12 of the Weirder Things Americans Still Believe

Jimbo

New Member
Just want to make sure we don't forget these...
5% believe that Paul McCartney died and was replaced by a look-alike
15% believe that the media or the government adds mind controlling technology to TV broadcast signals
14% believe in Bigfoot
21% believe that the government covered up a UFO crash at Roswell in 1947
6% believe that Osama bin Laden is still alive
28% believe that a new world order is conspiring to rule the world
4% believe that shape-shifting reptilians control the world
7% believe that the moon landings were faked
13% believe that Obama is the Anti-Christ
9% believe that the government adds fluoride to water for sinister reasons
18% believe that the sun revolves around the earth
5% believe in chemtrails
from http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2013/05/23/the-united-states-of-conspiracy/#more-97967

It would be interesting to have a poll or questionnaire on this sites that lists the 100 or 200 theories and people assess themselves as to how many they believe in.

Another interesting experiment is to make up new theories out of whole cloth, then test how many people start signing up for them.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
15% believe that the media or the government adds mind controlling technology to TV broadcast signals
Somewhat factual. See 'subliminal advertising'.
28% believe that a new world order is conspiring to rule the world
Factual. Search the term 'new world order' and look for a list of world leaders who have espoused such an aim. Doesn't have to be some Satanic cult, but it's a term that's synonymous with world markets/world currency/world government, something many world leaders are 'conspiring' to achieve.
7% believe that the moon landings were faked
Not nearly as ridiculous as some people might suggest. I've no personal stance on whether the moon-landing was faked or not, but there are some odd questions regarding how a single rocket in the 60's could make a month-long 240k mile round-trip when nothing to this day but a few reptiles, and them only just recently, have survived more than a month at an orbit of little more than 300 miles. Space is a rather hostile place the further out you get, as I understand it.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Just want to make sure we don't forget these...

from http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2013/05/23/the-united-states-of-conspiracy/#more-97967

It would be interesting to have a poll or questionnaire on this sites that lists the 100 or 200 theories and people assess themselves as to how many they believe in.

Another interesting experiment is to make up new theories out of whole cloth, then test how many people start signing up for them.
Lol... no figures for 9/11 was an inside job then?

Lot of evidence for bigfoot.

Roswell? You posted some pretty impressive evidence for that yourself. Are the witnesses not credible enough for you. Credible enough to be in charge of the military and in charge of nuclear missiles but too looney to be believed when they testify to cover ups?
 

Jimbo

New Member
I believe in like zero or one of the twelve items in the posting. What about you?

OK here is a crude merged list of 125 um, alternative beliefs. How many do you sign up for? 14 for me.


  • Paul McCartney died and was replaced by a look-alike
  • The media or the government adds mind controlling technology to TV broadcast signals
  • government covered up a UFO crash at Roswell in 1947
  • Osama bin Laden is still alive
  • A new world order is conspiring to rule the world
  • Shape-shifting reptilians control the world
  • Obama is the Anti-Christ
  • The sun revolves around the earth
  • creationism
  • alien visitations
  • crop circles
  • hollow earth
  • raelian
  • pleadians
  • loch ness monster
  • big foot
  • chupacabra
  • montauk monster
  • fairies
  • bunyrips
  • orbs
  • ley lines
  • chakras
  • poltergesits
  • past life regressions
  • spiritualism
  • bible code
  • psychics
  • glossolalia
  • exorcism
  • crystal powers
  • vitalism
  • qi
  • orgone energy
  • levitation
  • channeling
  • magick
  • seances
  • ouija
  • witchcraft
  • vampires
  • astral projection
  • indigo child
  • karma
  • ghosts
  • ectoplasma
  • automatic writing
  • voodoo
  • occult
  • wicca
  • zombies
  • atlantis
  • bermuda triangle
  • out of body experience
  • near death experience
  • auras
  • ganzveld experment
  • remote viewing
  • xenoglossy
  • periedolla
  • moon landing hoax
  • apocalyptic prophecies
  • new world order
  • conspiracy theories
  • hiv denial
  • holocost denial
  • chemtrails
  • power balance bracelets
  • astrology
  • dowsing
  • esp
  • tarot
  • transsubstantiation
  • numerology
  • spontaneous human combustion
  • clairvoyance
  • palmistry
  • the trinity
  • papal infallability
  • anti-vaccination
  • telepahty
  • geomancy
  • religious fundamentalism
  • holy relics
  • circumcision
  • telekinesis
  • papyromancy
  • prayer
  • penace
  • the rapture
  • reincarnation
  • scrying
  • angels
  • religious privilege
  • miracles
  • dianetics
  • nostradamus
  • scientology
  • homeopathy
  • chiropractic
  • acupuncture
  • reflexology
  • colonic irrigation
  • cranial osteopathy
  • feng shui
  • reiki
  • bach flower remedies
  • shiatsu
  • naturopathy
  • rolfing
  • trepanation
  • TCM
  • Gern therapy
  • ayurvedic
  • detox
  • ear candles
  • kinesiology
  • alpha biotics
  • consegrity
  • bioharmonics
  • angel therapy
  • faith healing
  • aura soma
  • anthroposophic medicine
  • cupping

