The NWO is coming......really, which one?

[5810Singer]

Some anti-AGW nut told me that that climate change is part of a secrect eugenics campaign, and when I told her to take her tin-foil hat off she advised me to google "Georgia Guidestones."

After taking her advice (BTW my face is fine, but my right palm now bears the imprint of my nose) I came across this little treat, and I mean "treat" sincerely:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)#cite_note-54

I've never laughed out loud whilst reading a wiki entry before,......well...maybe with derision, but never before have I laughed with light hearted relief.
I don't think the piece is meant to be funny, but the inherent absurdity of the subject shines through like a laser,...try it.

BTW, it's worth reading to the bottom of the page just to find out that there's a group of nutters that even David Icke won't endorse.

 

[Niocan]

I've come to the conclusion that the proverbial NWO is colonialism 3.0:
1.0 being the aggressive invasions into sovereign countries to take them over;
2.0 being what we have now: a debt enslaved and socially conditioned world through the IMF / World Bank, the 6 media corporations and more paid off lobbyists/people then you can imagine;
3.0 will be the unity of governments under the UN, and the further control of resources through the carbon scam being discussed now.

It's a very basic overview of this whole monster, but a consolidation of power is on its way; Call it what you will..

 

[Finger]

3.0 will be the unity of governments under the UN, and the further control of resources through the carbon scam being discussed now.

:lol: Right. Because the UN is so good at enforcing it's own resolutions. :roll:

It's a very basic overview of this whole monster, but a consolidation of power is on its way;

It's been "on its way" for decades though it never manages to actually happen. But that's not a problem for nutters like you, is it? You just find a way to rationalize everything that does happen as being "part of the plan" then move the goal posts.

 

[Niocan]

:lol: Right. Because the UN is so good at enforcing it's own resolutions. :roll:

The ones they want to enforce, they'll enforce. "little things" like the devastation of Gaza from israel and the like aren't really... profitable. Besides, within the conditioning programs this whole climate scam is really important, and thus people/countries will 'demand they increase their enforcing techniques' to make sure we're all playing by the same rule book.

It's been "on its way" for decades though it never manages to actually happen. But that's not a problem for nutters like you, is it? You just find a way to rationalize everything that does happen as being "part of the plan" then move the goal posts.

It's progressive for a very good reason; Boiling frogs, etc, you've heard it before.
Nutter? Hardly, I'm just approaching this from a different angle then you; While you've been conditioned to reject anything foreign that goes against your current programing. I don't like raising or lowering any soapbox either of us are standing on, but it's up to a reasonable person to point out childish mistakes.

 

[Finger]

The ones they want to enforce, they'll enforce.

"God works in mysterious ways. He could stop suffering any time He wants to. If He doesn't, that just means He doesn't want to and the suffering was part of His plan."

It's progressive for a very good reason; Boiling frogs, etc, you've heard it before.

"Even if it appears to go against God's plan, then it's still part of God's plan and you're a bad person for thinking you could question it."

Nutter? Hardly, I'm just approaching this from a different angle then you;

My "angle" is one of rational thought. Yours is one of paranoid fantasy that allows you to make believe you're right even when you've been shown to be wrong.

 

[Niocan]

"God works in mysterious ways. He could stop suffering any time He wants to. If He doesn't, that just means He doesn't want to and the suffering was part of His plan."

I'm a spiritualist, I'm not religious. God is within, thus, what you quoted details the power of choice that we all have but people like you anthropomorphize everything so you can categorically dismiss them due to your social conditioning through a scientific dictatorship... Though that wasn't even the point.

"Even if it appears to go against God's plan, then it's still part of God's plan and you're a bad person for thinking you could question it."

That's a famous (and corrupted) duality that's usually forced upon the masses via religion and governments, so what bearing does it have on me?

My "angle" is one of rational thought. Yours is one of paranoid fantasy that allows you to make believe you're right even when you've been shown to be wrong.

Forgive my one spelling mistake, but what makes you believe your thought is more rational then mine? And why must you always downplay the other with attacks and insults on the intellectual level..

I'm just glad we're being reasonable here /s :facepalm:

 

[TheFearmonger]

This is really moot. EVEN if a NWO surfaced, people like us would brutally destroy it, and leave it remnants in a bad place that smells quite offensively. Plus, no one can get me to go along with some oppressive gov't. I'd kick it's ass. Free speech is a main tenet of the world, and I will not allow it to be trampled. So, fuck the nwo's of the world. How about if you think one is coming, instead of warning people, you actively try and stop it? 'cuz you aren't sure its happening, that's why. This means you are telling people something that has no proof, and only the ramblings of paranoid wackjobs to back you up. This means you are spreading disinformation, lies, and are trying to create a panic. This makes you.............a fearmonger. Yep, I SAID IT!!

