Can someone debunk Vigilant Citizen?

[Mick West]

The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, convinced by general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks incessantly occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridæ—between the elephant and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and other mammals. But all these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms that have become extinct. At some future point, not distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. --Darwin

That's a rather old-fashioned racist notion. Do you think this is current thinking amongst some shadowy elite? Are they trying to reduce the population, or just kill off non-caucasians?

 

[Mick West]

Eric Pianka and some others, about as openly as can be expected given the history of their "biological thinking"/Nazism.

Pianka:

... I watched in amazement as a few hundred members of the Texas Academy of Science rose to their feet and gave a standing ovation to a speech that enthusiastically advocated the elimination of 90 percent of Earth's population by airborne Ebola. The speech was given by Dr. Eric R. Pianka (Fig. 1), the University of Texas evolutionary ecologist and lizard expert who the Academy named the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist.
Something curious occurred a minute before Pianka began speaking. An official of the Academy approached a video camera operator at the front of the auditorium and engaged him in animated conversation. The camera operator did not look pleased as he pointed the lens of the big camera to the ceiling and slowly walked away.
This curious incident came to mind a few minutes later when Professor Pianka began his speech by explaining that the general public is not yet ready to hear what he was about to tell us. [....]
Pianka then displayed a slide showing rows of human skulls...
AIDS is not an efficient killer, he explained, because it is too slow. His favorite candidate for eliminating 90 percent of the world's population is airborne Ebola ( Ebola Reston ), because it is both highly lethal and it kills in days, instead of years. However, Professor Pianka did not mention that Ebola victims die a slow and torturous death as the virus initiates a cascade of biological calamities inside the victim that eventually liquefy the internal organs.
After praising the Ebola virus for its efficiency at killing, Pianka paused, leaned over the lectern, looked at us and carefully said, "We've got airborne 90 percent mortality in humans. Killing humans. Think about that."
Doctor Doom, Eric Pianka, Receives Standing Ovation from Texas Academy of Science

I'm not sure what the point is. Some people want to "save the planet"... as if every single living thing on it isn't headed the way of the Dodo? There is nothing new under the sun.

But in the meantime, it's too bad that the "policemen of knowledge" don't seem interested in creating "free" energy devices instead or in trying to use bacteria as fuel and so forth. Too busy with imagining using or letting the Ebola or some other virus eliminate 90% of the people on earth in order to save... nothing, it would seem. Or perhaps the idea is to let a few lizards live a little longer than they would have otherwise before going extinct? This seems to go back to Darwinian creation myths, the idea of scarcity*... and the idea that life will naturally come from death or "order out of chaos" instead of life always begetting life. (I.e. what the actual experimental and empirical evidence shows, as Pasteur's flasks still sit devoid of life in a museum somewhere so far as I know.)

In any event, if anything like that were to happen due to a collection of academic clowns that probably haven't invented any technology or created a single bit of wealth for mankind in their useless lives then we'd be back to made it happen on purpose or let Ebola happen on purpose, huh? It's hard to tell with some of these clowns and mental midgets sometimes. They might just be that dumb.

Pianka was not advocating deliberately using Ebola, he was promoting his theory that some natural population adjustment is inevitable - a modern Black Death. Not that we should encourage it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Pianka#Texas_Academy_of_Science_speech

Pianka has stated that Mims took his statements out of context and that he was simply describing what would happen from biological principles alone if present human population trends continue, and that he was not in any way advocating for it to happen. The Texas Academy, which hosted of the speech, released a statement asserting that "Many of Dr. Pianka's statements have been severely misconstrued and sensationalized."[19] However, Dr. Kenneth Summy,[20] an Academy member who observed the speech, wrote a letter[21] of support for Mims' account, saying "Dr. Pianka chose to deliver an inflammatory message in his keynote address, so he should not be surprised to be the recipient of a lot of criticism from TAS membership. Forrest Mims did not misrepresent anything regarding the presentation."

