network of think tanks, pundits and lobbying groups that denied climate change for the last 30 years has seized on geoengineering as a chance to undermine new climate regulations and the U.N. climate negotiations to be held at the end of the year in Copenhagen. They're still using scare tactics about the economic costs of change, but now, instead of just denying the greenhouse effect, they've begun trying to convince the rest of us that hacking the planet with giant space-mirrors or artificial volcanoes is so easy that burning a lot more coal and oil really won't be a problem.

Delay is The Carbon Lobby's Strategy

It's a central, yet often forgotten, fact in the climate debate that pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere is incredibly profitable. For a small group of giant corporations (the coal, oil and car companies which we can collectively call the Carbon Lobby), business as usual is big bank. The difficulties of addressing climate change have much more to do with the political power of these corporations than with the technical challenges of building a carbon-neutral economy (a carbon-neutral economy being an engineering and design challenge that we already have the capacity to meet). For the last thirty years, the Carbon Lobby's strategy on climate change has been to delay. Almost every informed observer knows, and has known for decades, that the days of fossil fuels are numbered, but how quickly and how completely we shift away from them makes all the difference to these industries. They have a huge investment in oil fields and coal mines and dirty technologies, and each decade they delay the transition away from coal and gas means literally trillions of dollars more profits. Delay = big bucks.

The best way for the Carbon Lobby to delay that transition has been to make regulations and treaties that limit the amount of CO2 emissions politically impossible, especially in the U.S., where the Lobby's influence is the greatest because of their hold over the Republican party. That's why they put such emphasis on attempting to portray the science of climate change as inconclusive or hotly debated (despite the fact that their own scientists told them in 1995 that the science on climate "is well established and cannot be denied"). If they could make people feel uncertain, they could make it safe for politicians to actively oppose new regulations and treaties (a strategy laid out in the famous leaked "Luntz Memo").

Lying about the science made people uncertain; that uncertainty let the Carbon Lobby stall U.S. action; and by stopping the world's biggest polluter from participating, they stymied any real global deal on greenhouse gasses. The strategy worked, up to a point. But now most Americans understand that climate change is real and that it demands action. Our new president advocates strong action on climate; business leaders from many industries back him, as do most labor and religious groups; and foreign nations are eager to negotiate (European conservatives are even competing to show leadership on tackling climate emissions, rather than denying that those emissions are a problem). This emerging consensus on the need for regulatory action and effective treaties threatens to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels much more quickly than anyone expected, so the Carbon Lobby is scrambling to find new reasons for delay.


continued...

[rht1786]

.... from above


How Geoengineering Becomes an Argument for Delay

Their new justifications for delay are simple. Taking advantage of the economic crisis, they call climate action a job killer. If the Right's anger and vehemence against the very idea of green jobs has shocked and confused you, well, understand that it's important that climate change be framed as a threat to the economy, and never an opportunity: the growing importance of clean tech industries and jobs to the American economy must be downplayed in order for this strategy to work (never mind that wind power already employs more Americans than coal mining). Look for this argument to increase in volume as Copenhagen draws near. But to really make their case for more delay, they can no longer be seen as outright opponents of climate action. They've got to have their own plan.

And that's where geoengineering comes in. The biggest argument for strong actions taken quickly is that delay or weak responses may put us in a position of facing rapid, perhaps even runaway climate change. The longer we wait, the more dangerous our position becomes. The only certain route to safety would be rapid emissions reductions, including programs for ecosystem restoration and other forms of sustainable sequestration to help draw CO2 levels down. But if we can be made to believe that megascale geoengineering can stop climate change, then delay begins to look not like the dangerous folly it actually is, but a sensible prudence.

The prospect of geoegineering is the only thing that can make that delay seem at all morally acceptable. In other words, combining dire warnings about climate action's economic costs with exaggerated claims about geoengineering's potential is the new climate denialism. The Carbon Lobby Spins Geoengineering Instead of Emissions Reductions The new climate denialism is all about trying to make the continued burning of fossils fuels seem acceptable, even after the public has come to understand the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real. That's why denialists present geoengineering as an alternative to emissions reductions, and couch their arguments in tones of reluctant realism. One of the earliest political calls for geoengineering was Gregory Benford's essay Climate Controls, written for the Reason Foundation (you can find out more about their links to the Carbon Lobby and their role in climate denialism here).