 

[Finger]

Forgive my one spelling mistake, but what makes you believe your thought is more rational then mine?

In this thread alone, you've already moved the goal posts in order to rationalize away anything that contradicts your claim. You would have noticed this if you knew the slightest thing about rational thought. But I'm also speaking from your history on this forum where you have regularly and blatantly shown contempt for critical thought in favor of your own preferred conclusion. Even though this has been explained to you many times and in many ways by people more knowledgeable about such subjects than you or me, you still pretend that you're right and that everyone else is conspiring against you.

And why must you always downplay the other with attacks and insults on the intellectual level..

I never insulted your intelligence. I called you an irrational, paranoid, nutter. None of those words have anything to do with intelligence.

 

[Niocan]

This is really moot. EVEN if a NWO surfaced, people like us would brutally destroy it, and leave it remnants in a bad place that smells quite offensively. Plus, no one can get me to go along with some oppressive gov't. I'd kick it's ass. Free speech is a main tenet of the world, and I will not allow it to be trampled. So, fuck the nwo's of the world. How about if you think one is coming, instead of warning people, you actively try and stop it? 'cuz you aren't sure its happening, that's why. This means you are telling people something that has no proof, and only the ramblings of paranoid wackjobs to back you up. This means you are spreading disinformation, lies, and are trying to create a panic. This makes you.............a fearmonger. Yep, I SAID IT!!

Information is power my friend, and if you don't know thy enemy how can you be sure you're even standing on the battle field; Or even if you're facing the right direction? You're right though, and I'm very optimistic of the peoples power. It seems we're in agreement, at least on this little substring of this topic.

 

[Niocan]

In this thread alone, you've already moved the goal posts in order to rationalize away anything that contradicts your claim. You would have noticed this if you knew the slightest thing about rational thought. But I'm also speaking from your history on this forum where you have regularly and blatantly shown contempt for critical thought in favor of your own preferred conclusion. Even though this has been explained to you many times and in many ways by people more knowledgeable about such subjects than you or me, you still pretend that you're right and that everyone else is conspiring against you.

The goal posts were set by yourself, not I, and if that's your only response then quite clearly not everything is thrown away here but simply.. forgotten, and not addressed. Also, my 'conclusions' are opinions, like anything said about reality, and should be taken as such; But shouldn't be dismissed based only on their rarity. Surely you should know, that it's the rare genes that define and allow species to evolve and live past others; It's just a question as to weather or not my metaphorical genes are healthy .
In regards to the "I'm right, everyone is against me" mentality, would it shock you to think about how that supposed mentality upon me is a by-product of your own conditioning? I'm just here to provoke alternative thinking, while trying to not provoke conflict with the baggage it often carries...

 

[TheFearmonger]

Now, reasonable reply by finger into account... what evidence do you have for a NWO? No extrapolations allowed.

 

[Niocan]

Now, reasonable reply by finger into account... what evidence do you have for a NWO? No extrapolations allowed.

We have a current one, and all of us here agree that evolution is very real.

 

[Mapp]

I've come to the conclusion that the proverbial NWO is colonialism 3.0:
1.0 being the aggressive invasions into sovereign countries to take them over;
2.0 being what we have now: a debt enslaved and socially conditioned world through the IMF / World Bank, the 6 media corporations and more paid off lobbyists/people then you can imagine;
3.0 will be the unity of governments under the UN, and the further control of resources through the carbon scam being discussed now.

It's a very basic overview of this whole monster, but a consolidation of power is on its way; Call it what you will..

Let's say you're right about 2.0, a few things:

First, if debt is the means of controlling the populace, then what would be gained through consolidation of governments? If debt is the medium of control, then the reigns of power would be in the hands of debt holders, namely banks, traders and investors. Surely trade in currencies would only further the ends of those controlling the money, and allow these same debt holders to become wealthier. You're suggesting that they would close off a lucrative market in favor of a single sovereign system. Why? Competition and trade were vitally important even under the mercantilist systems of the old European Empires, why would that change?

