Up until I saw my fellow countrymen (including many I respected) fawning like chimps at a tea party during that whole "jubilee" thing I might have agreed. There seems to be a huge cognitive dissonance for most people when it comes to the royals.

On the one hand most don't really take it very seriously, on the other many (maybe even most) appear to have a sub-conscious desire/need to submit to their natural betters. Our whole national identity is built on the myths of Kings and failed rebellions and I fear for many the Monarchy represents a kind of bizarre political security blanket. We claim to not really care but deep down I think many of us secretly fear loosing our mythical matriarch.

One might liken it to celebrity worship backed by 100's & 1000's of years of religious mythology. The Royal's aren't really human to us, they are more like some closely related parent species born to a life we could only dream of. I realise that when asked directly most people would consciously acknowledge that was silly, but most would also respond the same to say Christian sexual repression. They know sex and nakedness when considered rationally are nothing to be ashamed of, but they still continue to treat their own urges as somehow sinful when they do not fall within rigidly defined social parameters.

We still haven't gotten over such Judeo-Christian self policing because the social structures built up around it are still with us (even if we fool ourselves into thinking we are beyond the reach of such sub-conscious influences). I don't think we will ever get over our master-slave culture while class and unearned privilege are still built into the fabric of our society. Having a Royal family, no matter how symbolic, is the very living embodiment of this kind of backwards ideology.

It's like trying to quit heroin while locked in a room with a big bag of the stuff.

It's true to say most don't take the whole thing very seriously but that to me is almost as concerning. Most people when asked don't believe advertising has a significant effect on their psyche but Coke-a-cola still feels like spending about 3 billion a year on it is worthwhile. One of them is clearly mistaken!

Our royal family here, is to me working in the same way as coke's advertising. It's a focal point for a lot of sub-conscious concepts we are bombarded with our whole lives. Naturally there are many sides to this and it wouldn't work without heavy media manipulation, state indoctrination etc. but it's an intrinsic part of the coercive myth none the less. Monarch's, Emperors and wealthy Dynasties are all poisons to me. No matter the pragmatic details, the sub-conscious effect seems significant and cumulative.

"Dead" symbolisms IMHO can often be the most dangerous. At least one is consciously aware of the devils we see. No one is watching the one's we have forgotten.....

The above is reason enough for me but I have bog all better to do this aft so I'll dive into the rabbithole a bit.....

(We do very quickly start getting into conspiracy theory territory hare so I'll try to keep it as uncontroversial as I can.)

A. The UK is truly ruled by financial elites not political ones IMHO. "The city" says jump, Whitehall says how high. The Royal family being among the wealthiest landowners and investors in the world (let alone UK) presumably can exert the same kind of influence. Naturally this occurs behind closed doors, but when the ownership class puts it's foot down the government ignores them to their extreme detriment. (It's hard to argue with people who own your economy de-facto and can make or break your career)

B. The queen herself sits on the council on foreign relations & Bilderberg group and she was actually the chairwoman of the "committee of 300" for several years. (and that's not even starting on club of Rome, shares in Goldman Sachs etc.)

C. SIS the uk's intelligence services (MI5/6 etc.), which have been proven to on occasion operate without civilian oversight in the past, are sworn to the crown. This is always going to be a most contentious point as it's incredibly difficult to prove wrongdoings, but I have very strong suspicions based on various incidents (David Kelly, James Andanson, Jill Dando etc.), that if they wanted/needed you dead/threatened that would not be especially difficult to arrange.

D. Jimmy Saville. This one really is tin foil hat territory, but it's no secret he was close to the Royal family. I am of the opinion this is because he was a top level procurer of "things", for which I feel there is a great deal of evidence, but I can't expect people to just go along with that idea. However given the latest "paedogeddon" scandal involving a extremely high level abuse ring (cabinet members, mi5/6, bankers etc.) it certainly would come as little surprise to find royal family members involved.

Points A&B I would stand behind firmly. C&D are drifting into conjecture but still potentially relevant I feel.

