Can someone debunk Vigilant Citizen?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Grieves

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

I'm not wholly against such a thing at all, as I've said before... And believe it could be somewhat inevitable. A democratic global government would be a logistical nightmare, but far preferable to corporate and personal success as the real determining factors in who's steering our progress through the information age on the transnational scale. That's the 'New World Order" I see forming: wealth as the highest authority.
 
Last edited:

SR1419

Senior Member.
Sorry if you got your feelings hurt but I did not intentionally insult you...unless pointing out errors of fact is insulting to you. I like using dots...get over it.


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.

So, environmental factors are not a potential external threat to global economic society? I assumed you meant external to the economy not to the globe- So, I take it you have never heard of the Black Swan theory:

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

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.

Sorry- its not "an entirely new phenomenon" - The WTO was created in 1995 but its predecessor - GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) established rules for Global trade since 1948...the US and Canada signed a free trade agreement in 1935 and even further back World Economic Conference in May 1927 organized by League of Nations led to drawing up of a Multilateral Trade Agreement. The Cobden-Chevalier treaty in 1860- a bilateral trade agreement between England and France set the precedent for a range of bilateral agreements across Europe that then set the stage for multilateral agreements in the next century.

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."

Its not ludicrous to point out that the very premise of your angst is not a new phenomenon. Can you quantify what the wealth distribution was in 1000BCE or 1000AD? The rich are getting richer but that doesn't automatically equate to the poor getting poorer. The fact is there are more people NOT living in poverty than ever before both nominally and as a percentage. A rising tide lifts all boats;

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/little-notice-globalization-reduced-poverty

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

That sounds good- and you may even be right- but how do you know? Can you quantify it? How much of their profit is directly related to the war in Iraq? Exxon profits stem from its global operations and as such come from a wide range of activities. Can you point out which profits stem from global warfare? Exxon averages about $400 Billion per year in revenue...they average about $700 million in fuel sales to the US military...about %.175.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2013/04/25/exxon-profits-hit-paydirt-but-revenue-light/

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.

So, you believe him because he agrees with your political views. You can wax holier-than-thou all you want but the truth is he was a career politician and my experience is that politicians often spin, exaggerate or simplify the truth (or even outright lie) in order to make a point- especially years later in an interview that makes for a nice sound-bite.

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.

Thats a very bold claim- one that I think many in Afghanistan as well as Afghan scholars would disagree with. If you truly learn the history of OBL and his time spent in Pakistan, SArabia and Sudan I think you would understand that AL Qeada could have/would have been very possible without CIA involvement in Afghanistan...especially in light of the fact there is no evidence that the CIA had any direct involvement with AQ or OBL.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/27/10-myths-about-afghanistan

Both, most likely. Cook stated the CIA database was labeled AlQueda long before the organization AlQueda existed.

I wonder how he would know that since AQ was founded in approximately 1988 and he didn't become Foreign Secretary until 1997...suggesting AQ actually means "database" instead of "foundation" is just not a logical assertion.


Of course, none of this discussion changes the fact that the desire for economic control now is no different than any other time...the tools with which they use to achieve their ends may be "new" but the underlying premise is the same as it ever was.

As for "global military control"- thats even less of a reality.
 
Last edited:

Grieves

Senior Member
"Sorry if you got your feelings hurt but I did not intentionally insult you...unless pointing out errors of fact is insulting to you."
It's not a matter of feelings, it's a matter of conducting a relatively meaningful conversation. It's less and less likely the further we get from civility. When you said:

"Thats funny because I was just thinking the same thing about you...the nonsense that you purvey clouds your judgement to point of not being able to truly put things in historical perspective- whinging instead about "Global Military and Economic Control" without even thinking about whether its even possible."

You were pretty clearly attempting to insult, especially considering the opening sentence, given it was in reference to this comment of mine, which didn't carry any of the same sentiments:

"Debunkers on this site often seem to have the same problem. They get so bogged down in all the nonsense surrounding conspiracy theories that the bigger picture eludes them... Going so far as to demand super villains and Satan be called out by name before the premise of a conspiracy can even be considered."

If you don't think we can talk this over while being civil with each other, that's fine. I'm just saying I'd prefer it if we could.