Benford was explicit that he saw geoengineering as a way to avoid reducing CO2 emissions: "Instead of draconian cutbacks in greenhouse-gas emissions, there may very well be fairly simple ways--even easy ones--to fix our dilemma. ...take seriously the concept of "geoengineering," of consciously altering atmospheric chemistry and conditions, of mitigating the effects of greenhouse gases rather than simply calling for their reduction or outright prohibition."

Benford is far from alone. One of the major proponents of geoengineering is the American Enterprise Institute. AEI has a long history of working to deny the scientific consensus on climate change. They have strong ties to the Carbon Lobby (ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond served on the AEI board of trustees, and $1,870,000 from ExxonMobil helped fund their anti-climate work). Now AEI is working both sides of the new climate denialism street. They claim that climate action is too expensive (In a January paper, AEI's Willem P. Nel and Christopher J. Cooper argue that "The extent of Global Warming may be acceptable and preferable compared to the socio-economic consequences of not exploiting fossil fuel reserves to their full technical potential." In other words, "It's more profitable to let the planet roast.").

They also house one of the few funded policy centers on geoengineering, the AEI Geoengineering Project. The Geoengineering Project is run by Lee Lane. Lane is smart, and so he doesn't say outright that we should dump climate negotiations and trust in geoengineering, but you don't need to read too far between the lines to hear that's what he's saying. In 2006, Lane specifically advised the Bush Administration to urge a greater focus both on debating carbon taxes (we know how Republicans like to "debate" taxes) and on geoengineering as "strategic measures" to "block political momentum toward a return to the Kyoto system." He continues to put forward geoengineering as an alternative to real emissions reductions anytime in the near future.

As he said at AEI's recent geoengineering conference: "I think in response to all of those difficulties that certainly I am not the only person to see, a growing number of experts are becoming increasingly concerned about the need to broaden the debate on climate policy. What I mean by broaden it is to expand what we consider as serious climate policy options from what has been a very narrow focus on greenhouse gas emissions limitations, and indeed rather steep and rather rapid greenhouse gas emissions limitations, to consider a much broader range of policies that go way beyond simply attempting to make short run reductions in greenhouse gases." In other words, Lane wants us to believe that emissions reductions are politically impossible (never mind that he works at an institution which has labored mightily to sabotage emissions reductions treaty negotiations, and that he himself explicitly advised the Bush Administration on how to do the same), so we ought to be considering geoengineering as the "serious" option instead.

The Distortion of Geoengineering has Become Widespread

Turn over denialist rocks and you'll find political advocates for geoengineering a-plenty. For instance:

*The Cato Institute (denialists), whose senior fellow and director of natural resource studies, Jerry Taylor, says that if we end up forced do something about global warming, "geo-engineering is more cost-effective than emissions controls altogether."

*The Heartland Institute (denialists), whose David Schnare now advocates geoengineering as quicker and less costly to the economy than greenhouse gas reductions: "In addition to being much less expensive than seeking to stem temperature rise solely through the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, geo-engineering has the benefit of delivering measurable results in a matter of weeks rather than the decades or centuries required for greenhouse gas reductions to take full effect."

*The Hudson Institute (denialists) advocates geoengineering as substitute for reductions: "Successful geoengineering would permit Earth's population to make far smaller reductions in carbon use and still achieve the same retarding effect on global warming at a lower cost. The cuts in carbon use proposed by international leaders and presidential candidates would have a drastic effect on the economy, especially since substitutes for fossil fuels will be expensive and limited for a number of years."

*The Hoover Institution (denialists) is home to not only to senior fellow Thomas Gale Moore, author of "Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn't Worry About Global Warming" but also nuclear weapons engineer and original SDI "Star Wars" proponent Lowell Wood. Wood has become an outspoken geoengineering proponent and co-authored a recent WSJ op-ed in which he warns "But beware. Do not try to sell climate geo-engineering to committed enemies of fossil fuels," thus revealing that the point is to be friendly to fossil fuels.

