Can someone debunk Vigilant Citizen?

Status
Not open for further replies.
"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:
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;

External Quote:
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.
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

External Quote:

4. The CIA's supply of Stinger missiles to the mujahideen forced the Soviets out of Afghanistan

This myth of the 1980s was given new life by George Crile's 2003 book Charlie Wilson's War and the 2007 film of the same name, starring Tom Hanks as the loud-mouthed congressman from Texas. Both book and movie claim that Wilson turned the tide of the war by persuading Ronald Reagan to supply the mujahideen with shoulder-fired missiles that could shoot down helicopters. The Stingers certainly forced a shift in Soviet tactics. Helicopter crews switched their operations to night raids since the mujahideen had no night-vision equipment. Pilots made bombing runs at greater height, thereby diminishing the accuracy of the attacks, but the rate of Soviet and Afghan aircraft losses did not change significantly from what it was in the first six years of the war.

The Soviet decision to withdraw from Afghanistan was made in October 1985, several months before Stinger missiles entered Afghanistan in significant quantities in the autumn of 1986. None of the secret Politburo discussions that have since been declassified mentioned the Stingers or any other shift in mujahideen equipment as the reason for the policy change from indefinite occupation to preparations for retreat.
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:
"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.
 
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.
 
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.

External Quote:
Behind these aggregate figures lies a somber reality. In assessing the fortunes of the developing world during the late 20th century, countries can be roughly divided into two categories: China and the rest.China's stunning economic reversal – 30 years ago, only 16 percent of its population lived above the poverty line, but by 2005, only 16 percent stood below it – masks others' failings. Excluding China, the 500 million decrease in global poverty becomes an increase of 100 million. In the world's poorest region, sub-Saharan Africa, the poverty rate remained above 50 percent throughout the period, which, given the region's rapid population growth, translated into a near doubling in the number of its poor. Similarly in South Asia, Latin America and Europe–Central Asia there were more poor people in 2005 than there were a quarter of a century earlier.
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:
..
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'?
clear.png
: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:
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:

External Quote:
In a new study of global poverty, we upend this narrative. By combining the most recent country survey data of household consumption with the latest figures on private consumption growth, we generated global poverty estimates from 2005 up to the present day. Poverty reduction accelerated in the early 2000s at a rate that has been sustained throughout the decade, even during the dark recesses of the financial crisis. Today, we estimate that there are approximately 820 million people living on less than $1.25 a day. This means that the prime target of the Millennium Development Goals – to halve the rate of global poverty by 2015 from its 1990 level – was probably achieved around three years ago. Whereas it took 25 years to reduce poverty by half a billion people up to 2005, the same feat was likely achieved in the six years between then and now.

Not only is poverty falling rapidly, it's falling across all regions and most countries. Unsurprisingly, the greatest reduction has occurred in Asia. But it's not just the dynamic economies of East Asia, such as China, recording great feats in poverty reduction; South Asian giants including India and Bangladesh, and Central Asian economies such as Uzbekistan also make great strides. Even Sub-Saharan Africa is sharing in this progress. The region finally broke through the symbolic threshold of a 50 percent poverty rate in 2008 and its number of poor people has begun falling for the first time on record.
sorry Oxy- who is cherry picking??
 
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.
 
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"?
 
Out of interest "de-bunkers" what do you think about the theory that they are trying to dumb down the population with tv programmes? ....... .......
 
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.
 
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:

External Quote:
In a new study of global poverty, we upend this narrative. By combining the most recent country survey data of household consumption with the latest figures on private consumption growth, we generated global poverty estimates from 2005 up to the present day. Poverty reduction accelerated in the early 2000s at a rate that has been sustained throughout the decade, even during the dark recesses of the financial crisis. Today, we estimate that there are approximately 820 million people living on less than $1.25 a day. This means that the prime target of the Millennium Development Goals – to halve the rate of global poverty by 2015 from its 1990 level – was probably achieved around three years ago. Whereas it took 25 years to reduce poverty by half a billion people up to 2005, the same feat was likely achieved in the six years between then and now.

