Why the Illumanti may be a good thing

[helpus]

Hey,

I am thinking about the diversity of religion and poiltics and common thought, and that everyone seems to have an opinion about the history and the future and the reality of religion, politics and history combined.

I am interested in asking some questions, but in a manchester accent not a Bush "questions" accent (lol !!?)

i'm really into the idea of eradicating multple religions, for so far they seem to only seperate many people from understanding each other.

i'm also into uniting people towards a one world government, maybe not where we are are controlled, but maybe where we are universally thinking along the same lines.

i personally would like to see a one world government if it eradiacates the total confusion that comes with multiple religions, if it unities various countries and cultures and ways of thinking...

i'm up for a one world harmonious way of thinking.. it could maybe see the end of division

i would like to advocate the possibilty of a one world government that united everybody in a good way, with us all involved, helping each other to progress to our spiritual next level.

One World government.. a swear word with so many beautiful possibilites

peace

scott

[polveirbecker]

Although I think that unity is a good idea and all. But too many people uniting in one place for a long period of time is just going to be riotous. It would be just like Glastonbury or first year university student all the time and we’d just burn out.

As for people on the same level of things. Everyone is different and if we wanted equality we will see rich men killed like in Russia when they tried it they. Either way a one world government is bad as together we’d just burn out.



The reason why I think the Illumanti may be a good thing is they seem to be taking they time with this whole doom and gloom thing. Maybe they aim is to prolong the wait for the NOW so that we can enjoy the days we live in now. It’s potentially aliens or someone from another dimension who’s ordering them to do them because if these people are human and want to do this then they are sick. I guess we just have to wait and see.

[planetsadhana]

one world government is something that would be a manipulated unnatural state of affairs a dictatorship , even if you spin the so called "unity of all things" to make it sound all utopian it wouldnt be it would be a charade a game within a game.

I want my physical and spiritual freedom and live on a paradise on earth and that will only come through authentic truth , not somebody telling me their truth and being dictated to

[willard]

progressing to a spiritual next level, or rather heightened awareness can either be done by yourself or with helpful instruction from someone who has already done this. No need for a world government or any government to intervene.

[planetsadhana]

I think by subjecting us to tyranny, control , mass slaughter of innocents, hypnosis, mind manipulation through TV and other media, religion(even just the one), manipulating the foods we eat the water we drink the air we breathe,by dumbing us down turning our language into "newspeak" to take away our human rights and to do this all from their ivory towers.........

....is trying to keep us in our five sense reality box and therefore declinining us our rights not only as human being but as spiritual beings.

not in my reality , its not

you can have your "daddy" illuminati if you choose, but Im following my heart and going my own way;)

[steevo]

We are all one anyway. For us to be "one" we dont have to be RULED AS IF WE ARE "ONE". It's a fallacy to say that oneness can only be brought about by following "leaders". The reason that we APPEAR to be NOT to be in a state of "oneness" is because they manipulate us into thinking we are not. We then agree to give our freedom away. The illuminati manipulate us into accepting and funding wars.
Oneness will always be there but the majority of people just dont REALISE it yet. A global government is irrelevent, it's just a concept that we are being manipulated into believing in.

[seeker1111]

i think a one world people in theory would be great. a one world government not so much.

i think it would be great for people all over the world to unite as one and we could work at progressing as an entire world together, eliminate the wars, hunger, etc.

with a one world government, i can't see the corruptness going away and power will continue to be abused.

[deafbred]

you may get your one world government for a little while but it is doomed to pass away.

It will never stand again.

[emanuel]

Now this is a tricky thread....but I'll give it a go! ;)

To suggest we, as modern people, don't need governing would suggest we are 'the' superior force of this plant. That we created ourselves!? I don't understand this to be true since all ancient writings and folklore point to the fact that we were created by a superior body, whatever or whoever they were/are. That to me would suggest that there was something to 'govern' us, guide us, at the point we were created. I don't mean govern in the modern sense but given complete physical, mental and spiritual guidance to help us understand what it is to be whatever we were created to be, which in essence I think would have brought about unity. A human culture instead of the division of the many different cultures we have today.

Lets be honest, if we were not governed in the now and it was every man, woman and child left to their own devices, considering how disconnected people are from spiritual enlightenment today, it would be complete chaos across every inch of this planet! I'm not suggesting that the force that created us would of been so strict but in order to learn good you must understand bad and vice versa, one could not be without the other. Would you know of what it meant to truly care for another if you had not witnessed/experienced suffering? We can only appreciate the succulence of an apple by knowing the disgust of a rotten one!

Mankind, at this time, does need guidance in order to attain enlightenment (we know this, that is why you are on the forum), to move up a step closer to being complete. Secret societies, whatever their agenda, are hardly 'secret' are they. Why? And they don't seem to do much to hide themselves. In fact they practically advertise themselves and the negative effect they have on us. Why? Everything is a bit too out in the open in my opinion for it not to have the purpose of being so! You must admit that the more we learn of them, the closer we are to one another! I am not pro Illuminati or any other 'secret' society but there are very definate questions surrounding them that I think may be overlooked.

What I'm saying is I'm not comfortable with people not being governed while they are still so irresponsible and disconnected from their spiritual selves. That maybe why the 2012 date is of great significance to the ancients! I don't know if I have communicated what I think very clearly as it is very, very commplicated (the research I have been doing of late). ;)

This is just my opinion kids :cool:

[thetruthseeker]

It's a nice idea in principal and would work with the right people running the show, the problem we have is power hungry, control freak,mind controllers manipulating the agenda for world leaders to dish out on us. Remember the quote "Power corrupts, absolute power(World Government) corrupts absolutely. John Dalberg Acton (1834-1902). There wouldn't be a problem with diversity if the secret cabal didn't try to manipulate the different groups against each other through propaganda that one group apparently hates the other. it's their weapon of war, they don't kill their enemies they get their enemies to kill off each other.