Pianka has appeared on NBC-affiliate KXAN Austin[22] and "be on two cable talk shows Tuesday ... to try and clear his name". Pianka has posted an explanation on his University of Texas website (excerpt of longer statement):[23]

"I have two grandchildren and I want them to inherit a stable Earth. But I fear for them. Humans have overpopulated the Earth and in the process have created an ideal nutritional substrate on which bacteria and viruses (microbes) will grow and prosper. We are behaving like bacteria growing on an agar plate, flourishing until natural limits are reached or until another microbe colonizes and takes over, using them as their resource. In addition to our extremely high population density, we are social and mobile, exactly the conditions that favor growth and spread of pathogenic (disease-causing) microbes. I believe it is only a matter of time until microbes once again assert control over our population, since we are unwilling to control it ourselves. This idea has been espoused by ecologists for at least four decades and is nothing new. People just don't want to hear it... I do not bear any ill will toward humanity. However, I am convinced that the world WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us... We need to make a transition to a sustainable world. If we don't, nature is going to do it for us in ways of her own choosing. By definition, these ways will not be ours and they won't be much fun. Think about that."​

As a consequence of the controversy, Pianka and members of the Texas Academy of Science have received death threats.[24][25] According to Pianka, "His daughters are now worried about his and their safety, and says his life has been flip turned upside-down by 'right-wing fools.'"[26]

 

[Mick West]

Pianka has a bit of a communication problem:


He advocating population reduction - but he's not making clear that he'd just do it by lowering the birthrate, not killing people.

 

[Pete Tar]

...
But in the meantime, it's too bad that the "policemen of knowledge" don't seem interested in creating "free" energy devices instead or in trying to use bacteria as fuel and so forth. Too busy with imagining using or letting the Ebola or some other virus eliminate 90% of the people on earth in order to save... nothing, it would seem. ...

Why would a biologist be creating a free energy device?

Why are you taking the statement of one man to indicate the whole of scientific research and academia and his concerns as representing the policy of every scientist and engineer in the world? Ridiculous.
He's explained the context ...

(as mick posted this before me, I'll just edit it to what I think his main point was)

"... We need to make a transition to a sustainable world. If we don't, nature is going to do it for us in ways of her own choosing. By definition, these ways will not be ours and they won't be much fun. Think about that."
...

 

[Pete Tar]

...It's nothing like the bible. There are videos of jesus. ...

Please explain this, I'm confused.

 

[lemonlover]

What you think is irrelevant. It's what you can support with evidence that is important - the reasons why you think what you think.

Well, I have no concrete solid evidence that it means a world government., currency, etc. But, they are never going to come out and say "I want a new world order with the human race are slaves" are they. But Kissinger isn't talking about a positive world change because Bush mentioned it in 1991. You know the saying the road to hell is paved with good intentions. So obviously they are going to present the New World order as something positive. But I believe it isn't positive at all. I believe Brice Taylor,.......... I mean look what she claims happened to Michael Jackson ......... and here is a picture of Bob Hope with the Jacksons ..........

. Andy Paro and James Casbolt. You haven't answered my question as to what evidence contradicts what Kissinger and Rockefeller said in the videos? These people do not sound like they have our best interests at heart.

 

[lemonlover]

Please explain this, I'm confused.

Sorry, I meant to type "there are NO videos of Jesus. All I meant was that there is clear evidence the NWO is real and as far as I kniw there is no clear evidence that Jesus was real. I know this may not relate to Micks comment much but in hind sight, I read the comment wrong. I apologize it's 30 plus degrees here in England.

 

[David Fraser]

Sorry, I meant to type "there are NO videos of Jesus. All I meant was that there is clear evidence the NWO is real and as far as I kniw there is no clear evidence that Jesus was real. I know this may not relate to Micks comment much but in hind sight, I read the comment wrong. I apologize it's 30 plus degrees here in England.

But there is a really thick book written by multiple authors about him. Why is that any less valid than Youtube videos?

 

[Mick West]

All I meant was that there is clear evidence the NWO is rea

But all you have presented is evidence that people use the world "new world order". Not that anyone is actually planning a one-world-government.

 

[lemonlover]

But all you have presented is evidence that people use the world "new world order". Not that anyone is actually planning a one-world-government.

You have presented no evidence that they are not.

 

[lemonlover]

But there is a really thick book written by multiple authors about him. Why is that any less valid than Youtube videos?

I haven't read the bible. But, videos are clearer because you can actually see things with your own eyes. Anybody could write anything down down on a peace of paper.

 

[Pete Tar]

Sorry, I meant to type "there are NO videos of Jesus. All I meant was that there is clear evidence the NWO is real and as far as I kniw there is no clear evidence that Jesus was real. I know this may not relate to Micks comment much but in hind sight, I read the comment wrong. I apologize it's 30 plus degrees here in England.

Ah thanks. Evidence for historical (rather than supernatural) Jesus would be an interesting topic.

 

[Pete Tar]

I haven't read the bible. But, videos are clearer because you can actually see things with your own eyes. Anybody could write anything down down on a peace of paper.