Not only is poverty falling rapidly, it's falling across all regions and most countries. Unsurprisingly, the greatest reduction has occurred in Asia. But it's not just the dynamic economies of East Asia, such as China, recording great feats in poverty reduction; South Asian giants including India and Bangladesh, and Central Asian economies such as Uzbekistan also make great strides. Even Sub-Saharan Africa is sharing in this progress. The region finally broke through the symbolic threshold of a 50 percent poverty rate in 2008 and its number of poor people has begun falling for the first time on record.
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.

External Quote:
"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."
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:
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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???

External Quote:

Official estimates of global poverty are compiled by the World Bank and stretch back 30 years. For most of that period, the trend has been one of slow, gradual reduction. By 2005, the year of the most recent official global poverty estimate, the number of people living under the international poverty line of $1.25 a day stood at 1.37 billion – an improvement of half a billion compared to the early 1980s, but a long way from the dream of a world free of poverty.

Today, it's estimated that there are approximately 820 million people living on less than $1.25 a day.

Behind these aggregate figures lies a somber reality. In assessing the fortunes of the developing world during the late 20th century, countries can be roughly divided into two categories: China and the rest.China's stunning economic reversal – 30 years ago, only 16 percent of its population lived above the poverty line, but by 2005, only 16 percent stood below it – masks others' failings. Excluding China, the 500 million decrease in global poverty becomes an increase of 100 million. In the world's poorest region, sub-Saharan Africa, the poverty rate remained above 50 percent throughout the period, which, given the region's rapid population growth, translated into a near doubling in the number of its poor. Similarly in South Asia, Latin America and Europe–Central Asia there were more poor people in 2005 than there were a quarter of a century earlier.


The number of the world's poor is falling rapidly. Enlarge Image
This depressing track record shapes perspectives on poverty that abound today. Global poverty has come to be seen as a constant, with the poor cut off from the prosperity enjoyed elsewhere. Only a radical change to the current global order – an alternative system to globalization or a massive exercise in redistribution – could possibly alter this destiny.

In a new study of global poverty, we upend this narrative. By combining the most recent country survey data of household consumption with the latest figures on private consumption growth, we generated global poverty estimates from 2005 up to the present day. Poverty reduction accelerated in the early 2000s at a rate that has been sustained throughout the decade, even during the dark recesses of the financial crisis.
Today, we estimate that there are approximately 820 million people living on less than $1.25 a day. This means that the prime target of the Millennium Development Goals – to halve the rate of global poverty by 2015 from its 1990 level – was probably achieved around three years ago. Whereas it took 25 years to reduce poverty by half a billion people up to 2005, the same feat was likely achieved in the six years between then and now. Never before have so many people been lifted out of poverty over such a brief period of time.



Not only is poverty falling rapidly, it's falling across all regions and most countries. Unsurprisingly, the greatest reduction has occurred in Asia. But it's not just the dynamic economies of East Asia, such as China, recording great feats in poverty reduction; South Asian giants including India and Bangladesh, and Central Asian economies such as Uzbekistan also make great strides. Even Sub-Saharan Africa is sharing in this progress. The region finally broke through the symbolic threshold of a 50 percent poverty rate in 2008 and its number of poor people has begun falling for the first time on record.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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
 
"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:
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.
 
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
 
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 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...
 
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:
"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.
 
"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.
 
"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.
 
"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".
 
Any evidence of that other than ONE guy?

External Quote:
A proponent of psychic warfare, Stubblebine was involved in a U.S. Military project to create "a breed of 'super soldier'" who would "have the ability to become invisible at will and to walk through walls". Stubblebine reportedly attempted to walk through walls himself.[3] He features prominently in Jon Ronson's book The Men Who Stare at Goats.
I can only find mention of a psychic viewing program.