And, of course, denialists' allies in the media and the blogosphere have been quick to take up the call. Conservative columnist (and climate "contrarian") John Tierney thinks geoengineering makes superfluous emissions reductions ("a futile strategy") and wants "a geoengineering fix for global warming," to provide an alternative to the idea that "the only cure [is] to reduce CO2 emissions." Wayne Crews of the denialist site globalwarming.org (a project of the Carbon-Lobby-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute) likes geoengineering strategies as possible "options apart from carbon constraint," while climate treaty opponent and "delayer" Roger Pielke, Jr. finds it encouraging that geoengineering's getting so much buzz.

It would be easy to go on. But the point is obvious: the Carbon Lobby, no longer able to deny the reality of climate change, is hoping to use the idea of geoengineering to undermine political progress towards reducing climate emissions through sensible, intelligent regulations and international treaties. Big Oil, Big Coal and the auto companies want you to believe that reducing emissions is too expensive to work, climate negotiations are too unrealistic to succeed, but we can keep burning fossil fuels anyways because geoengineering gives us a plan B. If you think that, you've been spun.

How to De-Spin Geoengineering

None of this is to say that megascale geoengineering should be a taboo subject. We need a smart debate here, where we explore the subject honestly and without industry spin. Here are six suggestions for returning reality to the geoengineering debate in these critical months leading up to Copenhagen:

First, Demand that bold emissions reductions be acknowledged as the only sound foundation for any climate action plan. The Carbon Lobby thrives on half-truths and obfuscation. Ethical people -- whether geoengineering proponents, opponents or doubters -- all need to be extremely clear in saying that a strong, rapid movement away from fossil fuels and toward climate neutrality is non-negotiable. Many leading thinkers on geoengineering (such as Paul Crutzen and Ken Caldeira) already make clear that immediate action on reducing greenhouse pollution (on both the national and global levels) is the first step, period. We should follow their lead.

Second, Point out that a climate-neutral world is realistic. One of the public debate's biggest failures is the extent to which we've let people be convinced that a climate-neutral planet is some distant, improbable fantasy world. It's not. We know, already, right now, how to dramatically slash emissions using currently available technologies, and make a profit. Economists (like Lord Nicholas Stern, former Chief Economist at the World Bank) estimate that the total cost of pursuing climate neutrality could be as little as 1% of GDP (far lower than the anticipated costs of allowing climate change to worsen). But there may not even be a cost: a great many of the actions we need to take (like rebuilding our cities and using energy more efficiently) return greater economic benefits than they demand, and when something pays you money, it's not a cost, it's an investment.

Third, Be extremely clear about geoengineering's real possibilities and actual limitations. Journalists tend to sell the planetary engineering sizzle, rather than serve the heavily-caveated steak. Advocates need to continue to emphasize that geoegineering proposals are still extremely early-stage, experimental and surrounded with unknowns. (On the other side, even determined opponents of geoengineering need to acknowledge the good intent and sound reasoning of scientists who are doing their best to add new insight to an extremely important debate.)

Fourth, Get the order right: zero-out first, adapt next, engineer last.. We need to be clear that because of the experimental nature of geoengineering projects, their use should be a last resort, not a primary option. Megascale geoengineering should not yet be part of any national strategies for addressing climate change, or a part of any offset systems in carbon trading regimes. We need first to drive greenhouse gas concentrations down with proven methods, and then begin preparing to adapt to the climate change we know we've already set in motion. We should only turn to megascale geoengineering as a last resort.

Fifth, Keep a wary eye on the Arctic ocean and other tipping points. Last year, scientists conducting research in the Arctic made a startling discovery: what might perhaps be formerly-frozen methane was bubbling to the surface of the warming ocean in alarming amounts. Their work demands corroboration, but if confirmed, this should cause us all to worry. Methane is an incredibly potent greenhouse gas and huge amounts of it are trapped beneath frigid waters and frozen permafrost, waiting perhaps to be released by rising temperatures.That methane could set off runaway climate change. Even if their findings are refuted, though, potential tipping points need to be watched. If we find we've blundered into rapid runaway climate change, some forms of geoengineering, however poorly understood, may quickly move from "last resort" to "needed option."