" I like using dots...get over it."

me too honestly, I've a major tendency to overuse them for 'effect' when writing creatively. Still, it's pretty clear in this instance the '...'s and '???'s are trying consistently to convey the idea what I'm saying is totally ridiculous.

"That sounds good- and you may even be right- but how do you know? Can you quantify it? How much of their profit is directly related to the war in Iraq? Exxon profits stem from its global operations and as such come from a wide range of activities. Can you point out which profits stem from global warfare? Exxon averages about $400 Billion per year in revenue...they average about $700 million in fuel sales to the US military...about %.175."
Consider your personal situation. Assuming you drive, how much did gas cost you 20 years ago compared to now? What events did the considerable spike in gas prices directly coincide with? How long has "turmoil in the middle east/Africa drives up gas prices" been a repeating theme in financial news in most all developed nations of the world? Give it a search, there's most definitely no shortage of examples. War drives up scarcity and uncertainty, scarcity and uncertainty drive up prices considerably where oil is concerned, companies like Exxon soar as a result. Given the nature of the profit-motive, why wouldn't exxon lobby for war?

"I wonder how he would know that since AQ was founded in approximately 1988 and he didn't become Foreign Secretary until 1997"
Oversight of the British intelligence machine and considerable access to their records and personnel would be a safe bet.

"Of course, none of this discussion changes the fact that the desire for economic control now is no different than any other time...the tool with which they use to achieve their ends may be "new" but the underlying premise is the same as it ever was."

Quite right. There's nothing new about a desire to dominate, even at the global scale. The information age and the technological boom/drastic advancements in global communication/transportation/trade/warfare that have come with it IS new, and facilitates this desire for dominance at an entirely and unquestionably unprecedented scale. The vast majority of tyrannical figures and societies that sought to rule the world throughout history didn't even have an accurate concept of the world's scale yet. Correct me if i'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that because 'underlaying premise' of domination isn't a new one, efforts to achieve it over the modern world aren't surprising, and therefor are of no real significance and function to no great effect. I agree that they aren't surprising, but can't understand the latter sentiment.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
You were pretty clearly attempting to insult,

No I wasn't- truly. I am sorry if I think your gross generalizations and oversimplifications are nonsense...but don't take it personally. I have really been quite civil.

Given the nature of the profit-motive, why wouldn't exxon lobby for war?

Possibly because war causes uncertainty and instability- an anathema to a infrastructure/capital intensive industry like oil. Oil companies really do not like oil to be super expensive- that creates all sorts of ramifications and externalities that make it quite challenging to do business- look at the drop in global oil consumption when oil hit $140. Oil companies prefer price stability over fluctuations caused by geo-political turmoil.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that because 'underlaying premise' of domination isn't a new one, efforts to achieve it over the modern world aren't surprising, and therefor are of no real significance and function to no great effect. I agree that they aren't surprising, but can't understand the latter sentiment.

No, thats not my point.

Lets refresh- you initially said:

"rather obvious effort to establish a new form of global military and economic control"

I am saying the desire is ancient, the "form" is not new- tools? yes- new and/or improved, scale, yes-bigger, "new form"? no- the form is the same- control over resources and wealth and use of military advantage to achieve desired outcome.

Moreover, I do not agree with the premise that there is an over-riding plan amongst corporations and various militaries to collude and enact some form of Global Control. (not saying you said that just a comment on the NWO meme in general) Nor do I agree that "globalization" is a bad thing. I think it is a good thing...indeed its a necessity if humans really want to survive on the planet.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Can we have a little less cherry picking here SR?

Its not ludicrous to point out that the very premise of your angst is not a new phenomenon. Can you quantify what the wealth distribution was in 1000BCE or 1000AD? The rich are getting richer but that doesn't automatically equate to the poor getting poorer. The fact is there are more people NOT living in poverty than ever before both nominally and as a percentage. A rising tide lifts all boats;

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/little-notice-globalization-reduced-poverty

Content from external source
We are in the midst of the fastest period of poverty reduction the world has ever seen. The global poverty rate, which stood at 25 percent in 2005, is ticking downwards at one to two percentage points a year, lifting around 70 million people – the population of Turkey or Thailand – out of destitution annually. Advances in human progress on such a scale are unprecedented, yet remain almost universally unacknowledged.

And that is before the biggest recession since the 30's has pushed many millions more into poverty and those already in poverty are in either greater poverty or dead.

