GQchris

The North American Union & the Vchip


I believe this is only a matter of time before all this becomes reality, I hope not in my lifetime.

__________________
Owner of a lonely heart.. much better than a owner of a broken heart...

kingoftheforest

Hope in one hand and s*it in the other. See which one fills up first.

Go find a documentary called End Game bro. It's long but covers alot.

__________________
These opinions and views described above may not be the opinion of forum moderators or owners. These are owned only by this forum member protected by his 1st amendment rights. You do not have to agree with these views.

This punch is heavier than life.
Treat other people as you would like to be treated

[

Garland

WHAT THE HELL?!

I posted zeitgeist a MONTH ago and nobody even responded to the thread. (see "compulsory viewing") and this thread's been up for less than 12hrs and it gets a hit? GODDAMNIT!

__________________
I kick you in da neck!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBHLrpn07G4
http://www.break.com/movies/englishf.html

homo homini lupus

Komm Susser Todd.

No, no...no no no...whatever you are drinking, you need much, much more...and then to sleep. - jubaji

Mike Brewer

I'm sorry to say it, guys, but that's pure bunk. There are, of course, shreds of truth, but they are blown so completely out of proportion and framed so inaccurately as to be fairly laughable. You have to be objective when looking at stuff like this. That's not to say cynical or skeptical, because those start from conclusions, too. The real questions you have to ask are:

• Who really stands to gain?
• Who really stands to lose?
• What would it take for this to actually happen?
• Are those measures really the kinds of things that can stay hidden?
• When information comes to light, what elements of credibility does it have?
• When weighed against precedent and inductive reason, can the conclusions shown be considered likely or probable?
• And more importantly, can all this be accomplished by a cohesive team that can keep secrets of great magnitude without leaking anything?

Conspiracies rarely work, because people can't shut up. If you doubt this, we can do an experiment right here. I'll start a rumor via PM. I'll only send it to 10 people, and they'll be people I have historically been able to rely on. We'll talk about the rumor once or twice a week, and see how long it takes before someone gets wise. Now, we're already handicapping this, because people know about it and anyone I write to has an interest in proving they can keep a secret. But we're leveling the field by sparking some curiosity. So we'll be able to see how many incorrect assumptions are made by the curious. And if you're not into it here, do it in your own life. Get a rumor going. Tell one person something juicy, and swear them to secrecy. Then let a little "leak" happen to someone else. Don't tell them the whole story; just get them interested. Watch the radical assumptions they start to make. Then, the coup de grace. "Leak" another snippet, but this time, make it totally false. Make it detailed, believable, and incorporate the elements of the small leak from before, only lead people to a much different, more sinister conclusion. Lay it all out there, and just watch it take off. If you give it a couple weeks, people will believe the false story more readily than the truth. If you want to test that, tell them the truth. Tell them it was all an experiment and you made the whole thing up. Some of them won't even believe that.

Propaganda 101.

GQchris

I usually hate "conspiracy theories" too Mike.. my only problem with this is when everything will actually come to fruition.

__________________
Owner of a lonely heart.. much better than a owner of a broken heart...

Mike Brewer

I don't think it will, Chris. The idea that the world will ever function under a single government is just plain nuts.

TTEscrima

If it contains components that are true, it can't be pure bunk.

• Quote:

  Originally Posted by Mike Brewer Who really stands to gain?

  The rich.
  
  
  Quote:

  Originally Posted by Mike Brewer Who really stands to lose?

  Everyone who isn't rich
  
  
  Quote:

  Originally Posted by Mike Brewer What would it take for this to actually happen?

  War, famine, economic problems/ rising food and fuel cost destroying peoples savings, out of control crime and a forced dependence on the Government for survival.
  
  
  Quote:

  Originally Posted by Mike Brewer Are those measures really the kinds of things that can stay hidden? When information comes to light, what elements of credibility does it have? When weighed against precedent and inductive reason, can the conclusions shown be considered likely or probable? And more importantly, can all this be accomplished by a cohesive team that can keep secrets of great magnitude without leaking anything?

The chief argument against a government conspiracy of any kind is "how could they keep something like that secret?" If you've ever read Deep Politics and The Death of JFK by Peter Dale Scott he summed it up rather well.

"To the stock objection that it would be virtually impossible to assemble a murder conspiracy without leakage, the response is that an existing conspiratorial network or system of networks, already in place and capable of murder, would have much less difficulty in maintaining the discipline of secrecy."



The rest of this thread speaks directly to the problem addressed by Andrzej Lobaczewski in his book, Political Ponerology: The Science of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes.