[mcthompson2x]

It's a nice idea in principal and would work with the right people running the show, the problem we have is power hungry, control freak,mind controllers manipulating the agenda for world leaders to dish out on us. Remember the quote "Power corrupts, absolute power(World Government) corrupts absolutely. John Dalberg Acton (1834-1902). There wouldn't be a problem with diversity if the secret cabal didn't try to manipulate the different groups against each other through propaganda that one group apparently hates the other. it's their weapon of war, they don't kill their enemies they get their enemies to kill off each other.

The problem isn't the way they're playing the game, it's the game itself. It can only be played the way they're playing it because people do not want to be ruled under one set of laws, since everyone is so different. I don't think it's the people in power either - it's the fact that power is corrosive to the human soul and that once people get power, they will do anything to maintain it. It's not an issue of electing the right people or putting the right people in positions of power and influence - we already tried that. They were bought and sold just like anyone else would have been. I think we fall into a dangerous trap when we assume that only part of the NWO equation is wrong - being ruled by anyone at all other than yourself is wrong.

I don't believe total anarchy would work, but what do I know? Does what we have now work? I think not. I think that people will be able to enter into their own "contractual" community situations once the system collapses.

[loderlive]

Lets be honest, if we were not governed in the now and it was every man, woman and child left to their own devices, considering how disconnected people are from spiritual enlightenment today, it would be complete chaos across every inch of this planet!

This isn't what we're asking but simply for the secrets of the ancient time not to be controlled by a select few. That most certainly would not lead to every man, woman and child left to their own devices, disconnected from spiritual meaning, with complete chaos accross every inch of this planet. That is what we have now!

[branjo]

As long as we are aware of the dream, who cares about those that think they run it.

[steevo]

The problem isn't the way they're playing the game, it's the game itself. It can only be played the way they're playing it because people do not want to be ruled under one set of laws, since everyone is so different. I don't think it's the people in power either - it's the fact that power is corrosive to the human soul and that once people get power, they will do anything to maintain it. It's not an issue of electing the right people or putting the right people in positions of power and influence - we already tried that. They were bought and sold just like anyone else would have been. I think we fall into a dangerous trap when we assume that only part of the NWO equation is wrong - being ruled by anyone at all other than yourself is wrong.

I don't believe total anarchy would work, but what do I know? Does what we have now work? I think not. I think that people will be able to enter into their own "contractual" community situations once the system collapses.

Your post has reminded me of something that i was thinking about yesterday with regards to "rules/laws" and being "ruled" and having "rulers".
The RULES of the GAME are the laws of the land. When we play a game of Poker, we have to follow the RULES. If we break the rules, then we are punished. Rules have been put there to control us and punish us. One of the rules of the game is that you have NO CHOICE but to play the game or else they bring in other rules that say we must be punished.
But why, in my daily life, do I have to follow the rules of a GAME that I didnt ask to be part of. I dont want to play this game. Why should I be forced to be part of the game when I dont harm anyone else ?
Excellent post mcthompson2x.

[emanuel]

This isn't what we're asking but simply for the secrets of the ancient time not to be controlled by a select few. That most certainly would not lead to every man, woman and child left to their own devices, disconnected from spiritual meaning, with complete chaos accross every inch of this planet. That is what we have now!

Yes I agree, a return of the secrets. But I think the secrets may be within us, we have to coax them out! The chaos would be caused by our disconnection from our spiritual selves. Before we entertain 'no government' we need to ensure we have made it back to the higher levels of being. It may be a process of redevelopment that we are going through right now.

There is one question that has bugged me since 'awakening' (though in totality we are still pretty much asleep I think). The question is, why? There are forces that rule over us! Why? for what gain? There is nothing we have that they want because all we have comes from them. They don't want us to have something? well what is it, and why would they not want us to have it? The best answer I've heard so far is, just because! They rule because they want to! Just for the sake of it! C'mon now, does'nt the bottom line deserve a little more thought than 'just because'? Maybe I'm missing the point!

[empyblessing]

Hey,

I am thinking about the diversity of religion and poiltics and common thought, and that everyone seems to have an opinion about the history and the future and the reality of religion, politics and history combined.

I am interested in asking some questions, but in a manchester accent not a Bush "questions" accent (lol !!?)

i'm really into the idea of eradicating multple religions, for so far they seem to only seperate many people from understanding each other.

i'm also into uniting people towards a one world government, maybe not where we are are controlled, but maybe where we are universally thinking along the same lines.

i personally would like to see a one world government if it eradiacates the total confusion that comes with multiple religions, if it unities various countries and cultures and ways of thinking...

i'm up for a one world harmonious way of thinking.. it could maybe see the end of division

i would like to advocate the possibilty of a one world government that united everybody in a good way, with us all involved, helping each other to progress to our spiritual next level.

One World government.. a swear word with so many beautiful possibilites

peace

scott

I'll fight against a one world government until I'm dead.

[emanuel]

I'll fight against a one world government until I'm dead.

Does that include that which potentially created you? (I'm not talking about 'God', I'm not religious)

I understand what you mean in terms of 'the' one world government that is in view. ;)

Going back to the potential creator, would you give free reign to your child to do whatever it wanted to? Or would you 'govern' them, guide them and ultimately control them until they were 'able' to govern themselves? Mankind may have delusions of grandeur, like a snotty, rebellious teenager that thinks they know better than their parents. :D

[empyblessing]

Does that include that which potentially created you? (I'm not talking about 'God', I'm not religious)

No, it doesn't include that.

I understand what you mean in terms of 'the' one world government that is in view. ;)

Going back to the potential creator, would you give free reign to your child to do whatever it wanted to? Or would you 'govern' them, guide them and ultimately control them until they were 'able' to govern themselves? Mankind may have delusions of grandeur, like a snotty, rebellious teenager that thinks they know better than their parents. :D

i dont have children.

[emanuel]

No, it doesn't include that.



i dont have children.

Okay smarty pants, if you did have children? :rolleyes:

[empyblessing]

i would interfere as little as possible with a child.

[emanuel]

i would interfere as little as possible with a child.