It would also be interesting to see if I missed anything and add it to the list. For example there's this theory that the government puts secret messages on the BACKS of highway signs.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Factual. Search the term 'new world order' and look for a list of world leaders who have espoused such an aim. Doesn't have to be some Satanic cult, but it's a term that's synonymous with world markets/world currency/world government, something many world leaders are 'conspiring' to achieve.
The only president to use the term was the first George Bush in the early 90's. It's either noting that the world has changed after a series of events (the breakup of the Soviet Union, the first Gulf War, Serbia), or listing a few vague goals that he thinks are a good idea and that fit in with the direction the world is changing. Basically any form of international agreement or change in the balance of power is described as a "new world order".

Hi first use of the phrase,making it clear it's just describing how the world is after a change:

Then he gets fond of the phrase for the Gulf War

Soviet Union is a common context

Various others

He uses it about 90 times while president. this is the last one:

 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Here is a fun example of a poll from GLP . . . Note: the hot links are way old . . . http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1618683/pg1

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I believe in like zero or one of the twelve items in the posting. What about you?

OK here is a crude merged list of 125 um, alternative beliefs. How many do you sign up for? 14 for me.
I'm assuming there things are listed they imply some kind of supernatural explanation. Like Orbs are real things in photographs. And with the medical stuff there's the claim that it works consistently and reproducibly.

I'm pretty much zero there, but I'd need a longer definition of what the action claim is.

Why is pareidolia there though?

I think there's also a critical mass threshold, you won't find many people in the 60% to 90% range as one you've gone that far you might as well go all the way and believer everything - so at some point they simply flop over to 100% - at least giving everything a "maybe"
 

Grieves

Senior Member
The only president to use the term was the first George Bush in the early 90's.
Not true.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-new-world-order/story-e6frg6so-1225933524128

http://www.lafayette.edu/about/news...uprisings-signal-an-emerging-new-world-order/

http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/assembly/or-mand.html

There are more incredibly heavy hitters out there talking about the need for a 'new world order', but here are some presidents/heads of state. Again, I'm not saying there's more too it than a drive for world governance, but it is what it is.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Not true.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-new-world-order/story-e6frg6so-1225933524128

http://www.lafayette.edu/about/news...uprisings-signal-an-emerging-new-world-order/

http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/assembly/or-mand.html

There are more incredibly heavy hitters out there talking about the need for a 'new world order', but here are some presidents/heads of state. Again, I'm not saying there's more too it than a drive for world governance, but it is what it is.
I'm sorry I meant US president.

Clinton yes, I was just going by the American Presidency Project, which does not list that one - was he President when he said it?

There's actually just one on APP for Clinton as President, a moving out speech on an aircraft carrier.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=46330&st=new world order

Again though it's just the same "the world has changed" meaning that Bush used. He does not use the phrase again, perhaps try to distance himself from his predecessor.
 