Second, by what possible means would the U.N. have of gaining this kind of power? The U.N.'s assembly are made up of ambassadors with absolutely no power to make decisions, save with the respective approval of the states they represent. They are picked to represent their governments by their respective heads of state, and first and foremost, have the interests of their home countries in mind. Why would they betray their nation's sovereignty?

How would this U.N. enforce its edicts, when its military is entirely made up of units from the governments it purports to control, and in fact it has no way of raising an army of its own? How would the U.N. wrest control of the world's nuclear stockpiles? Even if the U.N. could muster an army completely loyal to itself, on what territory would that army be based? Inside their headquarters in New York? Given the U.N.'s own rules of governance, how could the Secretary General even assume such power if he wanted to? What country would willingly sign over its sovereignty, military and economy to an organization in which it has such a minimal stake? For instance, why would Egypt, a country that doesn't even sit on the security council, allow its military to be usurped by U.N. power? And even if the governments of the world collectively lost their marbles and turned the sovereignty of their nations over to an international power, how would they convince the masses to go along with it? How would they convince United States Marines, for instance, whose oath of loyalty is to the Constitution of the United States that they now owe their loyalty to a foreign power?

Second, if 3.0 is the ultimate outcome of this, how is 1.0 even possible? Let's say, for instance, that the United States launches a campaign of domination, usurping the sovereignty of other nations and creating an Empire. How does that lead to U.N. domination? Does the U.S. do this and then simply hand the reigns of their sovereignty over to a collective of nations far weaker than itself?

I'm just not seeing how this notion is plausible.

 

[TheFearmonger]

Now, reasonable reply by finger into account... what evidence do you have for a NWO? No extrapolations allowed.

We have a current one, and all of us here agree that evolution is very real.

This is your argument? Excuse me, I have to go do something...

 

[Niocan]

Let's say you're right about 2.0, a few things:

First, if debt is the means of controlling the populace, then what would be gained through consolidation of governments? If debt is the medium of control, then the reigns of power would be in the hands of debt holders, namely banks, traders and investors. Surely trade in currencies would only further the ends of those controlling the money, and allow these same debt holders to become wealthier. You're suggesting that they would close off a lucrative market in favor of a single sovereign system. Why? Competition and trade were vitally important even under the mercantilist systems of the old European Empires, why would that change?

It does seem quite counterintuitive doesn't it; But I'd like to offer a different... value, for what you attached as the people who are in control. Do you control the iPod in your hand? Yes, at least, to the extent that the makers allow you to (Setting aside jailbreaking the thing, etc ). The policies behind the central banks control the median in question, and they understand that when you inject more fiat money (It's very important to understand how fiat money is different then money backed by commodities) into a market all other dollars in said market are worth that much less. This is inflation, and it's a cornerstone of this whole scam.

When this money is only backed by the users faith in it, their attachment to it will diminish when there's more in the system as it's worth that much less (through their eyes); Hyperinflation, then, could be defined as a loss of control with that median (eventually..).

So, in order to upgrade from 2.0 to 3.0 there needs to be a patch to cover this loss of control, which is where this carbon scam comes into play. Their control over the markets, directly with debt based money, will turn into control over the resources and how we use them. Which is why the consolidation of governing bodies is needed, as they've by-passed the details of different markets and have gone straight to the source. The Earth itself.

If we're defined as being controlled by the representation of the nation we're in, because the nation is based off of policies that drive its markets, then when this carbon scam takes place by definition we're transitioning to a control of the worlds resources; To a world government.

At least, within the bounds of theoretical discussions like this, this is apparent to me.

Second, by what possible means would the U.N. have of gaining this kind of power? The U.N.'s assembly are made up of ambassadors with absolutely no power to make decisions, save with the respective approval of the states they represent. They are picked to represent their governments by their respective heads of state, and first and foremost, have the interests of their home countries in mind. Why would they betray their nation's sovereignty?

How would this U.N. enforce its edicts, when its military is entirely made up of units from the governments it purports to control, and in fact it has no way of raising an army of its own? How would the U.N. wrest control of the world's nuclear stockpiles? Even if the U.N. could muster an army completely loyal to itself, on what territory would that army be based? Inside their headquarters in New York? Given the U.N.'s own rules of governance, how could the Secretary General even assume such power if he wanted to? What country would willingly sign over its sovereignty, military and economy to an organization in which it has such a minimal stake? For instance, why would Egypt, a country that doesn't even sit on the security council, allow its military to be usurped by U.N. power? And even if the governments of the world collectively lost their marbles and turned the sovereignty of their nations over to an international power, how would they convince the masses to go along with it? How would they convince United States Marines, for instance, whose oath of loyalty is to the Constitution of the United States that they now owe their loyalty to a foreign power?