Bit too dark that response! :eek::rolleyes:

[empyblessing]

i dont understand

[emanuel]

i dont understand

Clearly ;)

Of course you don't completely control them all the time but you do initially (literally wiping their arse for them) and the more they learn, guess what, the less guidance you need give! Please try to keep up :D

[krakhead]

i dont understand

I think it's being suggested that,due to the wording of your post, that you would interfere with a child albeit only a little bit.

[empyblessing]

I think it's being suggested that,due to the wording of your post, that you would interfere with a child albeit only a little bit.

ohhhhhh ok. i'd interfere to stop a child from charging off a cliff or picking up a gun and all the other caretaking tasks.

[empyblessing]

Clearly ;)

Of course you don't completely control them all the time but you do initially (literally wiping their arse for them) and the more they learn, guess what, the less guidance you need give! Please try to keep up :D

why dont you just say what you fucking want to

[emanuel]

why dont you just say what you fucking want to

You weren't kidding about being sensitive then?

Your post was pretty much word for word an entry into a dark line of jokes!

Chill out, I aint suggesting anything. (you can stop chewing your knuckles now) Didn't mean to offend!

[empyblessing]

umm

it's cool. im not pissed or anything.

[emanuel]

Cool :cool::)

[helpus]

i didn't start this thread so we can discuss forum members possible deviant sexual persuasions... i would like to see those posts removed from this topic if possible please

[theone_andnine]

I guess you think microchips and concentration and population control is good to. Even though I think we created the illuminati and the matrix by giving them power and depending on them. lol

[krakhead]

i didn't start this thread so we can discuss forum members possible deviant sexual persuasions... i would like to see those posts removed from this topic if possible please

Fascist! ;)

[helpus]

Lets face it we DO need governing, i myself and the peers around me defiantely do, for if we were not governed i would be coming around your house raiding your fridge, using your phone and taking your car... not really but the point is made.

I think its absolutely crackers to suggest that humanity would survive without government, without some form of control we would have an anarchic state of being, and this would basically reduce us to prehistoric times... we seem to spend alot of time being ungrateful for how we live, but lets face it folks, the way we have been governed at least in the modern countries has lead us to a place where we have never had it so good... we have everything we want, we are allowed to think and practice and be, we are surrounded by material possessions, our families are prosperous and living longer, we have opportunity and are living in an environment that has never been safer... at least in day to day life, i admit mr knucklescraper never had the "bomb" worries...

it's very ironic that the groups of people we condem for having too much power are the very groups of people that we rely on, and have brought humanity forward..

take away the oil barons, the food suppliers, the scientists and the medical men and we probaly would not be having this debate, or we may be but we would huddled around a camp fire dressed in rags, disease ridden and chasing the next rabbit

i do know about poverty, i have been a homeless person for many years, and it is not a situation you could happily see your grandparents living in.

If we all thought the same, preached the same and acted the same it would take away the diversity of mankind, but yet that so called beauty of the diversity of mankind only causes the problems we experience today.. religious wars, rascist wars, sexual division and so on, these things are not caused by any form of media or illumanti, they are caused by men and women, us, we are the people that act upon primitive desires to erradicate anything that is threatening or alien to our safety, to our desire to stay alive...

Having a one world government, for it is false to even entertain the idea of not being governed, could possibly bring everyone into line, it could give everyone an equal opportunity of life, it could unite relgious hatred and heal socail divisons. if we were all acting as one within equality, it might not be such a bad thing to be governed by people with more power than ourselves.

I have an idealistic opinion about the illuminati, i think if they exist they are doing a fine job, for they are only people after all, it's just the wars and the religions i have a problem with, but i'm pretty sure they have a problem with them too... it seems that wars are necessary if we are ever to become as one.

i hate to say that, the untold millions of lives that have suffered and died, but if brings about eventual harmony among races, is it worth it? possibly not, but how else are we ever going to live as one?

peace

scott

[helpus]

Fascist! ;)

lol, i thought i was being a fascist when i wrote that... well spotted ;)

[neutron flux]

I think its absolutely crackers to suggest that humanity would survive without government,

I think you're buying into a lie that's been foisted upon you to make you believe that you need a government.

You're spellbound by the psychopaths charm that keeps you in the abusive relationship.

Non-linear systems may possess internal structure and yet have no hierarchy. In fact, many non-linear living systems (like bee hives) are called heterarchies - the opposite of hierarchy.

Hierarchies belong to entropic structures in which the higher structures feed off of their power over the lower structures to accumulate power and survive. They are control structures.

The entropic structure is a pyramid where only one being can be at the summit, this is the hierarchical structure. In creative structures, manifestations of the creative principle at work in the universe, we can envision a circle with no start or finish. With each person giving, everyone receives. There is no hierarchy.

[mcthompson2x]

"I have an idealistic opinion about the illuminati, i think if they exist they are doing a fine job, for they are only people after all, it's just the wars and the religions i have a problem with, but i'm pretty sure they have a problem with them too... it seems that wars are necessary if we are ever to become as one."

You need to do a little research. The very people who run these religions are members of the Illuminati, including the Pope and various upstanding Christians and Muslims. It's not religion, lets just go right to the source: it's the people who control those religions and their influence. Those people are the Illuminati, and they'll kill you if they have to in order to keep people from discovering the truth.

A fine job?

They are murderers of all people, including children, whom they have been raping and enslaving for centuries.

[helpus]

"You need to do a little research. The very people who run these religions are members of the Illuminati, including the Pope and various upstanding Christians and Muslims. It's not religion, lets just go right to the source: it's the people who control those religions and their influence. Those people are the Illuminati, and they'll kill you if they have to in order to keep people from discovering the truth."

it's a little vague, you seem to hinge your theory on the truth, something which you know nothing about, don't care to explain and only hope exists...

if you knew the truth, assuming their is one, what would you do with it?

[mahabaratara]

The theory is flawed where is that human condition of choice...?

[helpus]

I think you're buying into a lie that's been foisted upon you to make you believe that you need a government.

You're spellbound by the psychopaths charm that keeps you in the abusive relationship.

Non-linear systems may possess internal structure and yet have no hierarchy. In fact, many non-linear living systems (like bee hives) are called heterarchies - the opposite of hierarchy.