And to point out the obvious, any body can say or act out anything anything in front of a camera.
It doesn't confirm anything they say, you have to look for other corroborating evidence for that.

 

[Mick West]

You have presented no evidence that they are not.

So? That's not an argument that the NWO exists. I've not presented any evidence that unicorns don't exist. That does not mean they do.

All I'm doing here is saying your evidence is weak and unconvincing, and pointing out the flaws in it.

You make the claims, so you back them up.

 

[lemonlover]

And to point out the obvious, any body can say or act out anything anything in front of a camera.
It doesn't confirm anything they say, you have to look for other corroborating evidence for that.

Well, in George Green's video he talks about a recession happening in 2008 which obviously happened.

 

[lemonlover]

So? That's not an argument that the NWO exists. I've not presented any evidence that unicorns don't exist. That does not mean they do.

All I'm doing here is saying your evidence is weak and unconvincing, and pointing out the flaws in it.

You make the claims, so you back them up.

Videos of politicians, and powerful people calling for and saying that a New World Order will happen is evidence of a new world order. You have to use a bit of common sense here. They are obviously never going to say "we want a new world order with the human race as our slaves.

 

[Mick West]

Well, in George Green's video he talks about a recession happening in 2008 which obviously happened.

So? Lots of people predict recessions.

 

[Mick West]

Videos of politicians, and powerful people calling for and saying that a New World Order will happen is evidence of a new world order. You have to use a bit of common sense here. They are obviously never going to say "we want a new world order with the human race as our slaves.

No, it's evidence they used the words. What's the evidence they meant what you claim they meant?

 

[Grieves]

I don't think anyone should accept vagueness in subscribing to a belief about the world in which they live.

I'm not saying it's ok to leave Satan and Super-villains un-named and still believe in them. I'm saying Satan and super-villains don't exist, and arguing for or against the specifics of their existence distracts from the realities of conspiracy theories.

Strangely naive comments. There are always external threats- especially in economics

Can you elaborate? What external threats would a global society face economically? Overpowering Martian currency? Cheap labor on Pluto?

Then you prognosticate about future (I assume you are speaking of the future because you comments seem to disregard current events) based on what...your feelings?

you've lumped a lot of responses to specific points together in your quote, so I'm not certain which you're addressing here specifically. Is it in reference to how economic globalization is establishing a society of commerce on a global scale? Because that's quite apparently happening, well and far along in fact... And fits rather squarely within the definition of economic globalization. Are you speaking as to the oppressive potential of such a society? That's not future speculation either, but actively observable in the word around you. Under the trend of globalization the concentration of worldwide wealth has reached staggering proportions, and people have been butchered en masse to facilitate this trend. Consider the quiet genocide of East Timor facilitated and encouraged by the West in order to open Timorese and Indonesian resources up to western and multinational corporations, and sell billions in American munitions... Integrating East Timor into the economic society of Globalization. My own nation, just like America, supported the Indonesians, while publicly admonishing them long after the worst of the killing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2006/dec/06/business.internationalnews
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_occupation_of_East_Timor

DO you really think that the Gazprom and China's state oil company want to collude and collaborate with Shell and Exxon to rule the World?

they're clearly willing too when it's mutually beneficial.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/glob...exxon-at-giant-iraq-oil-field/article9308138/

Really? I addressed the oil companies- you simply ignored the facts. Please quantify- how much $$ did ExxonMobile get from US government contracts?

ExxonMobil profits have increased by over 250% since 2000. Nothing benefits ExxonMobil like the American military machine in action, for reasons that should be obvious given they're the main supplier of oil to the armed forces. That coupled with the opening of Iraqi oilfields to them is the perfect combination. I said you had a blindspot because you quoted the significance of apple profits, one of the top-grossing companies in the world, and managed to leave exxon out, who's profits are comparative with when not superior than Apples.

Wow...really? come on Grieves you should be more diligent than that- Cook WAS a politician. He was elected to the House of Commons and was an MP for over 25yrs.

Was. As in the past. Prior to his position. Which means what in regard to his later appointed position as foreign secretary? What political motivation did he have in admonishing the choices of his own party and making public his knowledge in regard to AlQueda? What reason do you have to doubt him, besides 'cuz politicians is crooks!'?

he WAS drawing loose lines- he extrapolated that since CIA funded the Mujahedin that means the CIA "armed and trained" OBL. Despite absolutely no evidence of that. You put so much stock in this one politician's comment that you ignore the lack of evidence for the actual claim. Pretty standard I guess.

