Brent oil strikes two-year peak above $104 per barrel get ready for $150

smeagold

bendix wrote: »

Oh. Right. A completely random quote from a two hundred year old businessman - yes, that's conclusive proof of a global conspiracy.

I'm convinced.

perhaps this might help:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s1j0KHTGfY

Kohoutek

smeagold wrote: »

perhaps this might help:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s1j0KHTGfY

If by "new world order", Gordon Brown was really referring to a global conspiracy led by the Rockefellers/Rothschilds/Illuminati, don't you think he'd be a little more discreet about it?

smeagold

Kohoutek wrote: »

If by "new world order", Gordon Brown was really referring to a global conspiracy led by the Rockefellers/Rothschilds/Illuminati, don't you think he'd be a little more discreet about it?

No because its not a secret. the phrase is used often by many politicians bush clinton obama brown blair sarkozy to name but a few

Brown http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-f9jcX9ao4
Obama http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CV8Xt2VWvc
Bush http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7i0wCFf8g
Blair http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ6uxAqlplc
Clinton http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1etgsNU46s4
Kissinger: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZlxtTxJAD4&feature=related
Sarkozy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3sDbRU2Huk
Harper(Oz PM) Soros etc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3sDbRU2Huk

All these guys talk about moving towards and creating a New World Order, so its obvious that that is exactly what they are doing.

The only question is what is the New World Order?

Kohoutek

smeagold wrote: »

All these guys talk about moving towards and creating a New World Order, so its obvious that that is exactly what they are doing.

The only question is what is the New World Order?

Wikipedia has a pretty good stab at it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order_(politics)

The term "new world order" has been used to refer to any new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power. Despite various interpretations of this term, it is primarily associated with the ideological notion of global governance only in the sense of new collective efforts to identify, understand, or address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve.

The first Western usages of the term surrounded Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points and call for a League of Nations following the devastation of World War I. The phrase was used sparingly at the end of World War II when describing the plans for the United Nations and Bretton Woods system, in part because of the negative association to the failed League of Nations the phrase would have brought. However, many commentators have applied the term retroactively to the order put in place by the WWII victors as a "new world order."

The most widely discussed application of the phrase of recent times came at the end of the Cold War. Presidents Mikhail Gorbachev and George H. W. Bush used the term to try to define the nature of the post Cold War era, and the spirit of great power cooperation that they hoped might materialize. Gorbachev's initial formulation was wide ranging and idealistic, but his ability to press for it was severely limited by the internal crisis of the Soviet system. Bush's vision was, in comparison, much more circumscribed and realistic, perhaps even instrumental at times, and closely linked to the Gulf War.

I don't think anyone would deny that the world is facing problems that are beyond the capacity of individual nations to solve but I don't see why "new world order" should be conflated with "one world government" or a global fascist dictatorship as is implied by conspiracy theorists.

smeagold

Kohoutek wrote: »

Wikipedia has a pretty good stab at it...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order_(politics)



I don't think anyone would deny that the world is facing problems that are beyond the capacity of individual nations to solve but I don't see why "new world order" should be conflated with "one world government" or a global fascist dictatorship as is implied by conspiracy theorists.

You only think that because you havn't adequately researched it. New World Order is synonymous with One World Government/Global Governance. have a look at this:

http://www.world-governance.org/spip.php?article622

or this:

http://www.fes-globalization.org/dog_publications/global_governance.htm

We are moving towards a One World Government. One World Bank and monetary system. One World International law. This is a reality and on the surface it may seem benign. Dig a bit deeper and you'll find its not. This is being achieved by collapsing this monetary system to bring the world to a point where every country will accept a world government, for the 'greater good'. By definition a single world government is totalitarian.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.