Hierarchies belong to entropic structures in which the higher structures feed off of their power over the lower structures to accumulate power and survive. They are control structures.

The entropic structure is a pyramid where only one being can be at the summit, this is the hierarchical structure. In creative structures, manifestations of the creative principle at work in the universe, we can envision a circle with no start or finish. With each person giving, everyone receives. There is no hierarchy.

maybe if there becomes a one world goverment we might be able to progress to a heterarchy, i'm sure bees once lived in utter chaos like we do know

[mahabaratara]

The very people who run these religions are members of the Illuminati

tell me about Guru Nanaks "Illuminati" connections...

[helpus]

The theory is flawed where is that human condition of choice...?

we are able to have more choice than we have ever had, how is that flawed?

[steevo]

we are able to have more choice than we have ever had, how is that flawed?

What choices ?

[mcthompson2x]

What choices ?

The choice to comply or be destroyed.

[mcthompson2x]

"You need to do a little research. The very people who run these religions are members of the Illuminati, including the Pope and various upstanding Christians and Muslims. It's not religion, lets just go right to the source: it's the people who control those religions and their influence. Those people are the Illuminati, and they'll kill you if they have to in order to keep people from discovering the truth."

it's a little vague, you seem to hinge your theory on the truth, something which you know nothing about, don't care to explain and only hope exists...

if you knew the truth, assuming their is one, what would you do with it?

You're awfully presumptive about me, considering that we've never spoken before.

[helpus]

What choices ?

what choices?? every one you have everyday, mulitple choices at every point of your life, how is the world today as we know it stopping you from making countless choices? the only choices you are stopped from making (and yet you can still make them) are the ones that endanger other people...

i cannot envisage a freer society, in comparison to the past, that we have now, however this may not be relevant to the possibilites of the future. but what other choices are there out there?

[neutron flux]

maybe if there becomes a one world goverment we might be able to progress to a heterarchy

No, because the psychopaths in power will want to maintain the status quo but more along the lines of fascism and complete world-wide dictatorship.

Can you not see this?

[mcthompson2x]

what choices?? every one you have everyday, mulitple choices at every point of your life, how is the world today as we know it stopping you from making countless choices? the only choices you are stopped from making (and yet you can still make them) are the ones that endanger other people...

i cannot envisage a freer society, in comparison to the past, that we have now, however this may not be relevant to the possibilites of the future. but what other choices are there out there?

You cannot envisage a freer society? Are you kidding?

I can imagine a society where it's not illegal to videotape world leaders meeting in a secret occult setting, burning sacrificial human effigies. I can imagine a world where the person who does that doesn't go to prison for years and years...

I can imagine a world where people aren't randomly beaten by the police at peace rallies, and I can imagine a world where it's not a crime to testify about the dirty deeds of your own government. I don't know what your definition of freedom is, but it can't possibly be correct if you think we live in a "free society" - if you can't imagine a freer society, then you should look at a history book. Our freedom has been disappearing for decades upon decades since the foundation of this country.

[mahabaratara]

i'm really into the idea of eradicating multple religions, for so far they seem to only seperate many people from understanding each other.

some choice...;)

[helpus]

You're awfully presumptive about me, considering that we've never spoken before.

am i? by suggesting you don't know the "truth".. i guess it's fair to say that probably you don't know enough about what you hope to know about...

i would also point out that to suggest i need to do more research is presumptive also, what am i to research? how can i ever hope to uncover your view of an assumed truth?

if you would care to share your information, then i would not need to be presumtive..

[helpus]

some choice...;)

if only choices were based on fact not hearsay, maybe if people had informed choices not indoctrinated choices i could see your point?

[steevo]

Helpus, I find your arguments a waste of my time. You sound like you are repeating stuff that the politicians have indoctrinated into you via the mainstream media.

[noobcybot]

Do you want to be governed by people who think of themselves as superior to you by blood and inherited knowledge? Do you think they know better for you?
Why do you think society needs endless rules to survive. What happened to the idea that you could do what you want so long as you dont harm anyone? Shouldant we be able to develop empathy?
I am not really understanding some of the posts on this thread, surely if you are on this site you are looking for some sort of answer as to how you can attain freedom?
Furthermore, if you have read into the NWO so far as to reach something like David Ickes work then you must have come across the fact that if they control the worlds governments and economies then they are responsible for some very bad things.
A one world order could in theory be a posative thing, but the way it is today that is not the case. There is no Patrician character here, they play the world like a game of chess but they are firmly on the right hand of evil.
I feel the human race was not meant to be like this, we have way more potential.

[mcthompson2x]

if you would care to share your information, then i would not need to be presumtive..

How completely ridiculous. I don't have to provide you with anything, you shouldn't be judging before you know me. Why do you think you're somehow granted the ability to judge me without knowing anything about me? Certainly you have the right to, but utilizing it reveals something about yourself.

[steevo]

When you realise who you REALLY are then no rules are necessary. Rules are for fools.

[helpus]

You cannot envisage a freer society? Are you kidding?

I can imagine a society where it's not illegal to videotape world leaders meeting in a secret occult setting, burning sacrificial human effigies. I can imagine a world where the person who does that doesn't go to prison for years and years...

I can imagine a world where people aren't randomly beaten by the police at peace rallies, and I can imagine a world where it's not a crime to testify about the dirty deeds of your own government. I don't know what your definition of freedom is, but it can't possibly be correct if you think we live in a "free society" - if you can't imagine a freer society, then you should look at a history book. Our freedom has been disappearing for decades upon decades since the foundation of this country.

i can't undertsand how you offer a couple examples of choices that are hate fuelled, what about the all the other peaceful choices you are able to make everyday? since when have we as a society been able to act so liberaly? you so called choices are a few which are not necessary.. they are undermind by the vast of array of choices that we have

[mcthompson2x]

i can't undertsand how you offer a couple examples of choices that are hate fuelled, what about the all the other peaceful choices you are able to make everyday? since when have we as a society been able to act so liberaly? you so called choices are a few which are not necessary.. they are undermind by the vast of array of choices that we have

"Hate fueled ???