The CIA funded the Mujahadeen. Without the CIA, the Mujahadeen couldn't have operated effectively. OBL trained with the Mujahadeen. By default, the CIA supported and assisted OBL, whether or not a more direct relationship existed. An administrator of the top tier of British intelligence who resigned on principle flatly stated there is a connection.. An expert testimony if ever there was one. How is it that you know better?

I am sorry- which point was OBL clear on? He stated unequivocally that "Al Qaeda" was the name given to him by the CIA? Please provide reference.

No, he stated AlQueda was what the Mujahadeen base he trained at was called, and the name simply stuck among him and his people... Making that scholars speculations about deeper meanings somewhat irrelevant.

 

[lemonlover]

No, it's evidence they used the words. What's the evidence they meant what you claim they meant?

Well, I have no concrete solid evidence, that they mean a global military, world currency, bank etc. But I believe Brice Taylor, Andy Paro and George green. You say "well people predict recessions all the time" yes, but they don't claim to be in with the so called elite and claim to run the world. And you still haven't answered my question about what evidence contradicts what Kissinger and Rockefeller said. There is no smoke without fire.

 

[Mick West]

And you still haven't answered my question about what evidence contradicts what Kissinger and Rockefeller said. There is no smoke without fire.

I'm sure they meant what they said.

 

[Oxymoron]

Pianka has a bit of a communication problem:

I think that is quite some understatement there. Especially as he has just been honoured as a leading light.

He advocating population reduction - but he's not making clear that he'd just do it by lowering the birthrate, not killing people.

I think you are too fond of rewriting peoples quotes Mick. He said no such thing but I get the feeling you will 'look at it this way and that way', to get there. I think it more about what you 'wanted him to say'.

The guy is very worrying IMO.

I can't help noticing how he highlights 'Africa, M.E and India/Pakistan as places that are overpopulated and people would be better off dead'. Apart from the fact that these countries in the main, (not sure about Pakistan), hold massive resources and Africa is only 'overpopulated' because of politics/wars/corruption, causing famines which should not exist. The same with poverty in the M.E, it should not exist.

The generalisations about overpopulation which he uses are hardly what you would expect from an academic... to put it in terms of land mass is patently wrong, it is about distribution/apportionment of wealth, cessation of corruption, (both internal and international), that needs looking at.

Birth rates do need to be brought under control but I think that is about education which is not exactly easy when the only luxury the poorest people in the world have is rampant hormones, sex and an edict from 'His Pomposity', that contraception is evil.

If he didn't want to be 'misquoted', he should have let the camera keep rolling. Strange he should have it turned off just before the speech. Still, s'pose it was a coincidence.

 

[Mick West]

I think that is quite some understatement there. Especially as he has just been honoured as a leading light.

I think you are too fond of rewriting peoples quotes Mick. He said no such thing but I get the feeling you will 'look at it this way and that way', to get there. I think it more about what you 'wanted him to say'.

It's about what he actually says. He is not advocating killing people. Nobody is seriously suggesting killing people.

There's nothing complicated here. He thinks the world is overpopulated. He thinks there's a big risk of a pandemic that will kill people. He thinks there should be fewer people. He does not advocate killing people, so obviously he's talking about reducing the birth rate.

But let me quote him directly:

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~varanus/Controversy.html

In 2006, I was honored by the Texas Academy of Science, whose members bestowed upon me the title of "Distinguished Scientist". In accepting this fine award, I gave a keynote address on "The Vanishing Book of Life on Earth" (a pdf of the text of my speech is posted on line here). Most of my talk was an appeal for respect of endangered species and natural habitats, and I deplored the all too common anthropocentric attitude among many humans that we are above nature and that we can do whatever we want with natural habitats and other species. I compared the brainless runaway population growth of humans to bacteria growing exponentially on an agar plate. To underscore my point, I said that "we are no better than bacteria!" What this means, I pointed out, is that if we humans cannot find the will to control our own populations, microbes will do it for us. I concluded by discussing possible microbial agents and dismissed HIV as too slow, then suggested that something that killed fast like the Ebola virus might be our fate. I received a standing ovation by the audience of several hundred scientists after my talk, but a couple people with sour faces remained seated and did not applaud. These guys turned out to be creationists.