In a sinking boat the weak tend to get fed to the sharks, (whoever they are... the sharks I mean)


At 22.51 gives a good insight to the wealth distribution. Those who have it all whilst those who work, work, work and have nothing.
 
Last edited:

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
..
Still, it's pretty clear in this instance the '...'s and '???'s are trying consistently to convey the idea what I'm saying is totally ridiculous.
...

You mean apart from the parts where he just says 'what you're saying is totally ridiculous'? :p


We should be allowed to say when we think something is ridiculous. I don't think saying that is uncivil, as long as reasons are made clear.
Actually what I find offensive is 'lol' or variations on feigned shock or disbelief, without anything to back it up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SR1419

Senior Member.
Can we have a little less cherry picking here SR?

Thats hilarious!!!- I provide a study that uses aggregate global poverty numbers for the last 7years...and somehow that is "cherry picking"

...whilst your quote from the very same study is referring to "the fortunes of the developing world during the late 20th century"- as in over a decade ago.

You cherry pick that quote all the while ignoring the very findings of the report which are stated in the paragraphs immediately following the one you quoted:

sorry Oxy- who is cherry picking??
 

lemonlover

Member
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......
Nothing can ever be proven or dis-proven beyond all doubt. Eeverything I've shown you would strongly suggest that the new world order is real. Some people will never believe anything no matter how much evidence you put in front of them. They could come out and say "we are the illumianti we a new world order we want a one world government one world currency, one world army and a world bank" and you still wouldn't believe them.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Nothing can ever be proven or dis-proven beyond all doubt. Eeverything I've shown you would strongly suggest that the new world order is real. Some people will never believe anything no matter how much evidence you put in front of them. They could come out and say "we are the illumianti we a new world order we want a one world government one world currency, one world army and a world bank" and you still wouldn't believe them.

Yes we would.

But the problem is, nobody has said anything like that. Can you name one powerful person who has even suggested "one world army"?
 

lemonlover

Member
Out of interest "de-bunkers" what do you think about the theory that they are trying to dumb down the population with tv programmes? ....... .......
 

lemonlover

Member
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.

"There is no real evidence of a unfied world government being intended or sought. "yet. The saying is "out of chaos comes order" So I believe world war three will collapse the currency and make it possible for a new world order to be brought in. Obviously, they are never going to openly come out and say "come along be chipped let us rule over you in a new world order" they are present it to the public as a good idea, something that they need. Why do you think we (as in the West) have invaded all these countries in the middle east.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Thats hilarious!!!- I provide a study that uses aggregate global poverty numbers for the last 7years...and somehow that is "cherry picking"

...whilst your quote from the very same study is referring to "the fortunes of the developing world during the late 20th century"- as in over a decade ago.

You cherry pick that quote all the while ignoring the very findings of the report which are stated in the paragraphs immediately following the one you quoted:

sorry Oxy- who is cherry picking??

These people obviously didn't get the memo... Perhaps you would like to go and educate them personally? Lol... it may even make the news :)

And BTW, your quote came from the lead paragraph, which included the sentence.

I should imagine any sane person would choke to death on their food if they try and say that is met but pehaps you and Cairenn would also like to claim that as well. Just add it to your 'America is great and good and never does anything wrong rhetoric'.

http://www.africanoutlookonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3865:nigerian-poverty-rising-despite-economic-growth&Itemid=672

http://en.starafrica.com/news/poverty-in-mozambique-rising-despite-economic-boom.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/18/greece-protests-general-strike-austerity

http://www.cretegazette.com/2007-11/greece-poverty.php

http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2013/...-increasing-unemployment-and-inflation-ecesr/

http://news.yahoo.com/us-poverty-track-rise-highest-since-1960s-112946547--finance.html

http://kfor.com/2013/05/02/suburban-poverty-on-the-rise/

http://www.facethefactsusa.org/facts/childhood-poverty-rise/

http://www.financialexpress.com/new...verty-in-recessionracked-italy-report/1119172

http://www.salon.com/2009/02/26/klare/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-15242103

http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/02/middle-class-income-inequality-technology-opinions-columnists-taxes.html?partner=daily_newsletter

How many U.S cities are trying to file for bankruptcy... Detroit is only with unemployment tripling.

https://www.youtube.com/user/breakingtheset

And that is the tip of the iceberg.
 