I could see you from a mile away, dude. You are another propaganda spewer, even if you don't know it.

[helpus]

"Hate fueled ???

I could see you from a mile away, dude. You are another propaganda spewer, even if you don't know it.


thanks for your input, you're verging on attacking me, which usually means you have nothing more to say.

its interesting that you raised the word "presumptive" as a defence, and yet you have expressed it to be your own in your posts... i can only conclude that there is alot of presumption in your life, and quite possible your journey is to be a long one...

safe travels

scott

[helpus]

Helpus, I find your arguments a waste of my time. You sound like you are repeating stuff that the politicians have indoctrinated into you via the mainstream media.

sorry to wate your time steevo, it seems you may have more important things to be persuing such as speculation.

[helpus]

When you realise who you REALLY are then no rules are necessary. Rules are for fools.

i can't disagree more steevo, you would be the first to complain if i cheated at scrabble.

[mcthompson2x]

The truth speaks for itself, so I need to say nothing in my own defense. You are the one who started the thread glorifying the New World Order, and you are the one who refuses to accept perspectives other than your own as being potentially valid. We are all well aware of your opinion and were merely offering our own in response. Your response to that has been to claim that you are somehow more enlightened and that it's stupid of us to presume anything, despite the fact that most of us have done extensive research and been brought to our worldviews as the result of collecting massive amounts of life experience and information. So, what do I need to say?

I think it's fairly obvious what's going on here and I hate to let you down, but I would be willing to bet that most of the people on this forum see right through you.

[lizzy]

sorry to wate your time steevo, it seems you may have more important things to be persuing such as speculation.

well you certainly wasted mine....I see now you are'nt a genuine truth seeker and the material I sent you probablly meant absolutely nothing.

Only the ptb will have any individual freedom in the one world gov.

Good Luck to you helpus.

[helpus]

i am simply playing devils advocate - i am openmided, that what led me here to this forum, i am in no way trying spred propaganda or trying to glorfy NWO, i was purely trying to add another dimension to what is an extremely sensitive subject.

what i have taken from this thread is that some people believe that a NWO might be a good idea if it was conducted in a proper manner, and that essentially is what i believe too.

[lizzy]

I am close to tears and choke back rage regularly. You don't have to play it's advocate....in my books it has already won.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261&q=endgame+alex+jones&total=282&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=9

[legendary]

how can you lay down universal laws to apply to every person across the globe? what if in an election 3 billion vote for one person 3.1billion vote the other way. you have 3 billion people living in opression.

whilst i agree we do need to move towards a universal consciousness, or state of one love/agape diversity should be encouraged, so long as it does not lead to division.

in my mind the only law of morality should be:
"do not inflict your will upon others" only if you break this law should a move be inflicted upon you, although not to a prison. allow people who will not function within society to form their own society, whereby lawlessness, and survival of the fittest could prevail, in which case they would upon reintegration into society be far more grateful for their liberties and willing to follow this one simple rule or alternatively those who had no respect for the liberty of others would realise the importance of harmonious society when they were forced to start in the wilderness with nothing, with no possession to steal or territory to claim, whereas those who worked together would likely thrive and could hardly be bullied by some lone, starving thug with maybe a stick for a weapon

[empyblessing]

it doesn't matter how nice or wonderful the one world government would be, it will not have me in it. im beyond all reason and logic, beyond all argument. im lost in fervor, much like the religious zealot lost to his own machinations, disregarding any evidence or contrary thought. i respond like a rabid dog, infected and ravenous. so fuck your beneficent one world government.

[daytimetwilight]

Hey,

I am thinking about the diversity of religion and poiltics and common thought, and that everyone seems to have an opinion about the history and the future and the reality of religion, politics and history combined.

I am interested in asking some questions, but in a manchester accent not a Bush "questions" accent (lol !!?)

i'm really into the idea of eradicating multple religions, for so far they seem to only seperate many people from understanding each other.

i'm also into uniting people towards a one world government, maybe not where we are are controlled, but maybe where we are universally thinking along the same lines.

i personally would like to see a one world government if it eradiacates the total confusion that comes with multiple religions, if it unities various countries and cultures and ways of thinking...

i'm up for a one world harmonious way of thinking.. it could maybe see the end of division

i would like to advocate the possibilty of a one world government that united everybody in a good way, with us all involved, helping each other to progress to our spiritual next level.

One World government.. a swear word with so many beautiful possibilites

peace

scott

But...religion is not confusing to the believer. I think it seems very simple to them. The thing about it is, people have a choice to be religious, or be confused about religion, whatever. In a one government world, there would be no choices.

[drael]

No leaders thanks, i prefer freedom.

[legendary]

No leaders thanks, i prefer freedom.

would you not accept a leader(also subject to the law) whose only law was that you cannot impose your will upon others and if you do so or are not happy with this law you can be exiled to start your own society, but would be welcomed back if you changed your mind

[steevo]

i can't disagree more steevo, you would be the first to complain if i cheated at scrabble.

I would exercise my right not to play scrabble with you. I wouldnt take part in any game, with cheats.

[drael]

Legendary, what u propose sounds reasonable and simple enough, but i would still prefer to have any interpretation of that idea being spread more equally amongst people rather than done by one person.

We only really need leadership roles for very time pressured tasks, like warfare. Everything else can be completely people based. Even then the idea of an authority is a dangerous notion which needs to be watched IMO. (Hitler used that very notion, as has bush to retain power and influence).

Although i totally agree that there is no need for laws, just the simple notions of no-harm to others, with which unless one gets totally abstract shouldnt require much interpretation or judgement.

[mightiswrong]

One world government a good idea? Perhaps a quiet word with Adolf and he might agree to spend some 'tax payers money' on your cause.

[helpus]

One world government a good idea? Perhaps a quiet word with Adolf and he might agree to spend some 'tax payers money' on your cause.

Adolf is dead, i don't communicate with dead people especially not in german, it's not my cause.