Misguided creationists and conspiracy theorist fools including but not limited to Forrest Mims, Shawn Carlson, William Dembski, Kenneth Summy, John Ballantyne, Alex Jones, William Lane Craig, and Tapio Puolimatka have mounted a campaign to make it seem as if I'm some kind of monster. They have even modified the Wikipedia account to that effect. Dembski and Mims are fellows of the so-called "Discovery Institute", avowed creationists ("intelligent design" freaks). Mims' web page attacking me as "Dr. Doom" was hosted by the so-called "Society of Amateur Scientists" in fact a pseudo-scientific front covering up for an organized anti-evolutionary campaign.

In his attack on me, Mims deliberately prevaricated when he asserted that

"Something curious occurred a minute before Pianka began speaking. An official of the Academy approached a video camera operator at the front of the auditorium and engaged him in animated conversation. The camera operator did not look pleased as he pointed the lens of the big camera to the ceiling and slowly walked away."​

This bald-faced lie is intended to captivate readers into thinking that my talk was not videotaped for some nefarious reason. In actuality, no videotape 'operator' was present. Mims promulgated several other lies as well, and has accused me of genocide. Another lie was that I recommended loosing Ebola upon human populations. I most assuredly did not. In the question and answer session, I joked about the impossibility of sterilizing everybody on Earth, which Mims sensationalized and gleefully reported as "he wants to sterilize everybody on Earth!" on Alex Jones' foolish conspiracy theory talk show.

There's more detail at the link. But that should make his intent perfectly clear.

 

[SR1419]

I'm not saying it's ok to leave Satan and Super-villains un-named and still believe in them. I'm saying Satan and super-villains don't exist, and arguing for or against the specifics of their existence distracts from the realities of conspiracy theories.

Is this directed at me? I didn't write the comment you quoted.

Can you elaborate? What external threats would a global society face economically? Overpowering Martian currency? Cheap labor on Pluto?

seriously???? maybe environmental disasters or resource depletion or crisis of confidence.

Is it in reference to how economic globalization is establishing a society of commerce on a global scale?

Global trade has existed for 100s of years. Its not new. Its faster but not new.

And fits rather squarely within the definition of economic globalization. Are you speaking as to the oppressive potential of such a society? That's not future speculation either, but actively observable in the word around you. Under the trend of globalization the concentration of worldwide wealth has reached staggering proportions, and people have been butchered en masse to facilitate this trend

...and this is different than recorded history how?? You are not pointing out anything that hasn't happened throughout history for 1000s of years.

they're clearly willing too when it's mutually beneficial.

Not quite- Exxon is balking and will probably have to sell their stake. Moreover, its clear that CHina is the biggest beneficiary of Iraq oil....not the US oil titans who supposedly drove the war machine. Another failed meme.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/w...its-of-iraq-oil-boom.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

ExxonMobil profits have increased by over 250% since 2000. Nothing benefits ExxonMobil like the American military machine in action, for reasons that should be obvious given they're the main supplier of oil to the armed forces. That coupled with the opening of Iraqi oilfields to them is the perfect combination. I said you had a blindspot because you quoted the significance of apple profits, one of the top-grossing companies in the world, and managed to leave exxon out, who's profits are comparative with when not superior than Apples.

Indeed- all oil companies profits have increased since 2000- The question is what percentage- if any- of that increase came as a result of US military action?

Moreover, its inaccurate to say Exxon is "the main supplier of oil to the armed forces"- That distinction is split between 4 different companies and the percentage each supplies changes from year to year:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40459.pdf

I didn't mention Exxon because you were talking about direct financial benefit from US military action in Iraq- thus the companies that received government contracts in Iraq were the pertinent companies to discuss- and the amount of $$ made from those contracts is miniscule compared to other broader corporate revenue trends. Exxon's huge profits do not stem from their Iraqi contracts- if so, they would not be trying to get out of the country. I am not saying they didn't benefit but that their profits were not the driving force behind going to war.

Was. As in the past. Prior to his position. Which means what in regard to his later appointed position as foreign secretary? What political motivation did he have in admonishing the choices of his own party and making public his knowledge in regard to AlQueda? What reason do you have to doubt him, besides 'cuz politicians is crooks!'?

Wow- you really just can't admit that you are wrong can you? We was MP before his post...and after "After his 2003 resignation from the Cabinet, Cook remained an active backbench Member of Parliament until his death"

the dude was life-long politician- ..Do you consider John Kerry or Hilary Clinton not to be politicians because they were/are Sec of State?

I do not doubt that he believed what he said - but as is typical of politicians they play loose with the facts to try and make a point. You want to believe him because it assuages your bias.