Kohoutek

smeagold wrote: »

You only think that because you havn't adequately researched it. New World Order is synonymous with One World Government/Global Governance. have a look at this:

http://www.world-governance.org/spip.php?article622

or this:

http://www.fes-globalization.org/dog_publications/global_governance.htm

I'm not denying that there are individuals like the academics that wrote those articles and groups that would like "one world government", but whether it actually going to happen is another matter.

smeagold wrote: »

We are moving towards a One World Government. One World Bank and monetary system. One World International law. This is a reality and on the surface it may seem benign. Dig a bit deeper and you'll find its not.

We're moving towards greater atomisation if anything: East Timor/Indonesia; break up of Yugoslavia; break up of Soviet Union; break up of Sudan, etc. I would say that a break up of the United States is more likely than "one world government".

How would a totalitarian one world government work if it's hard enough to maintain a totalitarian state in individual countries like Tunisia, Egypt, Iran etc? You would need a "one world military" for a "one world government". Last time I looked, most military men are pretty nationalistic...

smeagold wrote: »

This is being achieved by collapsing this monetary system to bring the world to a point where every country will accept a world government, for the 'greater good'. By definition a single world government is totalitarian.

"Collapsing the monetary system" wouldn't make nation states accept one world government, it would achieve anarchy and starvation.

smeagold

Kohoutek wrote: »

I'm not denying that there are individuals like the academics that wrote those articles and groups that would like "one world government", but whether it actually going to happen is another matter.



We're moving towards greater atomisation if anything: East Timor/Indonesia; break up of Yugoslavia; break up of Soviet Union; break up of Sudan, etc. I would say that a break up of the United States is more likely than "one world government".

How would a totalitarian one world government work if it's hard enough to maintain a totalitarian state in individual countries like Tunisia, Egypt, Iran etc? You would need a "one world military" for a "one world government". Last time I looked, most military men are pretty nationalistic...

"Collapsing the monetary system" wouldn't make nation states accept one world government, it would achieve anarchy and starvation.

There will be a one world military and police force. Anarchy and starvation are just tools as is food debt oil war etc. Iran will get taken out, as did Iraq, and for the same reasons(as Brown stated) the build up to the attck on Iran is well underway. As is the collapse of the monetary system. the talk now is not will it collapse but when and what do they replace it with. the collapse of the US is already far advanced and its all by design. Order from Chaos. Within 10 years probably much sooner we will have a world government.


"We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent".

James Paul Warburg while speaking before the United States Senate on February 17, 1950. Son of Paul Moritz Warburg, nephew of Felix Warburg and of Jacob Schiff, both of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. which poured millions into the Russian Revolution through James' brother Max, banker to the German government, Chairman of the CFR

Kohoutek

smeagold wrote: »

There will be a one world military and police force.

The Israeli Defence Force and Iranian Revolutionary Guard serving side by side? How about the US Army and the Russian Army, holding hands too?

smeagold wrote: »

Iran will get taken out, as did Iraq, and for the same reasons(as Brown stated) the build up to the attck on Iran is well underway.

If China's largest source of overseas oil gets attacked by the US, I would expect WWIII, not one world government.

smeagold wrote: »

As is the collapse of the monetary system. the talk now is not will it collapse but when and what do they replace it with. the collapse of the US is already far advanced and its all by design. Order from Chaos. Within 10 years probably much sooner we will have a world government.

I thought you watched "money as debt" Smeagold? Didn't you appreciate the point it made that a monetary system based compounding debt doesn't need design or planning for it to collapse?

smeagold

getting back to oil this from 2007:

Jose Barroso, President of the European Commission, announced during the unveiling of the new European energy policy that the time has come for a “post-industrial age.” "To bring the world into the post industrial age, you first need to destroy the world´s economic base and create another Great Depression. When people are poor, they don´t spend money, they don´t travel, and they don´t consume.

In 2008 the oil price spiked as did food (through "speculators")crashing the world economy. Now it's being crashed again.

Kohoutek

The oil price spiked in 2008 because supply has not increased since 2004/5 and demand has increased a lot. Attributing it to a conspiracy is bizarre.