Jimbo

New Member
I'm assuming there things are listed they imply some kind of supernatural explanation. Like Orbs are real things in photographs. And with the medical stuff there's the claim that it works consistently and reproducibly.
My list came from http://crispian-jago.blogspot.tw/2010/07/periodic-table-of-irrational-nonsense.html I think his emphasis is on beliefs that are not scientific or rational. More than CT per se.

But George's list is better. It hits the BIG CT theories. Many of which are not on my list yet.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Factual. Search the term 'new world order' and look for a list of world leaders who have espoused such an aim. Doesn't have to be some Satanic cult, but it's a term that's synonymous with world markets/world currency/world government, something many world leaders are 'conspiring' to achieve.
But its only "factual" in the sense that the term has been uttered. It means different things to different people. CT use as a catch-all to encompass everything you mentioned...But when you look at the context of any actual uttering of that term by "world leaders" is typically is something much more benign than a "world government".

Can you provide an example of a current "world leader" actively conspiring or even espousing a "world goverment" ?
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Can you provide an example of a current "world leader" actively conspiring or even espousing a "world goverment" ?
Sho.
Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now is the time for a strong international response -- (applause) -- now is the time for a strong international response, and North Korea must know that the path to security and respect will never come through threats and illegal weapons. All nations must come together to build a stronger, global regime. And that's why we must stand shoulder to shoulder to pressure the North Koreans to change course.
Obama, the current sitting president of the United States, espousing a level of Global Governance that could better police nuclear proliferation.

​ Award ceremony for Walter Cronkite which discusses his contributions toward the cause of a single world government. Hillary Clinton makes an appearance toward the end.
“But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.” (Editor’s Note: Gore makes the “global governance” comment at the 1min. 10 sec. mark in this UK Times video.)
Gore’s call for “global governance” echoes former French President Jacques Chirac’s call in 2000.
On November 20, 2000, then French President Chirac said during a speech at The Hague that the UN’s Kyoto Protocol represented “the first component of an authentic global governance.”
“For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance,” Chirac explained. “From the very earliest age, we should make environmental awareness a major theme of education and a major theme of political debate, until respect for the environment comes to be as fundamental as safeguarding our rights and freedoms. By acting together, by building this unprecedented instrument, the first component of an authentic global governance, we are working for dialogue and peace,” Chirac added.
Al Gore and a former French president both espousing global government.

The Council of Foreign Relations also frequently discusses the possibility of Global Government, and as we all should know is one of the most influential think-tanks in the states. Here's a pretty decent example of that.

There's a whole lot more out there... quite a few big names/organizations have espoused a governing body with a level of authority over all other nations. This isn't a 'conspiracy theory' at all, really. A whole lot of people, many of them high-powered individuals in business and politics, openly declare their desire for an 'NWO', as in a global government that needn't be so beholden to national sovereignty. I'm not even entirely against such a thing.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Sho...There's a whole lot more out there... quite a few big names/organizations have espoused a governing body with a level of authority over all other nations.
None of those constitute a One World Government.

You, however, highlight the problem- CTs simply see/hear the term "New World Order" or "global governance" and believe that is somehow confirmation that the PTB are scheming to rule the World via One government.

"global governance" does not mean a single governing entity- a World government. Its more of an idea to coordinate across multiple governing bodies and constituents.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_governance

So, you haven't actually provided evidence any World leader (no offense to Walt Cronkite but he is not a World leader) suggesting or conspiring for a single World Government.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
None of those constitute a One World Government.
rofl, uhuh.

glob·al

[gloh-buhl] Show IPA

adjective 1. pertaining to the whole world; worldwide; universal: the dream of global peace.
re·gime

[ruh-zheem, rey-, or, sometimes, -jeem] Show IPA

noun 1. a mode or system of rule or government: a dictatorial regime.


2. a ruling or prevailing system.


3. a government in power.


4. the period during which a particular government or ruling system is in power.