Sixth and last, Continue outing the Carbon Lobby and its cronies, and reject their intervention in the debate. Legitimate debates about the possible uses of megascale geoengineering should not include people whose institutions have been consistently and intentionally dishonest about science and science policy. The next two decades will have an almost unparalleled importance in human history, and the decisions we make during this time could have almost unthinkable impacts for millennia.

The world in which scores of future generations will live -- its climate, the plants and animals that make up its biosphere, the material possibilities of its cultures -- will to an astonishing degree be influenced by the choices we make in the next score of years. How we interpret the possibilities of (and understand the limitations to) large-scale geoengineering projects will help shape the clarity and velocity with which we act on reducing emissions and building a new, climate-neutral economy.

These questions matter too much to allow them be twisted by a bunch of shills for fossil fuel industries. We need to reclaim the debate about our planet's future, together.

---------------------------------------------------------

[rht1786]

For an even further analysis of sustainable development, and also ending poverty, check out Jeff Sachs’ works – “Common Wealth” and “The End of Poverty”. I have “Common Wealth” here, also, and I can lend it to you. It’s a bit heavier than Ruiz’s piece, and heavy on the economics, but it definitely clears up what’s happening on the ground in terms of sustainable development and poverty reduction. Sachs is associated with The Earth Institute at Columbia University, so if you want to skip the read, then just check out the website, which looks nice and has some good talking points.

________________________________________________________________________________


I still feel I have a slightly opposing viewpoint than you, in that all people try to "do good", and that sometimes from an individual perspective far down the line from the decision maker, the effects of the action end up creating a situation that is not in line with what the original may have intended, even though that actor may have accomplished his goal. For example, George W. Bush wanted to create a freer and more secure world for Americans, and he accomplished this, but he also alienated Muslims, gave fuel to the fire of Islamic extremists, and persisted down a path of excess and greed that will have dire long term effects on all Americans. In the short-term, Americans have seen great prosperity, but we are sacrificing long-term growth and high standards of living. At the same time, he also contributed to the conspiracy theory community, giving them plenty of food for thought. Some people have a more immediate and personal circle of individuals whom they are trying to "do good" for, and do not take into account everybody on the planet. This concept of "social welfare" is something I expect may change as our planet's population reaches saturation. Here the concept of planetary consciousness comes into play, but this is an ideal that may or may not play out.

Having worked for the U.S. government, I can tell you that these people are not genius. Yes, there may be a few who are very intelligent, and no doubt the CIA, FBI and Department of Defense, among other government agencies, go out of their way to recruit the best of the best, but keep in mind that these "best of the best" are the best of the best from a certain system -- the American Ivy league system. Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. -- these schools form a boys' club that defines generations. Simultaneously, they perpetuate a structured mindset that may be discriminatory to some, pompous to others, close-minded to many, and distinctly everything you could consider "American". They are culture hearths for the American financial and political elite.

As I've said before, there are people in positions of power on this planet whose policies have far-reaching influence, and who use this power towards means that the majority of the planet doesn't agree with. It's the responsibility of Americans to stand up and take control of their government, in order to prevent this from happening, both for their own good, and for the good of the world (which also reflects upon their own good).

This is a bit from Wikipedia I found the other day on decadence... it mirrors well what I've seen play out over the past decade:

Decadence can refer to a personal trait, or to the state of a society (or segment of it). Used to describe a person's lifestyle, it describes a lack of moral and intellectual discipline, or in the Concise Oxford Dictionary: "a luxurious self-indulgence". In a society, it describes corrosive decline due to a perceived erosion of necessary moral traditions (A society that discards unnecessary and outmoded values would not be considered decadent, although perceptions of "unnecessary and outmoded" significantly vary). Due to arguments over the nature of morality, whether a society is decadent or not is a matter of debate, though certain historical societies (such as ancient Rome near its end) are generally held to have been decadent, as decadence often leads to objective decline.