External Quote:

Psychics may not hold much credibility among scientists, but the Pentagon spent roughly $20 million testing extrasensory (ESP) powers such as remote viewing from 1972 to 1996. Remote viewers would try to envision geographical locations that they had never seen before, such as nuclear facilities or bunkers in foreign lands. Mixed results led to conflicts within the intelligence agencies, even as the project continued under names such as "Grill Flame" and "Star Gate," and led to spooks finally abandoning the effort. The CIA declassified such information in files released in 2002
- See more at: http://www.livescience.com/12991-10-outrageous-military-experiments.html#sthash.b9RGXDtE.dpuf
 
Any evidence of that other than ONE guy?

External Quote:
A proponent of psychic warfare, Stubblebine was involved in a U.S. Military project to create "a breed of 'super soldier'" who would "have the ability to become invisible at will and to walk through walls". Stubblebine reportedly attempted to walk through walls himself.[3] He features prominently in Jon Ronson's book The Men Who Stare at Goats.
I can only find mention of a psychic viewing program.

External Quote:

Psychics may not hold much credibility among scientists, but the Pentagon spent roughly $20 million testing extrasensory (ESP) powers such as remote viewing from 1972 to 1996. Remote viewers would try to envision geographical locations that they had never seen before, such as nuclear facilities or bunkers in foreign lands. Mixed results led to conflicts within the intelligence agencies, even as the project continued under names such as "Grill Flame" and "Star Gate," and led to spooks finally abandoning the effort. The CIA declassified such information in files released in 2002
- See more at: http://www.livescience.com/12991-10-outrageous-military-experiments.html#sthash.b9RGXDtE.dpuf

External Quote:

A key sponsor of the research internally at Fort Meade, MD, MG Stubblebine was convinced of the reality of a wide variety of psychic phenomena. He required that all of his Battalion Commanders learn how to bend spoons a la Uri Geller, and he himself attempted several psychic feats, even attempting to walk through walls. In the early 1980s he was responsible for the United States Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM), during which time the remote viewing project in the US Army began. Some commentators have confused a "Project Jedi", allegedly run by Special Forces primarily out of Fort Bragg, with Stargate. After some controversy involving these experiments and alleged security violations from uncleared civilian psychics working in Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs), Major General Stubblebine was placed on retirement. His successor as the INSCOM commander was Major General Harry Soyster, who had a reputation as a much more conservative and conventional intelligence officer. MG Soyster was not amenable to continuing paranormal experiments and the Army's participation in Project Stargate ended during his tenure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project
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:

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

http://www.scribd.com/doc/21926670/The-First-Earth-Battalion-Field-Manual

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

External Quote:
An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof. An invasion can be the cause of a war, be a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in itself.

External Quote:
On 19 March 2011, a multi-state coalition began a military intervention in Libya to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which was taken in response to events during the Libyan civil war,[18] and military operations began, with US and British naval forces firing over 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles,[19] the French Air Force, British Royal Air Force, and Canadian Royal Canadian Air Force[20] undertaking sorties across Libya and a naval blockade by Coalition forces.[21] Air strikes against Libyan Army tanks and vehicles by French jets were since confirmed.[22][23] The official names for the interventions by the coalition members are Opération Harmattan by France; Operation Ellamy by the United Kingdom; Operation Mobile for the Canadian participation and Operation Odyssey Dawn for the United States.[24]

From the beginning of the intervention, the initial coalition of Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Qatar, Spain, UK and US[25][26][27][28][29] expanded to nineteen states, with newer states mostly enforcing the no-fly zone and naval blockade or providing military logistical assistance. The effort was initially largely led by France and the United Kingdom, with command shared with the United States. NATO took control of the arms embargo on 23 March, named Operation Unified Protector. An attempt to unify the military command of the air campaign (whilst keeping political and strategic control with a small group), first failed over objections by the French, German, and Turkish governments.[30][31] On 24 March, NATO agreed to take control of the no-fly zone, while command of targeting ground units remains with coalition forces.[32][33][34] The handover occurred on 31 March 2011 at 06:00 UTC (08:00 local time). NATO flew 26,500 sorties since it took charge of the Libya mission on 31 March 2011.
...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top