5. Medicine/Medical , regimen ( def 1 )
You, however, highlight the problem- CTs simply see/hear the term "New World Order" or "global governance" and believe that is somehow confirmation that the PTB are scheming to rule the World via One government.
Actually, you're highlighting the silly assumption people make about 'CTers' without actually considering the issue. Let me try to make this a little more clear. People, from philosophers to scientists to politicians of the highest office have frequently espoused the idea of a 'one world government'. The UN itself was a step in that direction, and would certainly count if it had any real authority over the worlds power-players. (which it clearly doesn't, as the Iraq war suggests.) Is it an exaggeration to suggest some shady occult group is behind this drive, has most world-leaders in its pocket, and want's to establish a global 'Big Brother' style dictatorship? Certainly. The exaggeration doesn't change the fact that there is, amongst many, a hope/will/drive to see a 'one world government' take shape. As I said, I'm not entirely against this idea, and actually I think it's somewhat inevitable and perhaps even essential where humanity is concerned. To pretend there aren't scientists, philosophers, and powerful politicians interested in the idea of a world-government for the sake of trying to call me a cook is just goofy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SR1419

Senior Member.
Again- you are confusing Global "government" with global governance.

Its a subtle but important distinction which was highlighted in my previous post.

Read the CFR piece you linked- one world government is not even hinted at:


..and I didn't call you a "cook"- nor even try.

(btw- I think you mean kook as opposed to a chef :D )
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Not true.

There are more incredibly heavy hitters out there talking about the need for a 'new world order', but here are some presidents/heads of state. Again, I'm not saying there's more too it than a drive for world governance, but it is what it is.
Is a World governance what we really want anyway? Look at the E.U and all the problems with that. Germany ascending at the expense of all the other Nations, especially the 'PIGS' and Cyprus. Even France is losing ground drastically. U.K want out.

International cooperation yes but not a World governance where a few Countries exert power over the others in an imbalanced way.

I don't see anything wrong with Nationalism so long as it is moderate. Each Country has the right to look after it's best interests. It is like the Human Rights Charter, everyone has their human rights but they are balanced and checked because everyone else has them as well.

Once you get a World Government, the possibility for abuse is increased dramatically. It makes me laugh, who does everyone root for in Starwars, the Federation or Hans Solo et al?

It also is ironic that despite the calls and espoused aims for a NWO, debunkers deny it and call CTists loony for claiming it is a goal.

As for 'Democracy'... where does that even come in? Look at Greece, they get an unelected autocrat/banker heading their government, pushing through German led policies which the people do not want.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Some decisions need to be made on a global level because they're big enough to affect us all, especially nuclear, chemical and biological warfare, plague epidemics, displacement of populations or food supplies due to climate change, environmental pollution, refugees... etc
It's just common sense. The world is an enclosed system, our actions effect each other.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
Again- you are confusing Global "government" with global governance.
Am I the one who's confused?
gov·ern·ance

[guhv-er-nuhns] Show IPA

noun 1. government; exercise of authority; control.


2. a method or system of government or management.
Read the CFR piece you linked- one world government is not even hinted at:
Plus, certain issues like government subsidies should be tackled at the global as opposed to regional or bilateral level. What is needed then are consultations among select developed and developing states alike that could set the stage for global negotiations regarding services, agriculture, and subsidies, in addition to the more traditional trade agenda.
Hint-hint.
A related challenge is that the international community lacks the necessary consensus to work out concepts, norms, and approaches in addressing myriad issues ranging from nuclear security to the growing influence of social media...- As a consequence, new mindsets and functioning mechanisms that are keys to global governance are hard to develop.
Hint-hint.
The third challenge involves harnessing regional efforts into common action on the global level. Discouraged by the stalemate of global governance building, many countries and regions are now turning to regional and sub-regional integration, which explains why we are seeing more regional and sub-regional free-trade agreements. If such a trend cannot be reversed in a timely fashion, then there will be no global governance in its real sense.
Nudge-nudge, wink-wink!

I honestly think its you who's confusing global government with planetary rulership.