In this seminal work on how evil rises to the top in any society and culture, and how it develops ramified networks of manipulation and control, the problem is addressed in terms of pathological deviance. In any society, there is a small percentage of deviant individuals who seek power over others. In a society, set up as the American society is, based on the previously described capitalistic ideology of John Calvin, what quickly develops is a "dog eat dog" world, and the fact is that deviant dogs always do better than normal ones. Lobaczewski writes:

"The actions of this phenomenon affect an entire society, starting with the leaders and infiltrating every village, small town, factory, business, or farm. The pathological social structure gradually covers the entire country, creating a "new class" within that nation. This privileged class of deviants feels permanently threatened by the "others", i.e. by the majority of normal people. Neither do the pathocrats entertain any illusions about their personal fate should there be a return to the system of normal man.

A normal person deprived of privilege or high position will go about finding and performing some work which will earn him a living; but pathocrats never possessed any solid practical talent, and the time frame of their rule eliminates any residual possibilities of adapting to the demands of normal work. If the laws of normal man were to be reinstated, they and theirs could be subjected to judgment, including a moralizing interpretation of their psychological deviations; they would be threatened by a loss of freedom and life, not merely a loss of position and privilege. Since they are incapable of this kind of sacrifice, the survival of a system which is the best for them becomes a moral imperative. Such a threat must be battled by means of any and all psychological and political cunning implemented with a lack of scruples with regard to those other "inferior-quality" people that can be shocking in its depravity.

In general, this new class is in the position to purge its leaders should their behavior jeopardize the existence of such a system. This could occur particularly if the leadership wished to go too far in compromising with the society of normal people, since their qualifications make them essential for production. The latter is more a direct threat to the lower echelons of the pathocratic elite than to the leaders.

Pathocracy survives thanks to the feeling of being threatened by the society of normal people, as well as by other countries wherein various forms of the system of normal man persist. For the rulers, staying on the top is therefore the classic problem of "to be or not to be".

We can thus formulate a more cautious question: can such a system ever waive territorial and political expansion abroad and settle for its present possessions? What would happen if such a state of affairs ensured internal peace, corresponding order, and relative prosperity within the nation? The overwhelming majority of the country's population would then make skillful use of all the emerging possibilities, taking advantage of their superior qualifications in order to fight for an ever-increasing scope of activities; thanks to their higher birth rate, their power will increase. This majority will be joined by some sons from the privileged class who did not inherit the pathological genes. The pathocracy's dominance will weaken imperceptibly but steadily, finally leading to a situation wherein the society of normal people reaches for power. This is a nightmare vision to the psychopaths.

Thus, the biological, psychological, moral, and economic destruction of the majority of normal people becomes, for the pathocrats, a "biological" necessity. Many means serve this end, starting with concentration camps and including warfare with an obstinate, well-armed foe who will devastate and debilitate the human power thrown at him, namely the very power jeopardizing pathocrats rule: the sons of normal man sent out to fight for an illusionary "noble cause." Once safely dead, the soldiers will then be decreed heroes to be revered in paeans, useful for raising a new generation faithful to the pathocracy and ever willing to go to their deaths to protect it. [...]

The ideology must, of course, furnish a corresponding justification for this alleged right to conquer the world and must therefore be properly elaborated. Expansionism is derived from the very nature of pathocracy, not from ideology, but this fact must be masked by ideology. Whenever this phenomenon has been witnessed in history, imperialism was always its most demonstrative quality. "

Reading is FUNdamental. Anyone who hasn't read The Creature from Jekyll Island by G.Edward Griffin or the essay by Martha Rose Crow, M.S. The Nine Stages of American Autogenocide is really missing out, most private forums and debate groups won't let you post if you don't have working knowledge of the info contained in these text.

Mike Brewer

If the true elements are misconstrued, then yes it can.

The rich gain through monopolies. A one world government would mean most of the rich and powerful would be forced into sharing their corners of the market. It's counter-productive. In that sense, many of the world's richest people stand to lose more than anyone. What happens if good and commodities are regulated the world over by one source? There's far less room for competitive advantage, that's what. The rich lose as much as anyone.

Likewise, if a one world government did actually work (which it can't), the poor would gain more than the rich. Standards of living have historically always gone up rather than down under strong centralized governments. Self fulfillment issues suffer in many ways, as does cultural identity, but the basic standard of living and wealth almost universally increase for the poor. Look at the histories of Empires from Rome onward, and I think you'll find that's true.