Decadent societies are often prosperous but usually have severe social and economic inequality, to such a degree that the upper class becomes either complacent or greedy, while the lower classes become hopeless and apathetic. The middle class may exhibit either or both patterns, or it may vanish entirely. Poor leadership is generally held to be both a cause and a symptom of decadence, as the lifestyle of a decadent individual is usually considered to be incompatible with responsibility. Applied to the arts, decadence implies an elevation of self-indulgence and pretension over effort and talent; when applied to science and the professions, it describes an erosion of professional ethics. Individual or collective greed is generally disliked in societies with strong moral beliefs, and for this reason, societies that nurture it are sometimes accused of decadence.

Societies that persist in a state of decadence may become unable or unwilling to commit to their own upkeep and fall into decline... Contemporary post-industrial societies such as the United States and Western Europe are sometimes accused of decadence, the argument being that consumerism, materialism, and selfishness have eroded traditional moral values of community, democracy, and the work ethic. Some critics, like James Howard Kunstler, have alleged that American decadence has reached such a degree that the society is or will be unable to solve its own environmental and ecological problems. In America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It, writer Mark Steyn argues that decadent lifestyles in the developed world (with the sole exception of the United States) have led to demographic and social decay.

---------------------------

I read a great article yesterday on the current state of the global economy, which I refer you to, as it closely mirrors what we've discussed in this thread, and the evolution of the international system:

http://www.michael-hudson.com/articles/globalism/090614De-DollarizationDismantlingEmpire.html

I also recommend that you visit Chris Martenson's website, which has a great powerpoint presentation on why we are in the present economic situation, and is updated regularly with blogs and newsfeeds from a perspective not usually addressed by mainstream news media.

www.chrismartenson.com

Finally, I recently watched this interesting video on how the international economy has been structured for the past fifty years. This mirrors the first article, but is very well put together, with a terrifically straightfoward line of thought, very reasonable, very informative.

www.storyofstuff.com

Please, check them all out.

Cheers.

[kaibo 开 博]

I can see you have put together some good work and continue to feed the thread.

I would just like to add, although I was a product of the 70’s and had at one stage embraced terminal apocalyptic & conspiratorial philosophies, yet I was not terminal in my mood.

I have embraced life passionately from growing up in the tremendous natural surroundings of Western Australia; surfing in gigantic seas & living in a world renowned big-wave location under the star filled domain of the Southern Cross and generally enjoying an era that I would not have missed for the world.

Life was filled with endless opportunities for employment diversity, all adding to the excitement of being flown around a great land they call Australia but primarily in the best part they call The State of Excitement - Western Australia.

There were perhaps few places in the world where one could have the independent lifestyle and diverse freedom that one could have in Western Australia in the 70’s, 80’s & beyond into the 90’s; not to mention the high salary options that the post-millennial boom delivered to me bringing financial independence & freedom for my life. Life has been good but in being good to me, I echo your sentiments that;

Perhaps most importantly, to concede that the world is going to end would be to give up on life, and given the possibility that the world does not end in 2012, then whatever I would do while having given up on life now would simply be a waste of time, and a waste of life.

Personally, I’d like to do what I can to help humanity, and to help people. A lot of people don’t want to be helped, while others think they want to be helped but when people try to help them they refuse it, while still others try to help other people but their morals and ethics aren’t based soundly on pure love, so they only complicate, lastly others go out of their way to hurt. Whether or not apocalypse occurs in my lifetime, I will still enjoy this life as much as I can, because I know somewhere deep in my soul that I would rather love than hate. While I search for truth on this world, I’ll do what I can to live with love in my heart. It is healthier for me on all levels of reasoning, from personal to societal, from physical to spiritual well-being.


Life was great and I found myself happy, happier and happiest just by being myself, doing my own thing & frequently going the extra-mile in doing good deeds. Life was not the rush & boom of the current era and time was on our side - or so it seemed. Hindsight is a wonderful thing & I would do things differently nowadays. All the while that servitude & humility exist, whereby one may justify one's goodness, so too does selfishness abound. My main motivation was independence to do as I pleased when I pleased.
 