[helpus]

But...religion is not confusing to the believer. I think it seems very simple to them. The thing about it is, people have a choice to be religious, or be confused about religion, whatever. In a one government world, there would be no choices.


Your right religion is very simple to the religious person, believe what i believe or go to hell.

[helpus]

how can you lay down universal laws to apply to every person across the globe? what if in an election 3 billion vote for one person 3.1billion vote the other way. you have 3 billion people living in opression.


if you added up all the votes for all the worlds governments, i reckon its like what you suggest now anyway.

[blueyonder2012]

Hey,

I am thinking about the diversity of religion and poiltics and common thought, and that everyone seems to have an opinion about the history and the future and the reality of religion, politics and history combined.

I am interested in asking some questions, but in a manchester accent not a Bush "questions" accent (lol !!?)

i'm really into the idea of eradicating multple religions, for so far they seem to only seperate many people from understanding each other.

i'm also into uniting people towards a one world government, maybe not where we are are controlled, but maybe where we are universally thinking along the same lines.

i personally would like to see a one world government if it eradiacates the total confusion that comes with multiple religions, if it unities various countries and cultures and ways of thinking...

i'm up for a one world harmonious way of thinking.. it could maybe see the end of division

i would like to advocate the possibilty of a one world government that united everybody in a good way, with us all involved, helping each other to progress to our spiritual next level.

One World government.. a swear word with so many beautiful possibilites

peace

scott



sorry but - WAKE UP PLEASE!!

[helpus]

in my mind the only law of morality should be:
"do not inflict your will upon others" only if you break this law should a move be inflicted upon you, although not to a prison. allow people who will not function within society to form their own society, whereby lawlessness, and survival of the fittest could prevail, in which case they would upon reintegration into society be far more grateful for their liberties and willing to follow this one simple rule or alternatively those who had no respect for the liberty of others would realise the importance of harmonious society when they were forced to start in the wilderness with nothing, with no possession to steal or territory to claim, whereas those who worked together would likely thrive and could hardly be bullied by some lone, starving thug with maybe a stick for a weapon

That's a really heavy suggestion, the setting up of an effective prison country, where no rules apply. you would either be sending people to their deaths, or creating a utopia where no laws exist and poeple are free to live ungoverend. you might see alot of people breaking the law just to get in to "prison"

[loderlive]

That's a really heavy suggestion, the setting up of an effective prison country, where no rules apply. you would either be sending people to their deaths, or creating a utopia where no laws exist and poeple are free to live ungoverend. you might see alot of people breaking the law just to get in to "prison"

Go for it then, just stop boring our tits off and bore your own tits off.

[helpus]

Go for it then, just stop boring our tits off and bore your own tits off.

ok, that was useful.

thanks for the input.

[loderlive]

ok, that was useful.

thanks for the input.

Why did you find it useful?

[helpus]

Why did you find it useful?

i found it useful, because i don't want bore peoples tits off, and i am boring my own off.

so i think i will drop the whole subject as a bad job

[mcthompson2x]

Also, doesn't anyone think it's funny that this guy's name is "HELP US"?

Play devil's advocate all you want, but you do so in spite of massive amounts of indisputable evidence that various world leaders want large portions of the population dead or enslaved.

[mightiswrong]

Discussion of the Power Principle from the voluntaryist website:


Pursuing Justice in a Free Society: Part I
The Power Principle

By Randy E. Barnett

[Editor's Note: Because of its length, the second part of this article will appear in the next issue. The following excerpts were taken from the author's "Pursuing Justice in a Free Society: Part I, Power vs. Liberty," 4 Criminal Justice Ethics, Summer/Fall 1985, pp. 50-72. Footnotes have been deleted, although they appeared copiously in the original. The author is currently the Austin B. Fletcher Professor, School of Law, Boston University. Reprinted by permission of the author and The Institute of Criminal Justice Ethics, 989 Tenth Avenue, New York, NY 10019.]

The Power Principle specifies that there must be:

(a) one agency per unit of geography (a "monopoly")

(b) that is charged with authorizing the use of force ("power") and that

(c) the monopoly itself must be preserved by force ("coercively").

Hence what I call the Power Principle involves a belief in the need for a "coercive monopoly of power."


The Justifications of Power

The Power Principle may rest on any number of different grounds. In fact, most differences among competing political philosophies concern only disputes about the way in which the belief in the need for a coercive monopoly of power should be justified. However numerous these justifications may be, they seem to take two general forms: negative and positive.

1
The Negative Justifications of Power

Power for negative purposes can be identified with the Right. This approach specifies that a coercive monopoly of power is needed to preserve "civilization" and prevent social chaos; that without a coercive monopoly of power, people will give in to their animalistic side and engage in a social "war of all against all." Thus, it is argued that, to avoid such social degeneration, a central authority must outlaw certain kinds of conduct: The forcible interference with person and possessions should be prohibited, to be sure, but also included should be sexual conduct (for example, prostitution, pornography, homosexual conduct, and extramarital sexual relations), conduct that encourages "anti-social" beliefs (for example, religious "cults," unacceptable books and music, manners of dress, and public assembly), and behavior that is "destructive of values" (such as drug and alcohol consumption, gambling, pool rooms, video arcades, and rock and roll).

The image that best describes the world the Right sees as ultimately resulting from the absence of a coercive monopoly of power is one in which people are fornicating in public places with heroin needles hanging from their arms. To prevent this there must be a boss: a President, a Congress, a Supreme Court, or a Moral Majority.

2
The Positive Justifications of Power

The power of the Left is to ensure some positive concept of justice. According to this view, resources must be distributed among individuals in society according to some formula or, to use Nozick's term, a "pattern." Resources must be held, for example, according to some criterion of need, desert, or desires, or all holdings must be "equal" or "efficient"that is, distributed to their highest valued use. It is argued that without a coercive monopoly of power, actual distributions of resources will not be in accordance with the mandated pattern or principle.