Some decisions need to be made on a global level because they're big enough to affect us all, especially nuclear, chemical and biological warfare, plague epidemics, displacement of populations or food supplies due to climate change, environmental pollution, refugees... etc
It's just common sense. The world is an enclosed system, our actions effect each other.
Agreed entirely. Nationalism is a big setback in a lot of extremely important issues, the most important to me being human rights. That's why I'm not necessarily against global government.

(btw- I think you mean kook as opposed to a chef )
quite right... though work in restaurants long enough and its easy to get the two confused.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SR1419

Senior Member.
Am I the one who's confused?
Clearly- did you not read the definition of global governance by those who study international relations and policy?

Its more along the lines of Global public policy than any formal "government".

Moreover, those CT kooks (not you of course) that rattle with Alex Jones induced rage at the fear of the New World Order are not splitting hairs between governance and "government".

You seem to be more subtle such that you can discern the difference.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
New World order is completely factual - I make several orders per week at my local New World supermarket!

Seriously - I "believe in" lots of the things in jimbo's list in the sense that I believe the term exists and there is a definition for it. But I do not believe that ANY of the actual substantive "contents" of any of them exists.
 

Joe

Senior Member
New World order is completely factual - I make several orders per week at my local New World supermarket!

Seriously - I "believe in" lots of the things in jimbo's list in the sense that I believe the term exists and there is a definition for it. But I do not believe that ANY of the actual substantive "contents" of any of them exists.
Hope all is fine with you Mike ? http://www.3news.co.nz/Silent-quake-gently-rocks-Wellington/tabid/1160/articleID/299393/Default.aspx
 

Mackdog

Senior Member.
I think there is a speech from September 11th 1991 where he talks about a new world order. of course this lends credence to 9/11/01 being an inside job and the official beginning of the NWO for the CT'ers...
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
I believe in like zero or one of the twelve items in the posting. What about you?

OK here is a crude merged list of 125 um, alternative beliefs. How many do you sign up for? 14 for me.


  • Paul McCartney died and was replaced by a look-alike
  • The media or the government adds mind controlling technology to TV broadcast signals
  • government covered up a UFO crash at Roswell in 1947
  • Osama bin Laden is still alive
  • A new world order is conspiring to rule the world
  • Shape-shifting reptilians control the world
  • Obama is the Anti-Christ
  • The sun revolves around the earth
  • creationism
  • alien visitations
  • crop circles
  • hollow earth
  • raelian
  • pleadians
  • loch ness monster
  • big foot
  • chupacabra
  • montauk monster
  • fairies
  • bunyrips
  • orbs
  • ley lines
  • chakras
  • poltergesits
  • past life regressions
  • spiritualism
  • bible code
  • psychics
  • glossolalia
  • exorcism
  • crystal powers
  • vitalism
  • qi
  • orgone energy
  • levitation
  • channeling
  • magick
  • seances
  • ouija
  • witchcraft
  • vampires
  • astral projection
  • indigo child
  • karma
  • ghosts
  • ectoplasma
  • automatic writing
  • voodoo
  • occult
  • wicca
  • zombies
  • atlantis
  • bermuda triangle
  • out of body experience
  • near death experience
  • auras
  • ganzveld experment
  • remote viewing
  • xenoglossy
  • periedolla
  • moon landing hoax
  • apocalyptic prophecies
  • new world order
  • conspiracy theories
  • hiv denial
  • holocost denial
  • chemtrails
  • power balance bracelets
  • astrology
  • dowsing
  • esp
  • tarot
  • transsubstantiation
  • numerology
  • spontaneous human combustion
  • clairvoyance
  • palmistry
  • the trinity
  • papal infallability
  • anti-vaccination
  • telepahty
  • geomancy
  • religious fundamentalism
  • holy relics
  • circumcision
  • telekinesis
  • papyromancy
  • prayer
  • penace
  • the rapture
  • reincarnation
  • scrying
  • angels
  • religious privilege
  • miracles
  • dianetics
  • nostradamus
  • scientology
  • homeopathy
  • chiropractic
  • acupuncture
  • reflexology
  • colonic irrigation
  • cranial osteopathy
  • feng shui
  • reiki
  • bach flower remedies
  • shiatsu
  • naturopathy
  • rolfing
  • trepanation
  • TCM
  • Gern therapy
  • ayurvedic
  • detox
  • ear candles
  • kinesiology
  • alpha biotics
  • consegrity
  • bioharmonics
  • angel therapy
  • faith healing
  • aura soma
  • anthroposophic medicine
  • cupping