But even if we ignore all of them, our culture is built from the ground up upon the idea of privilege of birth. That there are some people born better or more deserving than the rest of us. When I refer to symbolism this is what I mean. Obviously the buck does not stop with the monarchy, England is hopelessly stratified by class all the way through, but the royal family exemplify this to absurd extremes.

At best I feel this hopelessly distorts and corrupts our collective sense of identity on a sub-conscious level. At worst....Well you must have some idea now how paranoid I'm capable of being about the way the world is run. (Not that I necessarily believe it all wholeheartedly, but I'm open to the possibility and inclined to suggest it more likely than the mainstream narrative)


On a pragmatic note: Tourism would be fine without them I think, we still have the history and the castles and the soldiers with silly hats etc. And I think the palaces would make great hotels and museums. They make great zoo exhibits I agree, just maybe not let them continue to own half the zoo and bribe the zoo keepers?


Anyway much love as always. You responded with considered points which is always worthy of respect, regardless of whether I agree with it all.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Anyone care to enlighten me as to why these supposed conspirators blew up the towers? I mean, it must have been a pretty extensive operation to plan, so I'm guessing they didn't just murder a few thousand of their own citizens for shits and giggles.
Hell, even maddox isn't retarded enough to actually believe this shit.


In his book, The Grand Chessboard, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski (former national security advisor for President Carter, former director of the Council on Foreign Relations, and a member of the Trilateral Commission along with Bush Sr. and Dick Cheney) writes of an imperialistic endeavor of controlling the world's vast natural resources (oil, natural gas, minerals, gold, etc.) and also human labor in Eurasia (specifically central Asia/Uzbekistan) that the U.S. must undertake to maintain global domination despite the American public's indecisiveness towards the external projection of American power (in which he reminds the reader that the American public supported U.S.'s engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor) and cautions that it will become more difficult to establish consensus on foreign policy issues with an ever increasingly multi-cultural society in America unless the public widely perceives a massive direct external threat. (killtown.911review.org)

Those troublesome Jews

Charles Krauthammer

Friday, June 4, 2010

The world is outraged at Israel's blockade of Gaza. Turkey denounces its illegality, inhumanity, barbarity, etc. The usual U.N. suspects, Third World and European, join in. The Obama administration dithers.
This Story

But as Leslie Gelb, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes, the blockade is not just perfectly rational, it is perfectly legal. Gaza under Hamas is a self-declared enemy of Israel -- a declaration backed up by more than 4,000 rockets fired at Israeli civilian territory. Yet having pledged itself to unceasing belligerency, Hamas claims victimhood when Israel imposes a blockade to prevent Hamas from arming itself with still more rockets.

In World War II, with full international legality, the United States blockaded Germany and Japan. And during the October 1962 missile crisis, we blockaded ("quarantined") Cuba. Arms-bearing Russian ships headed to Cuba turned back because the Soviets knew that the U.S. Navy would either board them or sink them. Yet Israel is accused of international criminality for doing precisely what John Kennedy did: impose a naval blockade to prevent a hostile state from acquiring lethal weaponry.

Oh, but weren't the Gaza-bound ships on a mission of humanitarian relief? No. Otherwise they would have accepted Israel's offer to bring their supplies to an Israeli port, be inspected for military materiel and have the rest trucked by Israel into Gaza -- as every week 10,000 tons of food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies are sent by Israel to Gaza.

Why was the offer refused? Because, as organizer Greta Berlin admitted, the flotilla was not about humanitarian relief but about breaking the blockade, i.e., ending Israel's inspection regime, which would mean unlimited shipping into Gaza and thus the unlimited arming of Hamas.
ad_icon

Israel has already twice intercepted ships laden with Iranian arms destined for Hezbollah and Gaza. What country would allow that?

But even more important, why did Israel even have to resort to blockade? Because, blockade is Israel's fallback as the world systematically de-legitimizes its traditional ways of defending itself -- forward and active defense.

