Charlotte Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Yes let me pointlessly expand on this a little...say 'a day in the life of a Bilderberger' perhaps? Monday...Got up, took lizard suit off, washed, put it back on, banned Jazz, had breakfast, went to secret meeting (basement underneath Croydon's Maccy Dee) & discussed plans for implementing Gravity control, dropped croissant on floor, revised plans for gravity conrol, ate insects for afternoon tea, phone big banking friends, listened to Mendlesohn, listened to Mandelson - preferred the former, spoke to Bush, hid in a bush, dressed up as an owl, checked Jazz's perma-ban, checked Geo's perma-tan, then off to the Mod yacht - Oops I've given JB's identity away...blast, done it again. Tuesday - got up, took lizard suit off etc... Do you ever get to the Isle of Wight? I hear it's good holiday destination for your sort - little fortress in the Solent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lbm Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Do you ever get to the Isle of Wight? I hear it's good holiday destination for your sort - little fortress in the Solent. Where on earth do you think I've been broadcasting from on here for the last couple of years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellis Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 why? You may not be old enough to remember Denis Healey! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_jza80 Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Actually, you are wrong. Up until December 1940 there were only 3 deaths of American seamen. In 1941 there were considerably more but the majority were down to Japanese attacks and not U boat interference. The list here is quite informative. Plus 13 merchant marines during 1940, and over 300 in 1941. it's hard to find stats that differentiate between pre/post pearl harbour, but considering pearl harbour was attacked on December 7th 1941, it would be fair to assume a significant number of those were pre pearl harbour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 No, what the Google search shows is that your initial claim about 'this is the first time it's been reported on in mainstream media' is 100% wrong. Here's another report from 2001:http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/mar/10/extract1( It's worth a read as it's a candid interview with Lord Healey). So now you're backpedalling to say that it's only been reported on 'a handful of times.' But that's not right either. Take a look at http://www.bilderberg.org/1998.htm. This seems to be a kind ofpro-conspiracy site and it helpfully lists the extensive discussion the group gets in national newspapers. Plenty of articles in the first page I clicked on - 1998. Your last line is a logical nonsense. Everyone outside of a lunatic asylum accepts as true some things they are told. If this wasn't the case then we would be entirely limited to our own direct experience. I wouldn't believe in Costa Rica because I've never been there, and can only rely on the testimony of others that claim they have (and their faked photographs). You accept certain things you are told just as much as anyone, otherwise you wouldn't believe The Bilderberg Group existed. You just trust different sources. you're more than entitled to you opinion and i respect you for it... “We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years.” It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” - David Rockefeller, Bilderberg meeting 1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz6002 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Penguin - I'm curious. What's your big hang-up about a world government? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Penguin - I'm curious. What's your big hang-up about a world government? a one world government? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz6002 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 a one world government? Well there is only one world that I know of, so... yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 The biggest ones 1) religious texts warn of the dangers of a NWO/one world government and how it will be headed by the anti-christ/dajjal 2) why there is a need for one government to rule the entire planet 3) will said NWO be working for the interests of the people or the interests of big business? 4) a one world government will limit/stop growth of developing/third world countries to maintain the status quo 5) it'll be full of white men in black suits. there are many others but Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz6002 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 The biggest ones 1) religious texts warn of the dangers of a NWO/one world government and how it will be headed by the anti-christ/dajjal 2) why there is a need for one government to rule the entire planet 3) will said NWO be working for the interests of the people or the interests of big business? 4) a one world government will limit/stop growth of developing/third world countries to maintain the status quo 5) it'll be full of white men in black suits. there are many others but OK, I understand people's issues with it and have listened to people go into much more comprehensive attacks on the idea, but I think it's devil's advocate time. 1) religious texts warn of the dangers of a NWO/one world government and how it will be headed by the anti-christ/dajjal - irrelevant. 2) why there is a need for one government to rule the entire planet - it would certainly lead to an end to conflict over commodities. 3) will said NWO be working for the interests of the people or the interests of big business? - you'd hope in the interests of humanity. 4) a one world government will limit/stop growth of developing/third world countries to maintain the status quo - or perhaps equalise monetary assets and make the world a fairer place to live without capitalisation favouring the 'already-haves' over the 'have-nots'. 5) it'll be full of white men in black suits. - irrational. The Chinese would have to be a huge part of it since they have such a huge slice of the population. Same with India. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying it's an idea without risk and that it's definitely the way humanity should be heading, but I believe in thinking things through and making your own decisions based on your own opinions, not those of others who have a soapbox to stand on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 OK, I understand people's issues with it and have listened to people go into much more comprehensive attacks on the idea, but I think it's devil's advocate time. 1) religious texts warn of the dangers of a NWO/one world government and how it will be headed by the anti-christ/dajjal - irrelevant. 2) why there is a need for one government to rule the entire planet - it would certainly lead to an end to conflict over commodities. 3) will said NWO be working for the interests of the people or the interests of big business? - you'd hope in the interests of humanity. 4) a one world government will limit/stop growth of developing/third world countries to maintain the status quo - or perhaps equalise monetary assets and make the world a fairer place to live without capitalisation favouring the 'already-haves' over the 'have-nots'. 