Thus, in addition to prohibiting the forcible interference by some with the person and possessions of others, we must "regulate" economic transfers between individuals (e.g., by labor regulations, antitrust regulations, price or rent controls, and licensing schemes in various occupations), other social interactions (e.g., by quotas and affirmative action), consumptive activity (e.g., by food and drug regulation and the regulation of automobile design), and above all we must redistribute income (e.g., by tax and "welfare" laws). The image that best describes the world that the Left sees as resulting from the absence of a coercive monopoly of power is one in which unreconstructed Scrooge-like characters enslave or exploit helpless Cratchets and Tiny Tims at below subsistence wages in small, cold (or hot), dark rooms. To prevent this from happening, there must be a boss: a President, a Congress, a Supreme Court, or The People.

I have deliberately drawn each of these views as broadly as possible, so as to include most people somewhere. While ideologues exist on the Left and the Right, in the real world most people are "in the middle" in that they hold some mixture of these two general views. None of this is to say that all of the policies described above are unjustified or wrong or that these categories are inviolable. (Notice that the positive concern for efficient allocation of wealth is now associated with some on the Right. And recently something amounting to a new wave of puritanism on the Left can be observed emanating from the feminist movement.) Rather, the point is (a) that the belief in the correctness of these policies usually results from subscribing to one of these world views or some mixture of each; (b) that both positions view the natural result of individual choice to be bad; and (c) that both views arrive at essentially the same means, a coercive monopoly of power, to pursue their fundamentally different ends.


Problems with the Power Principle

So what? What is wrong with implementing a coercive monopoly of power to solve the myriad problems of society? Some important answers to this question lie beyond the scope of this article or the expertise of its author. However, the Power Principle contains certain inherent defects that, while not unknown, are normally ignored, probably because a coercive monopoly of power is so widely thought to be necessary that any difficulties it creates, even those of the most fundamental and serious nature, must simply be accepted as inevitable problems of social life. I shall here consider four difficulties: The first three are practical while the last is a moral one.

1
Practical Problems with the Power Principle

Believers in the Power Principle base their support on some version of the following factual assumption: Human beings are either essentially corrupt or corruptible, or they will, if given a chance, try to gain unfair advantage over each other. The sources of this belief are as varied as the believers. They range from the biblical notion of "original sin" to a "scientific" view of individuals as ruthless welfare maximizers. Whatever the source, adherents to the Power Principle conclude from this assumption that there must be a coercive monopoly of force to prevent this attribute of human behavior from creating the various social problems described in the previous section.

The practical problems with the Power Principle arise not because this assumption about human conduct is necessarily false. In truth, it is a quite plausible account of one tendency of human behavior. Rather, problems arise because the Power Principle is incapable of solving the problem for which it was invoked.

Indeed, the Power Principle cannot work because of the very problem it purports to solve.

An understanding of the practical problems with the Power Principle must begin with the observation that adherents to the Power Principle always invoke it for some purposes, but not for all purposes. They invariably claim that only certain purposes and not others can and should be effectively pursued by means of a coercive monopoly of force. (Only a committed totalitarian would maintain that such a monopoly should be used for any purpose whatsoever.) The problem for adherents to the Power Principle, however, is to show how the monopoly, once it is created, will be used to achieve only the "appropriate" ends. Not only has no society that has resorted to the Power Principle ever been successful at so limiting its use, virtually all have ended in tyranny; there are several good reasons why no society could ever be successful in the long run.


Who gets the power? Let us assume that it is true that human beings are either essentially corrupt or corruptible or that they will, if given a chance, try to gain unfair advantage over each other. Advocates of the Power Principle are immediately faced with a difficulty: Who is to get the power? Whoever it is must be a human being, so whoever is put in charge will be (by assumption) "essentially corrupt or corruptible or will try to take unfair advantage over others."

It would seem, therefore, that the proposed solution to the assumed problem is nothing short of folly. For the human beings who are put in control of the monopoly would have a far greater capability for corruption and advantage-taking than they would have as ordinary citizens. Whatever corruption or advantage-taking these people engage in is likely to be far greater than they would be able to engage in if deprived of their power. And by granting some a capability for greater gains from corruption and advantage-taking, the incentives for such conduct are greatly increased, thereby increasing both its frequency and its severity. In other words, given their capacity for corruption and advantage-taking, bad human beings are more dangerous with power than without it. The Power Principle, then, appears to immediately aggravate the very problem it was devised to solve.

Even if we soften the starting assumption so that it now specifies that only some human beings are essentially or potentially corrupt and then posit that only the good human beings will be put in charge of the monopoly, we still need a practical way of distinguishing the good people from the bad people. We have to specify those people who are to decide who gets the power and how to obtain and disseminate the information needed for them to distinguish the good from the bad. Some might argue that electing rulers for fixed terms is the best way to make such decisions. Even assuming that this method produces the correct initial allocation of power, however, it runs afoul of several further problems.


How do you maintain power in the hands of the good? Let us assume that the problem of who gets the power is somehow solved; that a way is discerned to select only (or mostly) the good people to hold power. Perhaps an election is held and the electorate makes the correct choice among potential rulers. A second practical problem now arises: How do we keep the evil people from eventually wresting control of the monopoly from the good? Remember we started with the assumption that all or perhaps many people are corrupt or will try to take unfair advantage over others, for which reason we need a coercive monopoly of force. However, the solution provided by the Power Principle solution creates an enormously attractive target of opportunity for those people in society who wish to take advantage of others, which might be called the "capture effect."

Maybe some of the bad people excluded from power will be content to try to privately exploit their fellow human beings. Inevitably, however, at least some of the more entrepreneurial of these people will recognize the enormous profit potential that would be derived from controlling the monopoly and publicly exploiting others. All that would be required to reap these profits is a strategy for capturing positions of power from those who currently possess it. The number of such strategies would be great. One obvious strategy that has been employed often especially in societies where rulers rule for indefinite periods, is simply to take over the monopoly by force. This strategy, however, entails considerable risks for those who would employ it. A much safer approach would be to assume the posture of a good person and get into power in a legitimate way (assuming that some such option exists). Or, alternatively, good people in power could be corrupted through bribery.