(1) Forward defense: As a small, densely populated country surrounded by hostile states, Israel had, for its first half-century, adopted forward defense -- fighting wars on enemy territory (such as the Sinai and Golan Heights) rather than its own.

Where possible (Sinai, for example) Israel has traded territory for peace. But where peace offers were refused, Israel retained the territory as a protective buffer zone. Thus Israel retained a small strip of southern Lebanon to protect the villages of northern Israel. And it took many losses in Gaza, rather than expose Israeli border towns to Palestinian terror attacks. It is for the same reason America wages a grinding war in Afghanistan: You fight them there, so you don't have to fight them here.

But under overwhelming outside pressure, Israel gave it up. The Israelis were told the occupations were not just illegal but at the root of the anti-Israel insurgencies -- and therefore withdrawal, by removing the cause, would bring peace.

Land for peace. Remember? Well, during the past decade, Israel gave the land -- evacuating South Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. What did it get? An intensification of belligerency, heavy militarization of the enemy side, multiple kidnappings, cross-border attacks and, from Gaza, years of unrelenting rocket attack.

(2) Active defense: Israel then had to switch to active defense -- military action to disrupt, dismantle and defeat (to borrow President Obama's description of our campaign against the Taliban and al-Qaeda) the newly armed terrorist mini-states established in southern Lebanon and Gaza after Israel withdrew.

The result? The Lebanon war of 2006 and Gaza operation of 2008-09. They were met with yet another avalanche of opprobrium and calumny by the same international community that had demanded the land-for-peace Israeli withdrawals in the first place. Worse, the U.N. Goldstone report, which essentially criminalized Israel's defensive operation in Gaza while whitewashing the casus belli -- the preceding and unprovoked Hamas rocket war -- effectively de-legitimized any active Israeli defense against its self-declared terror enemies.

(3) Passive defense: Without forward or active defense, Israel is left with but the most passive and benign of all defenses -- a blockade to simply prevent enemy rearmament. Yet, as we speak, this too is headed for international de-legitimation. Even the United States is now moving toward having it abolished.

But, if none of these is permissible, what's left?

Ah, but that's the point. It's the point understood by the blockade-busting flotilla of useful idiots and terror sympathizers, by the Turkish front organization that funded it, by the automatic anti-Israel Third World chorus at the United Nations, and by the supine Europeans who've had quite enough of the Jewish problem.

What's left? Nothing. The whole point of this relentless international campaign is to deprive Israel of any legitimate form of self-defense. Why, just last week, the Obama administration joined the jackals, and reversed four decades of U.S. practice, by signing onto a consensus document that singles out Israel's possession of nuclear weapons -- thus de-legitimizing Israel's very last line of defense: deterrence.

The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, 6 million -- that number again -- hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to national suicide. For which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized and constrained from defending themselves, even as the more committed anti-Zionists -- Iranian in particular -- openly prepare a more final solution.

The Council on Foreign Relations (www.cfr.org), Trilateral Commission (www.trilateral.org), etc, all exist, you can read their reports, magazines and member lists at the website or on Wikipedia.

It's a pity someone other than Alex Jones wasn't behind this, because it contains the names of a lot of the people that play very interesting roles in the geopolitical/finance areas that should be investigated more.

Aye, the difference being that most of the American lefties that put Obama into office aren't going to sit around and make excuses for him.

Unless they're Democratic loyalists saying "just wait and be patient." Yeah, that's always worked....

But here we are criticizing the poor lad and he's not even in office yet.

And you forget, Great Britain, we are a land of guns.

If no white-supremacist, CIA/Mossad patsy doesn't off the dear man in the mean time, I still hope he holds true to the populace in the face of the Council on Foreign Relations.

He was the "Non-Bush" candidate for many of us.

But I feel like the Titanic has veered a few degrees from the iceberg.

I think he'll prove true. Fingers crossed with hope.

>> ^volumptuous:
CFR is nonsense.
People thinking the CFR is going to control the world, are up there with WTC7/Truth Movement-ers, and bigfoot aficionados.
uggh, I wish I could downvote.