It would also be interesting to see if I missed anything and add it to the list. For example there's this theory that the government puts secret messages on the BACKS of highway signs.
LOL I forgot all about the "Paul is dead" thing. I remember watching a TV show about it back when it started. There was a courtroom setting where they presented evidence.

Montauk Monster, that really makes me LOL.

A quick scan but there's only one that I might think vaguely believable.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
Not true.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-new-world-order/story-e6frg6so-1225933524128

http://www.lafayette.edu/about/news...uprisings-signal-an-emerging-new-world-order/

http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/assembly/or-mand.html
There are more incredibly heavy hitters out there talking about the need for a 'new world order', but here are some presidents/heads of state. Again, I'm not saying there's more too it than a drive for world governance, but it is what it is.
I just think if it's "new world order" in the sense that CTers think, the incredibly heavy hitters out there would have more sense than to use the term. Except Bush. He must have not got the memo.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
I just think if it's "new world order" in the sense that CTers think, the incredibly heavy hitters out there would have more sense than to use the term. Except Bush. He must have not got the memo.
The option/potential for global governance in general is a new phenomenon that more or less began with the UN, hardly an ancient organization. The UN itself could easily be considered a 'global government', but for their lack of any substantial authority over decisions made on the national scale. The G8/G20 are rather closer to the mark I find, in that the results of those meetings are more likely to be real and substantial change, if not for the better. These systems of global governance are going to continue to develop over time, and the more populous and intermingled the world becomes the more power global governance is likely to gain, and its entirely likely that within the next 30 years or so that a global government with real oversight and a level of authority over nations will come into being, hopefully with an initial focus on Nuclear arms, the oil/transport/climate issue, and the ability to prosecute multinational corporations whom no one government can adequately police. 'CTers' are afraid such an idea, which is very obviously present in the minds of many world leaders today, will be a sort of Global fascism/feudalism, designed to establish a global ruling class and a global peasant class. These aren't entirely unfounded concerns, as the current economic climate is somewhat indicative of such a scenario, but there's a tendency among some to take it to the level of hysterics. That being said, there is a very real will to establish global government in the world, regardless of all the assorted motivations for such a cause. 'New World Order', as foreboding a term as some may consider it, is just a term used by some of those who espoused a similar vision.

Clearly- did you not read the definition of global governance by those who study international relations and policy?
I did indeed read that opinion on the definition of global governance, and didn't disagree with it, but governance remains intrinsic to government. Did you read this?

Plus, certain issues like government subsidies should be tackled at the global as opposed to regional or bilateral level.
Is this not a call for a global body capable of exercising real authority over nations, managing the subsidies those nations can bestow? Would such a body not be considered a government? Global government is a dream/calling/ambition of many. Some of the people who share that dream/calling/ambition are in positions of power. Is it for the sake of playing devil's advocate you avoid that fact?
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
The option/potential for global governance in general is a new phenomenon that more or less began with the UN,
Apparently, you haven't heard of the League of Nations...



Is this not a call for a global body capable of exercising real authority over nations, managing the subsidies those nations can bestow? Would such a body not be considered a government? Global government is a dream/calling/ambition of many. Some of the people who share that dream/calling/ambition are in positions of power. Is it for the sake of playing devil's advocate you avoid that fact?
No. its NOT a call for a global body.

Its more along the lines of Global public policy than any formal "government"....using existing institutions "in the absence of global government" to create multi-lateral approaches to coordination.