Last edited:

SR1419

Senior Member.
These people obviously didn't get the memo... Perhaps you would like to go and educate them personally? Lol... it may even make the news :)

And BTW, your quote came from the lead paragraph, which included the sentence.

"Poverty reduction was one part of a key UN Millennium Goal, and global observers may sit up and take notice after two other key parts are achieved: full and productive employment for all and halving the proportion of people who suffer from hunger."

Pehaps you and Cairenn would also like to claim that as well. Just add it to your 'America is great and good and never does anything wrong rhetoric'.

No one- not me, Cairenn or the report in question ever said poverty was eliminated- So your iceberg of anecdotes rings hollow in context of what the report actually said. If you can dispute the findings of the report- feel free.

You posted a quote that was referring to developments in the last century- ignoring the fact that the overall report was discussing developments in the last 7yrs...ignoring the findings and conclusions of the report- why? to accuse me of "cherry picking"??

Classic Oxy.

Apparently, you cannot accept the findings of the report and so have to resort to some BS personal attack about how I supposedly say "America is great and good and never does anything wrong". That is just plain wrong and childish- to be expected I guess. Its wholly wrong- I have never even remotely said such a thing...but don't let the facts stop you.
 
Last edited:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
No one- not me, Cairenn or the report in question ever said poverty was eliminated- So your iceberg of anecdotes rings hollow in context of what the report actually said. If you can dispute the findings of the report- feel free.

You posted a quote that was referring to developments in the last century- ignoring the fact that the overall report was discussing developments in the last 7yrs...ignoring the findings and conclusions of the report- why? to accuse me of "cherry picking"??

Classic Oxy.

Apparently, you cannot accept the findings of the report and so have to resort to some BS personal attack about how I supposedly say "America is great and good and never does anything wrong". That is just plain wrong and childish- to be expected I guess. Its wholly wrong- I have never even remotely said such a thing...but don't let the facts stop you.

It comes across to me that way. You and Cairenn in particular seem intent on 'protecting America's reputation' by denying any wrongdoing. I see it as propaganda.

As far as cherry picking, your article started off with the concept that poverty was being reduced globally but then went on to clarify that if you take China out of the mix, poverty is still on the rise. That is cherry picking IMO.
 

Drew

Active Member
I'd just like to take a moment to point out what a monster this thread has become. I skip out on metabunk for a couple of days and come back to this pileup. Too much hopscotching between claims and unrelated tangents far afield of the OP, and an uncharacteristically ugly tone.

So I'd make a motion that maybe it's time to split this off into a few live subtopics as needed, and then maybe table this one.

I only mention it because for a while I've given sincere thought to how best to address the NWO/Illuminati/&c. CTs in an organized way. I haven't figured it out yet, but I'm pretty sure this isn't it.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What, it's only 309 posts. You should see the WTC threads :)

Give me one sub-topic to start, and I'll see if I can extricate it.
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
They are never going to come out and openly say "we would like a one world government, one world army, one world bank" etc They are going to bring it onto the public slowly. According to George Green in another video he says that there are going to be a lot more natural disasters in America (quote) They are going to be using one of the machines they've got" and Obama is going to use one of these disasters to shut down EVERYTHING. Then Fema will be brought in and be in control of the country. He didn't specify any particular disaster.

Please can you start stating a reliable source. As a psychiatric nurse and a counsellor I can maybe accept one source, but all those you provide seem to have an issue. Can you provide ONE reliable source, i.e. one that does not have a mental health issue, or one that is lying. e.g. George Green
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
It comes across to me that way. You and Cairenn in particular seem intent on 'protecting America's reputation' by denying any wrongdoing. I see it as propaganda.

As far as cherry picking, your article started off with the concept that poverty was being reduced globally but then went on to clarify that if you take China out of the mix, poverty is still on the rise. That is cherry picking IMO.

Wow. way to hijack the thread with a completely off-topic personal attack. Seriously?

Please quote ANYTHING I have ever said that has denied "any wrongdoing". Sorry, you want to pigeonhole me and its simply not accurate. You shouldn't have to resort to personal attacks.


As for the report- please read for comprehension- the reference to taking China out of the mix was in regards to development of the last part of the last century- NOT CURRENT TRENDS- Come Oxy- you are supposedly intelligent- read what it says- The entire quote is referring to developments prior to 2005- while the report itself is addressing developments SINCE 2005. Why are you ignoring the findings of the report in favor of an out of context quote???