Ahem.....

Today in the Bush administration, every single appointee is a CFR member. The CFR prohibits its members from disclosing anything that has been said within it's closed meetings to outsiders. A recent breakdown of the 4200+ members today reveals that 31% come from the corporate sector, 25% come from academia, 15% from charities, 13% from government, 8% from law, 6% from the media and 2% from other professions. CFR members are on the boards of the following sample of corporations: Citicorp, J.P.Morgan Chase, Boeing, Conoco, Disney, IBM, Exxon Mobil, Dow Jones, Viacom/CBS, Time Warner, Carlyle Group, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse First Boston, Chevron Texaco, Lockheed Martin, Hailliburton, Washington Post/Newsweek.

A former member of the CFR: Rear-Admiral Chester Ward USN JAG (Ret) exposed the sinister intentions of the council in the Review of the News:
"The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common - they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the CFR...comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in control of global government. They would probably prefer that this be an all-powerful United Nations organization; but they are also prepared to deal with and for a one-world government controlled by the Soviet communists if US sovereignty is ever surrendered to them."
Admiral Ward's book: "The Betrayers".

"THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS (C.F.R.) IS THE AMERICAN BRANCH OF A SOCIETY WHICH ORIGINATED IN ENGLAND AND BELIEVES NATIONAL BOUNDARIES SHOULD BE OBLITERATED AND ONE-WORLD RULE ESTABLISHED." The Organization's aim is "NOTHING LESS THAN TO CREATE A WORLD SYSTEM OF FINANCIAL CONTROL IN PRIVATE HANDS ABLE TO DOMINATE THE POLITICAL SYSTEM OF EACH COUNTRY AND THE ECONOMY OF THE WORLD AS A WHOLE.....I KNOW OF THE OPERATIONS OF THIS NETWORK BECAUSE I HAVE STUDIED IT FOR TWENTY YEARS AND WAS PERMITTED FOR TWO YEARS, IN THE EARLY 1960s, TO EXAMINE ITS PAPERS AND SECRET RECORDS."
--- Col. Carroll Quigley (Ret)

"I think there is an elite in this country and they are the ones who run an elitist government (shadow government). They want a government by a handful of people because they don't believe the people themselves can run their lives... Are we going to have an elitist government that makes decisions for people's lives or are we going to believe as we have for so many decades, that the people can make these decisions for themselves?".
--- Ronald Reagan

"We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covet means for expanding its sphere of influence; on
infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation
instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which as conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly-knit highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."
- John F. Kennedy



And some infamous quotes from when it all began in this era.....

1920-1931 – Louis T. McFadden was Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Curency. Concerning the Federal Reserve, Congressman McFadden notes:
"When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world banking system was being set up here. A super-state controlled by International Bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure. Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers, but the truth is – the Fed has usurped the Government. It controls everything here, and it controls all our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will."
Concerning the Great Depression and the country's acceptance of FDR's New Deal, he asserts: "It was no accident. It was a carefully contrived occurrence. The International Bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so they might emerge as the rulers of us all."


And of course we can't forget:
-- Woodrow Wilson (28th President of the United States) stated:

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

Today in the Bush administration, every single appointee is a CFR member. The CFR prohibits its members from disclosing anything that has been said within it's closed meetings to outsiders. A recent breakdown of the 4200+ members today reveals that 31% come from the corporate sector, 25% come from academia, 15% from charities, 13% from government, 8% from law, 6% from the media and 2% from other professions. CFR members are on the boards of the following sample of corporations: Citicorp, J.P.Morgan Chase, Boeing, Conoco, Disney, IBM, Exxon Mobil, Dow Jones, Viacom/CBS, Time Warner, Carlyle Group, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse First Boston, Chevron Texaco, Lockheed Martin, Hailliburton, Washington Post/Newsweek.