I placed true values, both within myself and in others, as measurable by the love and respect one generally showed to humankind through the outward working of one’s actions and reactions. Having said that, at times I am a critique of the actions & reactions of myself & others. I call a 'spade a spade'.

I have learnt through trial & error that every word &/or priniciple must be established by at least three affirmations & even then analytically balanced between the points for & the points against in both the negative & positive spheres of possibility. Perhaps then & only then can one affirm the analysis as emphatically correct.

A thirty year period from the late 70’s until now is half a lifetime in real terms, and yet a whisper of relative time in the context of the evolving process to prove all things.

Nowadays, what is portrayed as 'controlled advancement' with niche terminology like 'sustainable development' may yet be revealed as a 'runaway train' that may or may not be able to be reined-in & uncoupled in the marshalling yards before it speeds on over the precipice of time.

Perhaps in the overall context of judging what was, what is, and what is yet to come, in terms of base human existence, I propose that selfishness - whether nationalistic, corporate or individualistic - rules our planet - period!

With all the hailed 'greatness' of achievers from times gone by, how can it yet be that there are still the targets that should have been met but never were, there is still the impoverished uncertainty of the masses & blatant selfishness of the rich and in/famous, there is still the greed and lust for self-glory, wealth and power.

A great example of that is what you have threaded in deceitful reasoning of the carbon lobbyists & their proposed geo-engineering pact.

If ever there was a time for a great transitory shift of momentum needed throughout all history, if ever there was a time for a New World Order of International Justice - then surely this is the time.

I am trying to understand more about Albert Einstein - the man.

Einstein - His Life and Times
 By Philipp Frank

He was called a great man! Yet he was just a man who was not able to achieve all that he desired in his lifetime.
 
Perhaps I should interject with this famous quote from the Master, “greater love hath no man than this; that he lay down his life for his friends.”  Perhaps therein one can hail true greatness in those who have sacrificially given yet perhaps not received the accolades of the famous.

From what I can understand about Einstein the man, he would perhaps doubtless be somewhat dismayed at the progressive hijacking of his works by humankind with anything but harmonious global intent.

He incensed many would-be-conspirators by his forthright & outspoken manner whilst in ‘the land of the living dead’ but still failed to give them light to change his generation markedly.

Einstein after all was a committed pacifist and was incensed not only at nationalist pride & fanaticism but also at Zionist imperialism.
      
If he were still alive today, perhaps he would get my vote for president of a sustainable world '-- as one who perhaps could direct from reasonably balanced perspectives.

Was he a great man? Perhaps yes! (Personally I do not accredit greatness as I am an imperfect judge who understands only in part) It is not my call but I estimate that his scientific works can’t declare the real measure of the man he was.
 
As a man who achieved – his voice was not heard in truth. Few today know the real Einstein & even fewer know what he really held as treasure in his own soul. His voice was all but blocked by the engineered designs of a 'runaway train' on the road to anything but acclaimed glory of scientific discovery.

There are in my estimations no great men of mortal fortitude; just those who perhaps trod the boardwalk a little further than others, those who gave a greater measure than others, those who sacrificially shone in the face of adversity to bring forth fruitfulness of deed and those who followed more intently the cry of their heart to answer the call of their generation.

The cry of this generation has to be; where are the father-hearts to bring us to a better world? Where are the leaders that truly beckon to the call of this generation that are being driven into the same mould as their forefathers. If we dare but utter an opposing voice it will be branded, tempered, even snuffed out at every chance and just like dear Albert – put on the 'runaway train' with a one-way ticket to mediocrity in this current day status. They hailed his discoveries 'greatness' but effectively silenced his real cry for justice.
 
Perhaps Albert should have agreed to become the first President of the newly formed Zionist state, but I suggest he knew full well their intention to draw credibility to an otherwise questionable cause. No doubt he could read the writing on the wall that they all but desired to add credibility to the fortune of their infamy.

May his soul rest in eternity but his voice be heard in truth – he is hailed and remembered for his genius but maybe his true greatness, no-one really knew.