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Drew

Active Member
What, it's only 309 posts. You should see the WTC threads :)

Give me one sub-topic to start, and I'll see if I can extricate it.

Fair enough. Generally avoid the WTC threads unless there seems to be something interesting happening, because they are literally and figuratively too close to home.

Perhaps the World Parliament group thing could be spun off, ditto Georgia Guidestones, and Lemons's argument on television
 

Grieves

Senior Member
"No I wasn't- truly. I am sorry if I think your gross generalizations and oversimplifications are nonsense...but don't take it personally. I have really been quite civil."

Of course, what's more civil than taking a general statement about the barrier pseudo-religious/fantastical nonsense puts between the coherent discussion of conspiracy theories, and replying by calling me a whining purveyor of nonsense without a whit of historical perspective. Nothing uncouth about making a broad and general discussion of the state of global affairs personal, and then telling me not to take it personally.

"We should be allowed to say when we think something is ridiculous. I don't think saying that is uncivil, as long as reasons are made clear."

Agreed, which is why I didn't hesitate to point a statement I thought ludicrous out as such. There's a difference between criticizing specific points and broadly labeling a persons entire perspective as whining nonsense.

"I am saying the desire is ancient, the "form" is not new- tools? yes- new and/or improved, scale, yes-bigger, "new form"? no- the form is the same- control over resources and wealth and use of military advantage to achieve desired outcome."

So desire = form and form = desire? So because man's desire to fly was ancient, the forms of human flight which we developed weren't new when they arrived?
 
Last edited:

lemonlover

Member
If folks didn't watch them they wouldn't air them. Too many folks prefer something on a TV or a You Tube, instead of picking up a book and READING it.

I don't watch stupid shows, in fact I never even heard of one.

May I ask you why do feel that George Green 'knows' about these 'secret plans'? Why is he an expert?
I have no particular reason not to believe him.
 

lemonlover

Member
Please can you start stating a reliable source. As a psychiatric nurse and a counsellor I can maybe accept one source, but all those you provide seem to have an issue. Can you provide ONE reliable source, i.e. one that does not have a mental health issue, or one that is lying. e.g. George Green
How do you know George Green is lying? Ask yourself why we have invaded all these middle eastern countries and the government is so intent on invading Syria . MK Ultra was a real mind control programme. This is a documented fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I asked WHY should WE believe him? Why does he know these 'secret plans'? Is he a member of the Illuminati that has turned on them?

I see nothing about us being 'intent on invading Syria'. How many middle eastern countries do you think we have invaded?

Yes there was a program called MKUltra, but they did not work with children, like you lady claims. They did some nasty things but not those. The focus was to try to find a 'truth serum'.

You are young and you do not understand the fear that gripped the US. Schools had nuclear drills, just like they have fire and tornado drills now. A visit to the State Fair would include checking out fallout shelters. Little girls drew 'houseplans' of dream fallout shelters, instead of dream houses.

I remember Pres. Kennedy's press conference when he pointed out the missile bases in Cuba, I remember then building defense missile bases around cities

And what is interesting is that much of that fear was ungrounded, it seems. But it was a lot more REAL than the world takeover by the NWO or the fears that Pres Obama is planning on becoming a dictator.
 

JeffreyNotGeoffrey

Active Member
I asked WHY should WE believe him? Why does he know these 'secret plans'? Is he a member of the Illuminati that has turned on them?

I see nothing about us being 'intent on invading Syria'. How many middle eastern countries do you think we have invaded?

Yes there was a program called MKUltra, but they did not work with children, like you lady claims. They did some nasty things but not those. The focus was to try to find a 'truth serum'.

You are young and you do not understand the fear that gripped the US. Schools had nuclear drills, just like they have fire and tornado drills now. A visit to the State Fair would include checking out fallout shelters. Little girls drew 'houseplans' of dream fallout shelters, instead of dream houses.

I remember Pres. Kennedy's press conference when he pointed out the missile bases in Cuba, I remember then building defense missile bases around cities

And what is interesting is that much of that fear was ungrounded, it seems. But it was a lot more REAL than the world takeover by the NWO or the fears that Pres Obama is planning on becoming a dictator.