A former member of the CFR: Rear-Admiral Chester Ward USN JAG (Ret) exposed the sinister intentions of the council in the Review of the News:
"The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common - they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the CFR...comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in control of global government. They would probably prefer that this be an all-powerful United Nations organization; but they are also prepared to deal with and for a one-world government controlled by the Soviet communists if US sovereignty is ever surrendered to them."
Admiral Ward's book: "The Betrayers".

"THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS (C.F.R.) IS THE AMERICAN BRANCH OF A SOCIETY WHICH ORIGINATED IN ENGLAND AND BELIEVES NATIONAL BOUNDARIES SHOULD BE OBLITERATED AND ONE-WORLD RULE ESTABLISHED." The Organization's aim is "NOTHING LESS THAN TO CREATE A WORLD SYSTEM OF FINANCIAL CONTROL IN PRIVATE HANDS ABLE TO DOMINATE THE POLITICAL SYSTEM OF EACH COUNTRY AND THE ECONOMY OF THE WORLD AS A WHOLE.....I KNOW OF THE OPERATIONS OF THIS NETWORK BECAUSE I HAVE STUDIED IT FOR TWENTY YEARS AND WAS PERMITTED FOR TWO YEARS, IN THE EARLY 1960s, TO EXAMINE ITS PAPERS AND SECRET RECORDS."
--- Col. Carroll Quigley (Ret)

"I think there is an elite in this country and they are the ones who run an elitist government (shadow government). They want a government by a handful of people because they don't believe the people themselves can run their lives... Are we going to have an elitist government that makes decisions for people's lives or are we going to believe as we have for so many decades, that the people can make these decisions for themselves?".
--- Ronald Reagan

"We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covet means for expanding its sphere of influence; on
infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation
instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which as conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly-knit highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."
- John F. Kennedy



And some infamous quotes from when it all began in this era.....

1920-1931 – Louis T. McFadden was Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Curency. Concerning the Federal Reserve, Congressman McFadden notes:
"When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world banking system was being set up here. A super-state controlled by International Bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure. Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers, but the truth is – the Fed has usurped the Government. It controls everything here, and it controls all our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will."
Concerning the Great Depression and the country's acceptance of FDR's New Deal, he asserts: "It was no accident. It was a carefully contrived occurrence. The International Bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so they might emerge as the rulers of us all."


And of course we can't forget:
-- Woodrow Wilson (28th President of the United States) stated:

"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

Yes of course there would be differences.. every president has their own character and style.

It's just that many of the choices were CFR. They are practially forced upon us via the way the mainstream media works.

A Navy JAG Admiral (Chester Ward) and several other officers such as Col. Carol Quigley - as well as one of the main founders (Rockefeller) have exposed the ultimate intention of the Council on Foreign Relations (One World Govt. - with the terms laid out in utter secrecy) - yet most ppl seem to ignore these facts.

i am still really 50/50 about globalisation.

all i can tell you is that freedom of travel in the EU is great, and that i think it would be much harder for any "dark forces" to control us if we mingle more.

my current guess is that the higher ups like globalisation because it makes trade easier and less of their profit goes on bureaucracy and crap.

also consider this example: i am in lithuania. i have a young musician friend in poland from the internet, he wanted to come to lithuania to play in one of my parties, but he couldn't because of problems with his passport and an alcoholic father. Now thanks to shengen he can come without a passport. i think that's good.

living in europe (not uk or usa) i have got much more confident about man's ability to retain his own culture while mixing with others. also i think the cultural gene pool NEEDS mixing.

i am more worried about google world domination than anything else.

just interested what you think on that.

:

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Yes, it's a scary time, because the Executive Branch is acting outside the powers given to them by the Constitution. The President cannot make treaties with other countries without the Senate's approval. Currently, these deals between the US, Canada and Mexico are being passed off as trade agreements, not treaties. But a dissolution of our borders is not a trade agreement.

Welcome to the sift, by the way.