5) it'll be full of white men in black suits. - irrational. The Chinese would have to be a huge part of it since they have such a huge slice of the population. Same with India. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying it's an idea without risk and that it's definitely the way humanity should be heading, but I believe in thinking things through and making your own decisions based on your own opinions, not those of others who have a soapbox to stand on 1) may be irrelevant to you but it's not to a huge number of people 2) wouldn't the implementation of a one world government cause more conflict? why would sovereign nations want to give up their resources/wealth? 3) .... ah, you mean faith? i have faith in god, not humans... history has shown time and time again that power corrupts even men of the highest morals 4) you'll find the "elites" are in favour of a one world government, after all they would be the ones running it 5) not irrational - it's fact, what is the current state of the "united nations" ?? it's only function is to serve the interests of anglo/american/israeli governments and nothing else it is a bad idea and humanity should stay away from it - why would we want to end up talking, walking, dressing, conforming like everyone else? wheres the individuality in that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz6002 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 it is a bad idea and humanity should stay away from it - why would we want to end up talking, walking, dressing, conforming like everyone else? wheres the individuality in that? Dude. Open your mind. Why does it have to be like that? Simple answer: it doesn't. That's a ridiculous thing to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Dude. Open your mind. Why does it have to be like that? Simple answer: it doesn't. That's a ridiculous thing to say. it doesn't but it will.... cctv cameras, gps trackers, chips in your arm to track your movements etc - it's all part of the plan... one world government = one world prison for anyone who's not with the "in" crowd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz6002 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 it doesn't but it will.... cctv cameras, gps trackers, chips in your arm to track your movements etc - it's all part of the plan... one world government = one world prison for anyone who's not with the "in" crowd. You sound like one of the guys that stands on street corners with a sandwich board and a body odour problem shouting about the end of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 You sound like one of the guys that stands on street corners with a sandwich board and a body odour problem shouting about the end of the world. great response - and thanks for your valued input. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz6002 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 great response - and thanks for your valued input. Well come on, you have to admit it all sounds a bit hilarious to someone who doesn't subscribe to such extreme scare-mongering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snooze Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 The biggest ones 1) religious texts warn of the dangers of a NWO/one world government and how it will be headed by the anti-christ/dajjal 2) why there is a need for one government to rule the entire planet 3) will said NWO be working for the interests of the people or the interests of big business? 4) a one world government will limit/stop growth of developing/third world countries to maintain the status quo 5) it'll be full of white men in black suits. there are many others but With the (possible) exception of point #1, aren't these potential issues/questions with ANY level of government, be it local, regional, national or whatever? Cornwall probably say the same kind of things about the UK government. Altarnun probably say the same kind of things about Cornwall CC. etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Well come on, you have to admit it all sounds a bit hilarious to someone who doesn't subscribe to such extreme scare-mongering. really? - to me, it just screams out ignorance and lack of critical thinking.... on the same token, people are willing to give away civil liberties in the name of "security" and don't really question the extreme scaremongering involved... two sided coin mate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 With the (possible) exception of point #1, aren't these potential issues/questions with ANY level of government, be it local, regional, national or whatever? the bigger the government the smaller the freedoms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz6002 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 really? - to me, it just screams out ignorance and lack of critical thinking.... on the same token, people are willing to give away civil liberties in the name of "security" and don't really question the extreme scaremongering involved... two sided coin mate. It seems a trend for you to chuck out insults when someone questions your views. You may think I'm ignorant, but perhaps I'm better placed to comment on it than you? I'm not saying I am, but how would you know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 It seems a trend for you to chuck out insults when someone questions your views. You may think I'm ignorant, but perhaps I'm better placed to comment on it than you? I'm not saying I am, but how would you know? pot, kettle, black : http://www.mkivsupra.net/vbb/showthread.php?244103-Illumanati-your-views...&p=3138545&viewfull=1#post3138545 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snooze Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 the bigger the government the smaller the freedoms. Typically, yes, but not categorically. Sounds like a bit of a throwaway statement. Who defines the "right" level of freedom? ...more importantly, where's Tannhauser when we need him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Typically, yes, but not categorically. Sounds like a bit of a throwaway statement. Who defines the "right" level of freedom? i don't think it is mate, look at the problems we now have due to joining the eurozone, the taxes we pay go to waste over there, and they dictate what happens here.... do you really want someone in washington telling you what is good for your region? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz6002 Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 pot, kettle, black : http://www.mkivsupra.net/vbb/showthread.php?244103-Illumanati-your-views...&p=3138545&viewfull=1#post3138545 mine was a metaphore to explain my frustrations with your points. You said I was ignorant and lacking 'critical thinking'. TBH I'm happy to lack your critical thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 mine was a metaphore to explain my frustrations with your points. You said I was ignorant and lacking 'critical thinking'. TBH I'm happy to lack your critical thinking. you shouldn't take things to heart - i didn't specifically attribute lack of thinking or ignorance to you did i? and why become frustrated with my points? if you don't understand what i'm getting at , why not do your own research into them and make up your mind instead? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.