How many times must the FEMA death camp meme be debunked? You know there is an issue when Glenn Beck and Popular Mechanics agree on something...
 

David Fraser

Senior Member.
How do you know George Green is lying? Ask yourself why we have invaded all these middle eastern countries and the government is so intent on invading Syria . MK Ultra was a real mind control programme. This is a documented fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra

Were did I say George Green is lying? Please point that out to me. I have just questioned him and all your sources as reliable.

(Edited to add: Oh, I did. Guess I had to much cider last night)

I won't divert the issue. I want proof there is going to be a New World Order, especially given the confrontation in the EU at the moment and Scotland becoming independent. Surely for a NWO to be coming into force they need to knock that on the head. Tell me, seriously, how does the NWO expect to bring Northern Ireland, Northern Spain, France, even Wales into the fold? Please explain that to me and you have a convert.
 
Last edited:

JeffreyNotGeoffrey

Active Member
Yeah there are countries like Spain that are having difficulties staying unified in their current borders. The trend in places seems to be fragmentation not unity.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
"I won't divert the issue. I want proof there is going to be a New World Order, especially given the confrontation in the EU at the moment and Scotland becoming independent. Surely for a NWO to be coming into force they need to knock that on the head. Tell me, seriously, how does the NWO expect to bring Northern Ireland, Northern Spain, France, even Wales into the fold? Please explain that to me and you have a convert."

Again, the form the 'NWO' is taking isn't that of a conquering pseudo-nation demanding all other nations surrender their borders and their sovereignty, and its goal isn't to end squabbles within or between Nations, nor ensure political stability. Scotland declaring independence from the UK would be a major blow to the UK, but from the perspective of the monetary powers who transcend national borders, it's little but a potential loss for some and a potential boon for others. Multinational corporations and the high-powered investors and speculators who circle above them won't be slowed down by Scotland's choice. Some might 'suffer' for it, but the rest will scrabble to exploit it, and swell in the doing. That's the reality of today, not the Orwellian nightmare scenario of tomorrow. A 'society', and by no means a particularly secret one, that transcends and exploits the international political scene, treating it like a horse-race in which some are owners, some are caddies, and some are simply merrily betting away... With all doing their best to rig the 'game' in their favor.

"I'm wondering where in that you see a global military force??"
Read the article I posted from the DoD on "full spectrum dominance". A global military force doesn't mean the abolishment of all national militaries and thousand soldiers from every Nation pledging allegiance to the Republic of Earth to the tune of 'it's a small world after all". It means a military force, such as that US and her allies, which can effectively achieve global military dominance, eliminating the possibility of a military threat to the current paradigm.

Some have stated such a thing would be wholly impossible. The DoD hopes to have it in the bag by 2020.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
"I'm wondering where in that you see a global military force??"
Read the article I posted from the DoD on "full spectrum dominance". A global military force doesn't mean the abolishment of all national militaries and thousand soldiers from every Nation pledging allegiance to the Republic of Earth to the tune of 'it's a small world after all". It means a military force, such as that US and her allies, which can effectively achieve global military dominance, eliminating the possibility of a military threat to the current paradigm.

Some have stated such a thing would be wholly impossible. The DoD hopes to have it in the bag by 2020.

I wasn't replying to you - I was replying to never know and the links he posted which show include nothing of the sort of conclusion that he posted, which quiet clearly IS a single global military force of some sort, and not just a single dominant force.

If you 2 want to get together to sing from a single songbook then fine - but in the meantime please do not conflate the arguments.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
"No I wasn't- truly. I am sorry if I think your gross generalizations and oversimplifications are nonsense...but don't take it personally. I have really been quite civil."

Of course, what's more civil than taking a general statement about the barrier pseudo-religious/fantastical nonsense puts between the coherent discussion of conspiracy theories, and replying by calling me a whining purveyor of nonsense without a whit of historical perspective. Nothing uncouth about making a broad and general discussion of the state of global affairs personal, and then telling me not to take it personally.

So...you did take personally.

Sorry.

But when you make sweeping comments- such as "the rather obvious effort to establish a new form of global military and economic control. It's readily apparent"-that I feel are nonsense then, I am going to call it as I see it. That WAS your specific point. If you cannot handle people disagreeing with you then perhaps you shouldn't post your opinions on the internet. I apologize if I think it seems like you are whinging with some of your generalizations and categorizations. Thats just how it comes across to me. I will try to refrain from suggesting such.