In reply to this comment by Jordass:
Wasnt endorsing Globalization just wanted to know more. Thanks for all the information, it was very informative and more people should familiarize themseleves with the organizations you metioned

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Well, the reason for the US Dollar losing it's value is a separate issue, altogether, and we don't need a North American Union to increase its value. That aside, this debate really comes down to whether you'd prefer to remain a sovereign nation or not. The borders between Canada, the US and Mexico will effectively disappear if there's a NAU, because the NAU goes much further than just currency and trade. The purpose of our Declaration of Independence was to claim our Union of States' independence. The NAU will render that document obsolete, and shortly thereafter the Constitution would be obsolete, because it cannot exist without our DoI. This isn't something to shrug at, because the changes won't come hard and fast, and most likely the general population would never notice their liberties and freedoms being taken away.

If you'd prefer the notion of a one world government (the true end to the globilization means), then you should be for the NAU, because that is step number two. Step number one was the EU, and next will be the Asian Union, then the African Union. Eventually, all of the "Unions" will probably become a one world union. And, if you still think all the nations that used to be sovereign would retain their "current governments" or "identities", as you put it, then I don't know what else I can say to you other than support globalization because, boy oh boy, does it sound nifty.

Take a little time to research the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the North American Free Trade Agreement, (NAFTA), and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). While you're at it, research the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and see how many of the current candidates are part of the CFR. If, after all of that, you still don't see how globalization is a bad idea for our sovereign nation, then, well support globalization. Support a one world government. A one world police force. Oh, what a happier utopia this world will be.

Yes, it's a scary time, because the Executive Branch is acting outside the powers given to them by the Constitution. The President cannot make treaties with other countries without the Senate's approval. Currently, these deals between the US, Canada and Mexico are being passed off as trade agreements, not treaties. But a dissolution of our borders is not a trade agreement.

Welcome to the sift, by the way.

In reply to this comment by Jordass:
Wasnt endorsing Globalization just wanted to know more. Thanks for all the information, it was very informative and more people should familiarize themseleves with the organizations you metioned

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Well, the reason for the US Dollar losing it's value is a separate issue, altogether, and we don't need a North American Union to increase its value. That aside, this debate really comes down to whether you'd prefer to remain a sovereign nation or not. The borders between Canada, the US and Mexico will effectively disappear if there's a NAU, because the NAU goes much further than just currency and trade. The purpose of our Declaration of Independence was to claim our Union of States' independence. The NAU will render that document obsolete, and shortly thereafter the Constitution would be obsolete, because it cannot exist without our DoI. This isn't something to shrug at, because the changes won't come hard and fast, and most likely the general population would never notice their liberties and freedoms being taken away.

If you'd prefer the notion of a one world government (the true end to the globilization means), then you should be for the NAU, because that is step number two. Step number one was the EU, and next will be the Asian Union, then the African Union. Eventually, all of the "Unions" will probably become a one world union. And, if you still think all the nations that used to be sovereign would retain their "current governments" or "identities", as you put it, then I don't know what else I can say to you other than support globalization because, boy oh boy, does it sound nifty.

Take a little time to research the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the North American Free Trade Agreement, (NAFTA), and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). While you're at it, research the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and see how many of the current candidates are part of the CFR. If, after all of that, you still don't see how globalization is a bad idea for our sovereign nation, then, well support globalization. Support a one world government. A one world police force. Oh, what a happier utopia this world will be.

Wasnt endorsing Globalization just wanted to know more. Thanks for all the information, it was very informative and more people should familiarize themseleves with the organizations you metioned

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Well, the reason for the US Dollar losing it's value is a separate issue, altogether, and we don't need a North American Union to increase its value. That aside, this debate really comes down to whether you'd prefer to remain a sovereign nation or not. The borders between Canada, the US and Mexico will effectively disappear if there's a NAU, because the NAU goes much further than just currency and trade. The purpose of our Declaration of Independence was to claim our Union of States' independence. The NAU will render that document obsolete, and shortly thereafter the Constitution would be obsolete, because it cannot exist without our DoI. This isn't something to shrug at, because the changes won't come hard and fast, and most likely the general population would never notice their liberties and freedoms being taken away.