In short, they can't. Unless there's some huge threat to the world; In which case we must join together for the common good, and use the resources we have at hand to help achieve the solution to this problem... for World Security reasons of course, says the tyrant...

You're very right though, in regards to the unwillingness of the people and officers (or at least most of them) to carry out such brutal acts on the very people they've sworn to protect. This problem was much more open with the earlier versions of this 'game', but if you control the mind you control the hand behind the gun/taser (The bad guys want to hurt the earth, get 'em!). We can compare this to how we treat 'terrorists' now, when any rational inquiry into their lives will reveal that they're the freedom fighter viewed from the other side of the gun.

Don't confuse the sad overview with the optimism I hold for the people though, because like a couple of you have pointed out no one likes being controlled; Though only by recognizing a method of control, is to bring to light weather or not you're under said control.

Second, if 3.0 is the ultimate outcome of this, how is 1.0 even possible? Let's say, for instance, that the United States launches a campaign of domination, usurping the sovereignty of other nations and creating an Empire. How does that lead to U.N. domination? Does the U.S. do this and then simply hand the reigns of their sovereignty over to a collective of nations far weaker than itself?

I'm just not seeing how this notion is plausible.

The evolution of the controllers, I use the term broadly and not specifically pointing to the proverbial 'they', is how this must work.
1.0 is wiping out the natives of america to build up the american / canadian powers. 2.0 is building a system of government to control the social interactions of the settlers and 3.0 is taxing + regulating the very sweat of their brow through enforcement under the guise of 'the good' as per defined by the previous 2.0 government. Each interval comes when the previous methods of control are being called into question.

Again, this is more of a fun (if I may view it as lightly as I am >.>) theoretical discussion of control methods so please address it as such with any questions you'd like about my opinion on this.

 

[Mapp]

It does seem quite counterintuitive doesn't it; But I'd like to offer a different... value, for what you attached as the people who are in control. Do you control the iPod in your hand? Yes, at least, to the extent that the makers allow you to (Setting aside jailbreaking the thing, etc ). The policies behind the central banks control the median in question, and they understand that when you inject more fiat money (It's very important to understand how fiat money is different then money backed by commodities) into a market all other dollars in said market are worth that much less. This is inflation, and it's a cornerstone of this whole scam.

Actually, I control the iPod by choosing or not choosing to buy it based on the features it offers, and that's exactly the point I'm trying to make: Competition makes money. You're talking about removing a money market in which you, yourself admit can be manipulated to the benefit of those in control [assuming your theory of a global cabal of bankers is correct] in favor of a monolithic system in which competition is replaced by a single currency. So even if these bankers were secretly running everything, trading a money market for a monolith is in their worst interests, not their best.

When this money is only backed by the users faith in it, their attachment to it will diminish when there's more in the system as it's worth that much less (through their eyes); Hyperinflation, then, could be defined as a loss of control with that median (eventually..).

Any product's value is going to diminish when there is more in the market. It is important to note however, every instance of hyper-inflation has not been caused by an over-abundance of currency but by a loss of faith in the government printing the money to honor its debts. Weimar Germany, for instance didn't end up with a loaf of bread costing a million marks because they were printing billions and billions of marks, but because they failed to prevent France from occupying the Rhineland, their chief industrial region. But again, this is missing the point. Let's say that, against their own best interests, this hypothetical cabal of bankers that rules the world causes the currency to hyper-inflate, destroying their own wealth in the process. And so the answer is to create a monolithic system based on a governmental body in which NOBODY has faith in, the United Nations? Again, I realize I sound like a broken record but I must keep pointing out, that if people are being enslaved by debt, hyper-inflation would be the last thing debt holders would attempt to bring about. Your supposed conspiracy is working against itself.

So, in order to upgrade from 2.0 to 3.0 there needs to be a patch to cover this loss of control, which is where this carbon scam comes into play. Their control over the markets, directly with debt based money, will turn into control over the resources and how we use them. Which is why the consolidation of governing bodies is needed, as they've by-passed the details of different markets and have gone straight to the source. The Earth itself.