So desire = form and form = desire? So because man's desire to fly was ancient, the forms of human flight which we developed weren't new when they arrived?

A failed analogy.

It would be accurate if the ancient man developed a way to fly- a plane...and the design of the plane simply changed over time as new technology is developed. Economic and military exploitation is not a new technology or practice.
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
"As for "global military control"- thats even less of a reality."

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=45289
The DoD seems to disagree.


"Full-spectrum dominance means the ability of U.S. forces, operating alone or with allies, to defeat any adversary and control any situation across the range of military operations."

There is nothing new about the US military wanting to dominate any conflict or engagement they enter into...

That premise is not the same as "global military control".
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Any evidence of that other than ONE guy?

I can only find mention of a psychic viewing program.

- See more at: http://www.livescience.com/12991-10-outrageous-military-experiments.html#sthash.b9RGXDtE.dpuf
 

neverknwo

Member
Any evidence of that other than ONE guy?

I can only find mention of a psychic viewing program.

- See more at: http://www.livescience.com/12991-10-outrageous-military-experiments.html#sthash.b9RGXDtE.dpuf

Yes.

You referenced one of those projects tied into the New Earth Jedi Star Warrior. Of course this document below describes in detail the Remote viewing program and the umbrella code name of one of several sub-projects established by the U.S. Federal Government to investigate claims of psychic phenomena with potential military and domestic applications. The Stargate movie and television franchise, where a Stargate device creates wormholes in space and time enabling Kurt Russell and others to explore the universe, is not related. However their remote viewing of inhabitable planets and extraterrestrial life was. It is a fascinating, unbelievable concept that turns soldiers into jedi warrior monks who are the first defense for earth in case of a alien threat. You have to see it to believe it that a military organization would even consider it:

Notice the 'All Seeing Eye' aka Illuminati / 3rd Eye Symbolism below?

The semi-mythical jedi knight new earth army website once was the center of attention.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cairenn

Senior Member.
Anyone can make and fake up a You Tube, that is why written sources are important.

Can you sum up the major points of the You Tube? and extract and post any links?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I am going to ask you again this question. How did get access to these 'secrets'? Did he work for someone, or was he member or HOW?
 

lemonlover

Member
I asked WHY should WE believe him? Why does he know these 'secret plans'? Is he a member of the Illuminati that has turned on them?

I see nothing about us being 'intent on invading Syria'. How many middle eastern countries do you think we have invaded?

Yes there was a program called MKUltra, but they did not work with children, like you lady claims. They did some nasty things but not those. The focus was to try to find a 'truth serum'.

You are young and you do not understand the fear that gripped the US. Schools had nuclear drills, just like they have fire and tornado drills now. A visit to the State Fair would include checking out fallout shelters. Little girls drew 'houseplans' of dream fallout shelters, instead of dream houses.

I remember Pres. Kennedy's press conference when he pointed out the missile bases in Cuba, I remember then building defense missile bases around cities

And what is interesting is that much of that fear was ungrounded, it seems. But it was a lot more REAL than the world takeover by the NWO or the fears that Pres Obama is planning on becoming a dictator.


I see nothing about us being 'intent on invading Syria' .................. .........


"How many middle eastern countries do you think we have invaded?" Afghanistan, Iraq, Libiya, Egypt and now Syria. I count 5.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
First off, Afghanistan is NOT in the middle east, it is in central Asia.

We did not invade Libya or Egypt or Syria. In Libya, NATO Intervened, they did not invade. There was not even that in Egypt. That overthrow was done by the Egyptians their selves.

There is a discussion of an INTERVENTION in Syria, not an invasion. So we have invaded ONE middle eastern and ONE central asian country, and both of those included forces from NATO and other countries. It was not the US alone.