If you'd prefer the notion of a one world government (the true end to the globilization means), then you should be for the NAU, because that is step number two. Step number one was the EU, and next will be the Asian Union, then the African Union. Eventually, all of the "Unions" will probably become a one world union. And, if you still think all the nations that used to be sovereign would retain their "current governments" or "identities", as you put it, then I don't know what else I can say to you other than support globalization because, boy oh boy, does it sound nifty.

Take a little time to research the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the North American Free Trade Agreement, (NAFTA), and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). While you're at it, research the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and see how many of the current candidates are part of the CFR. If, after all of that, you still don't see how globalization is a bad idea for our sovereign nation, then, well support globalization. Support a one world government. A one world police force. Oh, what a happier utopia this world will be.

Well, the reason for the US Dollar losing it's value is a separate issue, altogether, and we don't need a North American Union to increase its value. That aside, this debate really comes down to whether you'd prefer to remain a sovereign nation or not. The borders between Canada, the US and Mexico will effectively disappear if there's a NAU, because the NAU goes much further than just currency and trade. The purpose of our Declaration of Independence was to claim our Union of States' independence. The NAU will render that document obsolete, and shortly thereafter the Constitution would be obsolete, because it cannot exist without our DoI. This isn't something to shrug at, because the changes won't come hard and fast, and most likely the general population would never notice their liberties and freedoms being taken away.

If you'd prefer the notion of a one world government (the true end to the globilization means), then you should be for the NAU, because that is step number two. Step number one was the EU, and next will be the Asian Union, then the African Union. Eventually, all of the "Unions" will probably become a one world union. And, if you still think all the nations that used to be sovereign would retain their "current governments" or "identities", as you put it, then I don't know what else I can say to you other than support globalization because, boy oh boy, does it sound nifty.

Take a little time to research the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the North American Free Trade Agreement, (NAFTA), and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). While you're at it, research the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and see how many of the current candidates are part of the CFR. If, after all of that, you still don't see how globalization is a bad idea for our sovereign nation, then, well support globalization. Support a one world government. A one world police force. Oh, what a happier utopia this world will be.

Yes, you're wrong again on both points. He specifically stated: "...comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents."
Obviously you love playing the victim race card.

You mentioned "Admiral Ward's book"... I assume your referring to The Betrayers. I actually haven't read it yet but given that Admiral Ward was a leading JAG officer, I'm sure it'll be an interesting read.

... aside from Admiral Ward's statement on the CFR and getting back on topic, Carrol Quigley (Georgetown University Professor and mentor to Bill Clinton) had this to say about them:

"THE COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS (C.F.R.) IS THE AMERICAN BRANCH OF A SOCIETY WHICH ORIGINATED IN ENGLAND AND BELIEVES NATIONAL BOUNDARIES SHOULD BE OBLITERATED AND ONE-WORLD RULE ESTABLISHED." The Organization's aim is "NOTHING LESS THAN TO CREATE A WORLD SYSTEM OF FINANCIAL CONTROL IN PRIVATE HANDS ABLE TO DOMINATE THE POLITICAL SYSTEM OF EACH COUNTRY AND THE ECONOMY OF THE WORLD AS A WHOLE.....I KNOW OF THE OPERATIONS OF THIS NETWORK BECAUSE I HAVE STUDIED IT FOR TWENTY YEARS AND WAS PERMITTED FOR TWO YEARS, IN THE EARLY 1960s, TO EXAMINE ITS PAPERS AND SECRET RECORDS."
--- Carroll Quigley

bamdrew stated:"nobody has been this close to being president who's like Obama in a long time... he's in nobody's pocket"

Obama was on the Council of Foreign Relations... In my opinion anyone that has been a member of this illegitimate organization is in the pocket of the neocon NWO agenda which plays both sides.

What was the name of the Japanese film about the girl that has the interview.....and the extra-curricular torture chamber in her apartment????

Anyone??
Oh yeah, gimme' that book and we'll have world peace in a week!!!
First up, Charter members and CEO's of the World Bank, and Entire Membership Roster of the Council on Foreign Relations.