Global governance does not equal global government.


http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/about/altinay.jsp
 

Grieves

Senior Member
No. its NOT a call for a global body.
Its more along the lines of Global public policy than any formal "government"....using existing institutions "in the absence of global government" to create multi-lateral approaches to coordination.
You're conflating entirely separate statements. The management of national subsidies on the global, rather than the national stage would obviously require a managing body. A 'public policy' isn't going to do the actual work. Any managing body of national government subsidies on a global scale would be a global government. This hasn't happened, maybe wont, but it's quite clearly an idea being pondered.
Global governance does not equal global government.
Funny how meaningless terminology is to you one moment, how important it is the next. I ask again:
Global government is a dream/calling/ambition of many. Some of the people who share that dream/calling/ambition are in positions of power. Is it for the sake of playing devil's advocate you avoid that fact?
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Funny how meaningless terminology is to you one moment, how important it is the next. I ask again:
WTF?

Perhaps I was too generous in my assessment of your subtleties...

You claimed "world leaders" were calling for "global government" ...and then copied a bunch of quotes calling for global governance- WHICH IS NOT THE SAME THING.

I am sorry if you cannot understand that fact.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
There is a need for some global governance. Take fishing for an example. Without some controls on it, many fish would be fished out. Some types of whales would go extinct. There are other things like air pollution that crosses international lines.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
You claimed "world leaders" were calling for "global government" ...and then copied a bunch of quotes calling for global governance- WHICH IS NOT THE SAME THING.

I am sorry if you cannot understand that fact.
All nations must come together to build a stronger, global regime.

Please explain to me how the word regime is suggestive of 'governance' more-so than government. When regime is placed next to the word global, does the definition suddenly change? No? Then allow me to quote you this time:
and ask one more time
Global government is a dream/calling/ambition of many. Some of the people who share that dream/calling/ambition are in positions of power. Is it for the sake of playing devil's advocate you avoid that fact?
Or are you going to tell us what President Obama, one of those "world leaders", really meant, knowing him as well as you do?
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
So, just to clarify - Do you now understand and accept that global governance is different than global government and does not infer a one world government???

Please describe to me how the word regime is indicative of 'governance' more-so than government. When regime is placed next to the word global, does the definition suddenly change? No? Then allow me to quote you this time:

No- the definition does not change- its just which variation of the definition you- or the person who spoke- uses:


Definition of REGIME:

a : mode of rule or management
b : a form of government <a socialist regime>
c: A period of rule
d: A regulated system; a regimen



Yes, some people want a Global Government- however, none of the people you quoted were espousing that- except Walt Cronkite (who died in 2009)
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Rory Claim: UK Coronavirus Bill (HC Bill 122) means "bad things" Coronavirus COVID-19 9
Mick West Very Fast Soda Cans Hitting Things - Work in Progress Practical Debunking 12
Mick West Fireproof Cabbage, Burning Snow, Flat Earth - Are Some Things too Silly to Debunk? Practical Debunking 7
Mick West Audio Reference for Falling or Burning Things that Sound Like Explosions 9/11 4
deirdre Debunked: Chameleon changes color to match bath towel General Discussion 4
Mick West Butterfly UFO - Things it Might Be, Like an EDF Flying Wing UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 17
Clock Look at all of the nice things they have to say about us! :) General Discussion 0
Debunk This Chem/Con orbs.. no debunking these things Contrails and Chemtrails 234
MikeC 10 outlandish things the 'scientific' controllers have in mind for you Conspiracy Theories 4
Rroval "NASA Confesses to Dosing Americans with Air-borne Lithium & Other Chemicals" Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Virginia G Debunked: Over 30 Percent Of Americans Have An RFID Chip Implanted In Them [HOAX] Conspiracy Theories 10
Clock IRS imposing Obamacare onto Americans? Conspiracy Theories 0
Clock "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans." Quotes Debunked 2
Charlie Primero Army Air-Sprayed Poor Americans in Texas and St. Louis Contrails and Chemtrails 45
U Debunked: Mitt Romney: Americans don't die from lack of health insurance: Conspiracy Theories 0
cheeple Americans can now be killed without due process Conspiracy Theories 1

Related Articles

Top