The CIA funded the Mujahadeen. Without the CIA, the Mujahadeen couldn't have operated effectively. OBL trained with the Mujahadeen. By default, the CIA supported and assisted OBL, whether or not a more direct relationship existed. An administrator of the top tier of British intelligence who resigned on principle flatly stated there is a connection.. An expert testimony if ever there was one. How is it that you know better?

I suggest you research the role of the Arab contingent in the Afghani mujahadeen...they were not part of the main fighting force nor really part of the main conflict. OBL funded his camps himself along with other Saudi patrons. CIA did support the mujahedin and OBL was an ancillary part of the mujahedin. But to say the CIA "created" OBL is not accurate.

No, he stated AlQueda was what the Mujahadeen base he trained at was called, and the name simply stuck among him and his people... Making that scholars speculations about deeper meanings somewhat irrelevant.

So...who is correct Robin Cook or OBL??

 

[Cairenn]

I thought that BP was the major military fuel supplier.

 

[Grieves]

"Is this directed at me? I didn't write the comment you quoted."

Sorry, no, I'm using a device that functions pretty terribly with the site, and if I tried to provide he direct quotes I'd be here for hours. If you see me quoting a comment you didn't make, it's safe to assume the following response isn't directed at you, but feel free to comment anyway if you feel the need. I'm actually, and forgive me, going to start just using quotes until I'm back to civilization.. As just providing the blue quote boxes is a heavy hassle.

"seriously???? maybe environmental disasters or resource depletion or crisis of confidence."

Crisis of confidence is an internal factor. Environmental issues are just that, environmental. Yes, the world could end. Yes, that would be an issue. That has nothing to do with the external influence of another society, which is what I'm pretty clearly talking about when I mentioned that advantage.

"Global trade has existed for 100s of years. Its not new. Its faster but not new."

Sure, but we're not talking about simple trade. We're talking about an established and accepted system of global commerce. That is an entirely new phenomenon. The WTO for example was conceived in 95.

"...and this is different than recorded history how?? You are not pointing out anything that hasn't happened throughout history for 1000s of years."

That's a ludicrous statement. The current wealth gap isn't new, and has existed for thousands of years? Do you lack all concept of scale? There have in many (but not all) cultures always been rich people and always been poor people, and I believe this to be the basis of your statement. None the less, that equates to "people have been killing each other for thousands of years, so there's nothing new about thermonuclear war."

"Not quite- Exxon is balking and will probably have to sell their stake. Moreover, its clear that CHina is the biggest beneficiary of Iraq oil....not the US oil titans who supposedly drove the war machine. Another failed meme."

China is certainly the biggest national recipient of Iraqi oil. That's nice for China, too bad for America. ExxonMobil doesn't give a flying fuck about which country gets how much oil. As you pointed out, owning oil isn't their business. They care about making the largest profit possible. And they are. Largest profits in the world in fact, topping out the fortune 500. Something that wouldn't have been possible without a decade or so of war in Iraq.

" Exxon's huge profits do not stem from their Iraqi contracts-"

but are the direct result of warfare in iraq and neighbors, and it's impact on the global economic system.

" I am not saying they didn't benefit but that their profits were not the driving force behind going to war."

There were many driving forces, most all of them that weren't fictional being monetary in nature. General electric, Northrup Grumman, and Exxon mobil are all major contributors too and beneficiaries of American war efforts, and also happen, in that order, to be the three top corporate lobbyists of the federal government between 98 and now. I'd agree entirely exxon mobil profits weren't the sole motivator of the Iraq war. But if you think it was more about WMDs than corporate profits, Condi has a bridge to sell you.

"I do not doubt that he believed what he said - but as is typical of politicians they play loose with the facts to try and make a point.
You want to believe him because it assuages your bias."

I believe him because he had access to the facts, Because he had the intelligence to advice adamantly against the UK entering Iraq, and had the moral fortitude to resign his position of high office when the UK went to what he believed to be an illegal war. Integrity counts for something to my mind. You don't believe him, aside from his contradicting the position you already hold of course, because you assume he probably lacks integrity.

"I suggest you research the role of the Arab contingent in the Afghani mujahadeen...they were not part of the main fighting force nor really part of the main conflict. OBL funded his camps himself along with other Saudi patrons. CIA did support the mujahedin and OBL was an ancillary part of the mujahedin. But to say the CIA "created" OBL is not accurate."

The CIA was directly responsible for the success of the Mujahadeen. Without CIA support, they could not have challenged the Russians, and AlQueda would have been impossible. The CIA probably didn't assemble OBL in a lab, quite right. But they certainly supported him and his allies by default.

"So...who is correct Robin Cook or OBL??"