I don't mean to dismiss the things you wrote out of hand, and I'll read more of the original source material when I get time. But the boogeyman idea behind concepts like "Pathocrats" is indicative of conspiracy theories all over the place. First, the offenders have to be a group of people that aren't "like us." One of the very first rules of propaganda is that you have to objectify and demonize the intended target. Labelling everyone in politics a "pathocrat" (a made up term to describe a made-up condition that is neither proven nor diagnosable by any scientific means whatsoever) is just one way of doing that. It distracts, and for me such tactics reduce credibility rather than enhance it.

I've got a heavy study load right now, so forgive me if I'm not as well read on your sources as I could be. But I would submit to you that not one person here is more qualified, more experienced, or better trained to spot and assess the means and methods of propaganda than I am. It was a full time job for me, and one in which I excelled. I'm not discounting other opinions, and I'm not claiming to be the world's authority on the matter. Far from it. I'm simply suggesting that as you are obviously far and away more qualified to speak with authority on some topics because of your experience and training, my opinions on this are not just opinions. They are the products of trained analytical processes and many years of hands-on, real-world experience.

As such, I'll grant that you may have some really knowledgable sources and some very credible information that's worth looking into. But I also maintain that in my distanced and objective view, the production posted in the opening of the thread has all the marks of pure propaganda. Each and every category used to analyze such products is present, and each of them detracts from credibility. When you get enough of those boxes checked, the product can be reliably called - in industry terms - bullshit.

TTEscrima

You'll get no argument from me that you're an expert on dispensing BS which means you're also an expert on sniffing it out. Thats why I enjoy our debates, you make me think, thank you.

DickHardman

well in all fairness, there has been quite a lot of talk of a one world governmet for quite some time. for example, henry kissinger has been talking about his NWO idea for decades now, there are people like him who have claimed its going to happen or would benefit the world if it were to happen etc....

YouTube Video

Mike Brewer

We are the products of our pasts and future ambitions, I guess. I'm a guy who spent 8 years doing Psychological Operations and Counter-Intelligence, and I'm looking toward a future in government service, so I guess I can't really take offense to the Bullshit Dispenser comment.

I just hope when I get there - into Government Service, I mean - I'm not automatically branded as a "Pathocrat" just because of my job. That's the failure of such labels in my opinion; they do not take into account the individual character or integrity in the push to group the "enemy" together.

Mike Brewer

Dick, your timing on that video could not have been better. I spent the day yesterday face to face with Henry Kissinger (among others) talking about actions in Iran, Chile, Nicaragua, Cuba as well as talking about the role of a "New World Order" in times to come. His position wasn't that this New World Order would fall under the command and guidance of a single One World government as the conspiracy theorists like to claim, but that the face of international relations and alliances would change drastically in the future. Included in such drastic changes are the talks between previously warring cross sections of Iraqi Muslims, talks between Palestinians and Israel, and new alliances built between Major influencers like China, Russia, Iran, etc. His suggestion bears out when considered against such emerging organizations as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization - a cooperative effort between Russia and China to gain control and influence over the oil and gas producers in the 'Stans (and presumably later, Africa). The SCO has become a major force of influence, rivaling NATO in many sectors - but the organization and the function of the alliance does not threaten either China's or Russia's statehood any more than NATO has threatened the Statehood of its members.

Again, the New World Order you hear Kissinger talking about describes a new order of alliances, agreements, treaties, and geopolitics - not the dissolution of sovereign powers to bow universally to a single one-world government.

DickHardman

wow you talked to henry kissinger in person?? that guys is like, the michael jordan of conspiracy theories, he is an icon. for me talking to henry kissinger would have been like you guys getting to talk to larry bird or mark mcguire.

Mike Brewer

Yeah, I talked to him, to Brent Scowcroft, William Hood, David Robarge, Albert "Bud" Wheelon, Jennifer Sims, and to the current Director of Central Intelligence Agency, GEN Michael Hayden. Google some of those names an see what you come up with. Dick, you'd have been in UFO heaven.

The face time wasn't extensive, but they also gave speeches and sat on panels to take questions and discuss issues raised by the audience. Then we went to a social mixer/reception for an hour and a half afterward.

The spread was fantastic too, by the way. Georgetown University hosted an amazing, amazing event.

DickHardman

i would have stood up and asked every single one of those people the exact same question about the suppression of free energy and the technologies the united states military-industrial complex was able to create by analyzing pieces of machinery recovered from crashed interplanetary crafts/probes that are visiting our planet.