Carbon emissions are not even remotely related to monetary control. Carbon emissions don't even represent control over citizens. Having a government place emissions controls on a company, in no way gives the government a controlling stake in that company's products, it's essentially a glorified form of sin taxation. You're suggesting a carbon emissions bill, that is essentially a Collectivist take-over of industry. It's a boogey-man from the wildest fantasies of the John Birch Society. Furthermore, you have yet to answer how the U.N., a body with no power outside of what its member states grant it, could in any way exert this will on a private company, let alone a sovereign state. The apparatus for this take over have to be in place for this thing to work out as you predict, and regulating carbon emissions simply aren't going to result in a willful surrender of sovereignty by the most powerful governments in the world. What's to stop China from just spitting in the eye of the regulators and marching off to do its own thing? We're talking about an organization that, in response to Iran building enrichment plants, can't get off anything more than a strongly worded letter. After all, we all know how the U.N.'s iron grip came down upon us all after the Kyoto Treaty was signed don't we? I had such a time getting those jack-booted blue helmet thugs out of my living room!

If we're defined as being controlled by the representation of the nation we're in, because the nation is based off of policies that drive its markets, then when this carbon scam takes place by definition we're transitioning to a control of the worlds resources; To a world government.

1. You've failed to explain how controlling carbon emissions results in control of a government, and 2. Who in the world defines their nation this way? Nations are based off of how they construct their ruling bodies. Only in the most totalitarian collectivist regimes do the economic system and the government system mesh to that degree. In the case of the United States, you have elected representatives who choose ambassadors to go to the U.N. Those politicians may sign off on carbon control legislation, but they are still accountable to their electorate. Why do you think the United States held off on signing Kyoto for so long?

And again, by definition? What possible definition are you talking about? By definition a world government is one that has sovereignty over the world. You're positing a United Nations that has the ability to enforce its decrees on member nations without the consent of other governments. A U.N. with its own military, its own clout and a head of state that is feared and respected. None of that is remotely true. Seriously, can you truly think that Boutros Boutros Gali or Ban Ki Moon can have that kind of clout?

In short, they can't. Unless there's some huge threat to the world; In which case we must join together for the common good, and use the resources we have at hand to help achieve the solution to this problem... for World Security reasons of course, says the tyrant...

OK, again let's say there is a global currency collapse. We again come back to this mythical conception of the U.N. you seem to have. The U.N. could not produce such a dictator. Not from its general secretary, not from its representatives. Even if it could, the U.N. would still have no way whatsoever to enforce its edicts.

You're very right though, in regards to the unwillingness of the people and officers (or at least most of them) to carry out such brutal acts on the very people they've sworn to protect. This problem was much more open with the earlier versions of this 'game', but if you control the mind you control the hand behind the gun/taser (The bad guys want to hurt the earth, get 'em!). We can compare this to how we treat 'terrorists' now, when any rational inquiry into their lives will reveal that they're the freedom fighter viewed from the other side of the gun.

This point is irrelevant until you explain this incredibly leap of logic you're making from carbon emissions to totalitarian control by the U.N.

The evolution of the controllers, I use the term broadly and not specifically pointing to the proverbial 'they', is how this must work.
1.0 is wiping out the natives of america to build up the american / canadian powers. 2.0 is building a system of government to control the social interactions of the settlers and 3.0 is taxing + regulating the very sweat of their brow through enforcement under the guise of 'the good' as per defined by the previous 2.0 government. Each interval comes when the previous methods of control are being called into question.

OK, you're confusing a lot of historical events here. Wiping out of the natives was largely done through the unintentional transfer of virgin soil epidemics by the Spanish, see The Colombian Exchange. It wasn't until the War of 1812 that Small Pox was intentionally used as a biological weapon against natives, 200 years after first contact. If you're going to claim that this was a conspiracy, then you once again have the conspirators working against themselves. The Spanish hoped to not only convert the natives, but to use them as slave labor in Spanish mines and encomiendas, and were horrified at watching the population decimated by disease. Having the natives die forced them to build a massive, and expensive network of slave trading bases to get Africans into the new world. As for the United States, intentional mass-genocide of Indians was not the official policy of the government. There are only a few notable examples of it, the destruction of California coastal tribes during the Gold Rush of 1849 for instance. Indian Removal, as horrible as it was, was not meant as a genocidal policy. For more on Indian Removal there's a great short book called Long Bitter Trail that deals with the legality and politics of removal policy.

Second, I'm curious how you can argue that 3.0 naturally leads to increased control when citing North American history. When you consider that Imperial attempts to do just that kind of taxation and regulation, i.e. The Navigation Acts, the Townshed Duties, the Stamp Act, etc. led to the collapse of Imperial power and the birth of one of the most decentralized governments in world history: The Articles of Confederacy.