Both, most likely. Cook stated the CIA database was labeled AlQueda long before the organization AlQueda existed. OBL stated he picked up the name from his Mujahadeen training camp, and later it became the name of their organization.

Not to sound like a politeness nazi, but could you change the tenor of your posts a bit if you decide to continue this conversation?The repeat question marks and ...'s are grating, and I don't appreciate direct insults... Especially when they falsely imply I conveyed the same sentiment first.

 

[Melbury's Brick]

Well, I have no concrete solid evidence, that they mean a global military, world currency, bank etc. But I believe Brice Taylor, Andy Paro and George green. You say "well people predict recessions all the time" yes, but they don't claim to be in with the so called elite and claim to run the world.

Your belief is not enough. There are any number of religions across the world and when it comes to the biggest question of all, an absolute maximum of one of them will be right. The rest will have had their followers believing the wrong thing. The world is full of "preachers" like Green and co. delivering a message that is, either by accident or design, wrong.

 

[Pete Tar]

Is this directed at me? I didn't write the comment you quoted.



...

No that was for me.
(for future reference Grieves, you can quote multiple posts easily just by clicking reply on each relevant post and it will multi-quote posts all in the same reply window. I think this is a new feature.)

 

[lemonlover]

Your belief is not enough. There are any number of religions across the world and when it comes to the biggest question of all, an absolute maximum of one of them will be right. The rest will have had their followers believing the wrong thing. The world is full of "preachers" like Green and co. delivering a message that is, either by accident or design, wrong.

You have given me zero evidence to "debunk" anything I've shown you. There are some people who will never believe anything no matter how much evidence you put in front of them. I think you're one of these people.

 

[Pete Tar]

You have given me zero evidence to "debunk" anything I've shown you. ....

Can you think of anything that you would accept as evidence? What proves that there is no NWO? Is it something that can be disproved in the first place?
It's not really something that can be proven to be false - it may be proven to be true in certain circumstances, but it cannot be proved false unless a specific prediction is made that does not come to pass.
Can you think of a simple prediction about either an event or a character that is something you would consider proof against the existence of a NWO if it didn't happen?
Or would you just keep suspecting and move it further into the future, always waiting for 'it' to happen?

 

[David Fraser]

You have given me zero evidence to "debunk" anything I've shown you. There are some people who will never believe anything no matter how much evidence you put in front of them. I think you're one of these people.

Evidence? I have not seen any evidence. You have made many claims so far.

Blokes in a cave could not plot an attack against a "technologically" advanced nation.
The UK will surrender sovereignty to the EU on 1st Jan 2014
The UK will never let Scotland leave after a referendum
The EU will never let the UK leave after a referendum
There is a New World Order about so storm in and set up a one world government

For many of those claims you have either said "I have no evidence" or directed us to watch Brice Taylor or George Green.

Lets look at those sources

Brice Taylor - A woman that claims to be a victim of Project Monarch/MK Ultra and a sex slave in the Whitehouse for many years, been raped by all presidents, Hollywood stars and the British Royal family, who by her own admission has suffered from "Multiple personality Disorder", and was owned by Bob Hope
George Green - A man who claims to be a millionaire, former investment banker yet there is no trace of his name outside of conspiracy websites and his own $160,000 a year making website. A man who claims that his insider information is the result of contact with aliens from the Plaeides.
Your evidence also revolves around politicians like Kissinger saying in passing a "new world order". Please note this is where the written word is of benefit. A "new world order" is entirely different to "New World Order".

So taking your unsubstantiated claims and the sources of your evidence how do you think most people would interpret your argument for a New World Order?

 

[Melbury's Brick]

Well, I have no concrete solid evidence that it means a world government., currency, etc. But, they are never going to come out and say "I want a new world order with the human race are slaves" are they.

Exactly.

 

[Melbury's Brick]

You have given me zero evidence to "debunk" anything I've shown you. There are some people who will never believe anything no matter how much evidence you put in front of them. I think you're one of these people.

Provide a source beyond W.G. Carr's book for the "25 illuminati goals".
Explain why, in the face of Green's "reduce the population" accusation the number of people born every day worldwide continues to grow.
Green says that camps "for the enemy" are being built all over the USA.....provide co-ordinates or an address for one.
Provide a source for anything that Green said in relation to the NWO other than his own book(s).
Green "predicted" a recession (one that anyone with the most scant interest in the economy saw coming)...Provide proof that this is connected to the existence or advent of an evil NWO.