 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
TemplarJLS Can someone debunk this George Washington quote? Quotes Debunked 6
Mike Fl Can someone debunk this? Sandy Hook Shooting 100% Fraud Proof in 2 mins. - Photo Time Analysis Sandy Hook 21
Z please someone debunk this crap Contrails and Chemtrails 15
newportrojan Can someone please debunk the 'Masonic Hidden Hand' Sign Conspiracy Theories 19
E Can someone tell me what these are? [Grid pattern contrails] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
P Can someone please explain these trails at sunset [Contrails] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 13
D Can someone please explain this video of multiple trails? Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 28
Mick West How to Tag someone in a post to let them know they were mentioned How To 3
Boston How to put someone on ignore, so you can't see their posts. How To 3
H Need someone savvy on the holocaust Conspiracy Theories 36
Mick West Debunked: "you become the leader of a country, someone else makes all the decisions." Quotes Debunked 2
N Debunked: Google Mail icon shows linkage to Freemasons Conspiracy Theories 4
chrono117 How to Debunk Flat Earth Without Relying on NASA or Photos Flat Earth 42
Rory Explained: How Mount Rainier helps demonstrate the shape of the globe Flat Earth 38
Rory Debunked: 120-mile shot of San Jacinto proves flat earth Flat Earth 39
George Tasker Using pin hole lenses to debunk CGI Rebuttals of Photos of Earth Curvature Flat Earth 7
Tom Binney Does my FE Debunk in this case make sense to you guys? Practical Debunking 23
derwoodii My eyes deceived me so I had to debunk myself Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 8
N How can I debunk the orbs in this photo? UFOs and Aliens 22
HoaxEye How to calculate the visible fraction of the Earth [e.g. 1972 Blue Marble, Apollo 17] Flat Earth 29
N Please help me to debunk this topic: stranges sphere outside of the ISS. General Discussion 18
Mick West Fireproof Cabbage, Burning Snow, Flat Earth - Are Some Things too Silly to Debunk? Practical Debunking 7
Mick West Burying the Debunk: How Fake News about "Pyramids" in Antarctica Creates False Balance Ghosts, Monsters, and the Paranormal 2
TWCobra Flat earth Debunk-change in apparent altitude of clouds as seen from airliner Flat Earth 2
Mick West An Easy Experiment to Debunk the Flat Earth by Observing the Size of the Sun Flat Earth 55
passionfly1 Lets finally debunk Nico and Marco Kaschuba (video hoaxers) People Debunked 0
Svartbjørn The Solar System.. To Scale (just for fun, nothing to debunk here) General Discussion 0
Mick West What to do about the Flat Earthers? Debunk, or ignore? Flat Earth 238
Critical Thinker Why we debunk and who do we reach. Practical Debunking 2
C MH370: Help me debunk this General Discussion 21
TemplarJLS Some depopulation quotes to debunk? Quotes Debunked 16
Henk001 High altitude clouds don't have a cooling effect Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Stevan Gvozdenovic Let's debunk my (very simple) perpetuum mobile Science and Pseudoscience 57
M Debunk: The horizon never falling as proof of flat Earth theory Flat Earth 29
WeedWhacker Let's imagine the actual area of the sky, above.... Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Dan Wilson PopSci article claiming to debunk ten GMO myths Health and Quackery 10
Vindog Debunk this [Planes at different altitude and different contrails over France] Contrails and Chemtrails 43
Critical Thinker Gawker article: Why I Write About (and Debunk) the Chemtrail Conspiracy Theory Contrails and Chemtrails 0
W Debunk NASA is proposing spraying stratospheric aerosols. Contrails and Chemtrails 9
T Debunk: Chemtrails leave no space between aircraft and the beginning of the trail. Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Jeffrey Orling Is there anything about 9/11 left to debunk 9/11 46
C Help debunk please!? [Contrail Grids, Weather Modification, Fuel Dumping] Contrails and Chemtrails 18
George B Debunk: Kinder gentler Debunking is better. . . ?? Practical Debunking 38
Noblelox Practical bunk used to debunk Boston Marathon Bombings 18
Alchemist Please Debunk: The Drills (conflicting info from 2 reputable sources) Boston Marathon Bombings 13
Alchemist Debunk This New JFK Information Conspiracy Theories 101
David Fraser Should we debunk "hoax" tragedies with "crisis actors"? Practical Debunking 21
DebunkingShills Orbs: Something the metaJUNK shills just can't debunk. Contrails and Chemtrails 24
Joe Newman There will be widescale rioting after Zimmerman verdict. Debunk, please Conspiracy Theories 256
Mick West Using Campaign Finance Reform to Debunk Conspiracy Theories Practical Debunking 25
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top