I realize this is all just hypothetical, and that you're positing a thought experiment rather than what you actually think will happen, but to me, it just seems ridiculous. History, human nature and government just don't play out the way this scenario imagines.

 

[Mapp]

Here's an Onion video that humorously sums up what I'm talking about
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/ambassador_stages_coup_at_un

 

[5810Singer]

NIOCAN:

Did you even read the wiki entry I linked to?

I don't support any bullshit conspiracy theories because, as has been pointed out to you by others, conspiracy theories require a suspension of rational, logical thought in order to appear plausible.

You've used my thread about how laughable conspiracy theories are as a soapbox for your own bullshit, nutty world view.

Please don't pull this shit with one of my threads again.

 

[borrofburi]

I'd kick it's ass. Free speech is a main tenet of the world, and I will not allow it to be trampled.

I used to think like this. Then I realized I had loved ones and I cared very much for their safety, and any government with enough power and tyrannical enough to be worth rising up against would also be powerful enough to screw with my loved ones if I did. Even if I was ok with that, it's not fair of me to make that choice for them.

The real problem is this: we humans learned a long time ago that dramatic changes don't work well. So if anyone with a brain really wanted to abolish free speech, they wouldn't flat out abolish it, that would cause protests and marches probably even riots; no you start with something simple most people can agree on, especially if it can marginalize a small disliked group of people (*cough* blasphemy); then you do a little more control about what people can say, perhaps "hate speech" or "terrorist speech", and eventually you have gotten rid of the parts of free speech that you really really wanted gone (namely criticism of the government and those in power) (and most of the citizens are happy because they can still freely talk about brad pitt all they want). So at each level the question becomes: how much can you fight? Are you really going to lead a freedom fighting guns blazing insurrection over a blasphemy law? Good luck getting the populace on your side. And so it goes at every stage: if you ever rise up against the government you look like a colossal crybaby terrorist making a big deal over a very small change "I mean sure, it's bad, but you want to kill people over it? Wtf are you thinking."

Or so the hypothesis goes; and it has some merit. However the primary flaw is that, at least in the US, the supreme court judges regularly rule against the rest of the government in favor of the constitution and free speech. So instead of physical bloody uprisings, we have legal uprisings. Though there is, in my opinion, valid fear that we are losing over time, that our legal battles only serve to slow the erosion of freedoms, not prevent it (and perhaps in doing so making it even less noticeable). Indeed, the scary thing is often not what the powerful try to do, but how the people react; in this linked to thread there are several posts arguing that the fault of the unreasonable search was on the citizen for not being cooperative enough, for not laying down and taking it.

There's actually a second hypothesis that goes something like: you don't have to abolish free speech, just control the media so any speech you don't want spoken won't be. The problem with this one is the internet, and the fact that you can create a media corporation if you happen to have the millions of dollars you need. Though of course the conspiracy people will say that the population has already been brainwashed into only believing in evidence, so when they put up websites informing people no one believes them....

In the end, the conspiracy people have some valid fears, but they suffer from the out-group homogeneity problem as well as the "I don't need evidence" problem (on the flipside, it is perhaps unfair to demand evidence, I mean let's say a conspiracy person was really certain about watergate, prior to june of 1972 there would have been no evidence to point to; the problem is that even if they're right they are so for the wrong reasons). I still think it's foolish to just go "oh conspiracy person everything they say is invalid", mostly because I think the origins of their ramblings are real valid fears that we should generally worry about: namely that power really does tend to corrupt.

Competition makes money.

What are you talking about? Competition doesn't make money; in the short run it's good for the consumer *not* the producer/supplier. A business will do everything it can to limit competition because true profits come when you have a monopoly (i.e. a lack of competition). I would argue that in the long run competition is better for everyone, including the industry itself (even if not for specific individual businesses), but competition absolutely does *not* make money.

 

[TheFearmonger]

That's an awesome link dude. Kinda funny in a way... but here, you makes a mistaken. I plan to live alone, so no one could really hold anyone hostage from me. No, I would gladly fight. But, I don't think a NWO is even coming. A one-world gov't, maybe, some time in the distant future. But, that isn't even always a bad thing. These fearmongers that spread this NWO crap only attract people who are gullible and need something in their lives. This isn't going to happen. So, everyone calm down, I'll protect you(unless xman keeps pointing out flaws in my grammerz :lol: )