 

[lemonlover]

Can you think of anything that you would accept as evidence? What proves that there is no NWO? Is it something that can be disproved in the first place?
It's not really something that can be proven to be false - it may be proven to be true in certain circumstances, but it cannot be proved false unless a specific prediction is made that does not come to pass.
Can you think of a simple prediction about either an event or a character that is something you would consider proof against the existence of a NWO if it didn't happen?
Or would you just keep suspecting and move it further into the future, always waiting for 'it' to happen?

Well you're asking me to disprove it, you people are the "de-bunkers"

 

[Pete Tar]

Well you're asking me to disprove it, you people are the "de-bunkers"

I'm asking you to just honestly think about it.
It wasn't rhetorical.

 

[Melbury's Brick]

You have given me zero evidence to "debunk" anything I've shown you.

="lemonlover, post: 56474, member: 2260"]Well you're asking me to disprove it, you people are the "de-bunkers"

Ignoring the self contradiction here....your claims have been debunked because you cannot answer questions about the sources that they came from. You have shown nothing to contradict the fact that the 25 goals are a fabrication.
Nothing to contradict the assertion that George Green is nothing more than a conspiracy theorist with none of the connections or history attributed to him.
Nothing to contradict the assertion that Brice Taylor can verify none of her claims or that she has not suffered from the very kind of mental illness that could foster such delusions. Nothing to contradict the assertion that any of the people who have used the expression "new world order" intended it to mean any kind of evil economic and military domination of the globe and the words were interpreted in the quest for confirmation.

The only words that you have used that have any credence are......

I have no concrete solid evidence, that they mean a global military, world currency, bank etc.

 

[JeffreyNotGeoffrey]

Well you're asking me to disprove it, you people are the "de-bunkers"

They were asking for a smoking gun type of evidence. Say a credible Presidential study that found nothing about the NWO or pieces of correspondence from world leaders actively looking for the NWO and being unable to find it.

There is no real evidence of a unfied world government being intended or sought. When countries wish to join, they do like East and West Germany. There are the UN and the EU. Even those two are more or less loose organizations that allow the local independence of the constituent parts.
To my knowledge there are no major countries asking to be joined financially and militarilly and politically. It is usually a limited regional thing like NATO. And there are no deep connections between the US and Canada even though they are both a part of NAFTA, NATO, and the UN. Both countries would shudder at the thought of actual full unification. The same is true for the EU. France and Germany don't mind levels of cooperation, but it is ludicrous to suggest they want a single government together. Every country basically wants a say in the world but wants local sovereignty.

 

[Grieves]

"(for future reference Grieves, you can quote multiple posts easily just by clicking reply on each relevant post and it will multi-quote posts all in the same reply window. I think this is a new feature.)"

Thanks, I know that's how one typically does it, but even getting the reply button to work is hit and miss ATM (didn't work for me as I tried it just now), and when replying to a large post with multiple points, even if it worked it would take me a painfully long time just to edit the post down to the points I'm commenting on. Perfect storm of iPad, the new site format, and my stuttering connection here. Hope y'all understand.

"To my knowledge there are no major countries asking to be joined financially and militarilly and politically. It is usually a limited regional thing like NATO. And there are no deep connections between the US and Canada even though they are both a part of NAFTA, NATO, and the UN. Both countries would shudder at the thought of actual full unification. The same is true for the EU. France and Germany don't mind levels of cooperation, but it is ludicrous to suggest they want a single government together. Every country basically wants a say in the world but wants local sovereignty."

I think you're somewhat underestimating just how cozy Canada and America are right now, especially with the conservative government in power on the Canadian end. Harper is a major fan and advocate of further integrating our economies, and parrots US foreign policy rather consistently. Still, I don't entirely disagree with you. I don't foresee nations giving up their names, their borders, or the concept of sovereignty any time in the foreseeable future. What I see in the world already however, the future aside, is a global monetary system that allows corporate culture to transcend national sovereignty, and that's the direction the trend of Globalization is likely to continue in. Not to conquer, end and replace all nation-states with some Orwellian Ultra-State, but to dwarf the significance of Nation-states on the global stage, affording more and more authority to those who hold wealth, rather than those who govern the Nations and peoples from which that wealth is extracted.

 

[JeffreyNotGeoffrey]

Well forgive me neverknwo, but they sound very far from capable or menacing. I will not be worrying about them

 

[David Fraser]

Exactly. Maybe they'll let you touch their special nwo magic crystal rock as concrete evidence too?

Do you think they are available for birthdays?


All joking aside would their idea of a federal government be a bad thing?