This last tactic reveals yet another very serious flaw in the power approach: the "corruption effect." Power itself has a corrupting influence. People who start out as good can become advantage-takers simply because, as monopoly holders, the temptations to do so are great and the risks of being caught are small. So, even assuming power has been allocated to good people, these people may not remain good for long.

The inherent instability of the Power Paradigm can be analogized to that of the policy of mutual assured destruction. Once a sufficiently serious mistake is made, the game is up. With nuclear weapons we risk the destruction of the planet. With the Power Paradigm we risk the institutionalized and legitimized misuse of power. Given the perquisites of power, bad rulers can be locked in place requiring nothing short of a revolution to remove them. What is the likelihood of forever making the correct choices in this winner-take-all game of picking rulers?

Another, most serious problem of a system of elections is that it must give rulers a very short-run perspective. Rulers, especially those who rule for fixed terms, have no way of capturing the long-run benefits of their policies. Good rulers will not survive to see the long run unless their policies appear to be working in the short run. Bad rulers must plunder while the plundering is good.

Finally, the balloting solution to the problem of who gets the power is itself undercut by our initial assumption that human beings are essentially corrupt or corruptible. For only human beings vote. A unanimous vote is a practical impossibility but, if anything less than unanimity is required to elect a ruler, the majority can (sooner or later) be expected to vote out of corrupt or advantage-taking motives. Saying that a constitution will solve this problem the problem of "the tyranny of the majority"is also unrealistic. Judges must interpret and enforce a constitution, and judges are also human beings, with the result that they would form a "tyranny of the judiciary."


The legitimacy of the power holders. Having failed to solve the problem of corruption and advantage-taking, the Power Principle exacerbates the problem still further by what might be called its "halo effect." A coercive monopoly of power would not be (peacefully) established unless most people in society were convinced that the creation of the monopoly of power is the right or expedient thing to do. Therefore, those who wield this power will possess not only power but something that may be more helpful to their pursuit of advantage-taking than power alone could ever be: They will have legitimacy. That is, their use of power will be perceived by most to be at least presumptively justified.

This "halo effect" obviously makes the assumption of power by the wrong people even more dangerous than just giving them a monopoly would be, because, for a variety of reasons, many good people will hesitate to oppose the "duly constituted authority." Perhaps they do not know the facts of the situation and therefore presume that those in power are correct, or perhaps they can see some personal advantage to a particular use of power against another, or perhaps they fear the consequences of "civil disobedience." Whatever their motives may be, this natural conservatism greatly increases the potential for corruption and advantage-taking .

It can be seen from this brief discussion that the Power Principle cannot solve the question of who gets the power without setting up an infinite regress (of sorts) of enhanced incentives for corruption and advantage-taking. The reason for this is that the weakness of human beings is exacerbated by a monopoly of power, but there is no other species that can be put in control of the monopoly. Therefore, one must forever propose "higher" authorities to ensure that subordinate authorities remain honest. One could posit that God (or a group of gods) would divinely rule the human rulers. I shall not here consider the practical problems with this approach.

The source of the unending problem with the Power Paradigm is its hierarchical and vertical approach to the problem of corruption and advantage-taking. No matter how high you build your hierarchy of power, there is simply no one to put on top of the hierarchy who will not himself be potentially corrupt. The answer to human corruption must, therefore, lie elsewhere. The next version of the Power Paradigm, though flawed, suggests that a more promising avenue is a non-hierarchical or horizontal approach to power.


Federalism and the Separation of Powers as a solution to these problems with the Power Principle. One attempt to deal with the problems created by the Power Principle is to create an oligopoly or a "shared" monopoly of power. This scheme preserves a monopoly of power but purports to divide this power among a number of groups, each having limited jurisdiction over the others. So, for example, there might be a division of powers between groups of people known as "state officials" and others called "federal officials." Or there might be a separation of powers between some people called "legislators" and others called "judges" or "executives."

The object of such schemes is to create so-called "checks and balances." This is a good idea. The problem with the Power Principle is not the recognition of the legitimate use of force or power itself. Those who reject the Power Principle are not necessarily pacifists, that is, they do not reject any right to use force under any circumstances. Rather, the root of the problem with the Power Principle is its adherence to a monopoly allocation of power with all the attendant problems discussed above. It is this that the Federalist and the Separation of Powers strategies are trying to address.

A formal separation of powers is unquestionably an improvement over other versions of the Power Principle, witness the experience of the United States, but eventually similar results are reached (though these results may not develop as quickly or be quite as severe.) This is because this scheme, for all its advantages, still preserves the unearned legitimacy of power and coercive barriers to entry. However many power centers are created, they remain in control indefinitely, short of a revolution.

Even in the beginning, since each has the other by the throat, no one is willing to squeeze too hard. Eventually entrepreneurs of powermaster politicians, judges, executives, or outsiders called "special interest groups"figure out a way to teach those who share the monopoly that it is in the interest of each to cooperate with the others in the use of force against those who are outside the monopoly. This process may take some time, but gradually what is originally conceived of as "checks and balances" eventually becomes a scheme more aptly described as "you don't step on my toes and I won't step on yours" or "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." And, when this result is reached, the Power Principle continues to provide these rulers with the legitimacy that makes corruption and advantage-taking all the easier.

The separation of powers strategy is a good idea, but one that is not taken quite far enough. What is needed is the recognition of genuinely separate powers within the same geographical area, a horizontal division of power with as little unearned legitimacy attached to each agency of force as possible. Such a system would provide real checks and balances. How such a system might function will be discussed in Part Two of this article.

2
The Moral Problem with the Power Principle

The moral problem with a coercive monopoly of power can be briefly described: The Power Principle posits a fundamental inequality of human beings. Those in power are thought to have qualitatively different rights than those who are not, that is, rulers have rights that subjects may never possess. By virtue of their monopoly status, at the very least they allegedly have the right to put competitors out of business, a right that is denied to other so-called "private" citizens. And most power schemes accord them the right to collect "taxes" to fund their activity, that is, to seize the property of others by force without the others' prior consent or wrongdoing, another right that is denied all people. Many grant them the right to obtain "conscript" or semi-slave labor for certain purposes such as war-making or jury selection.

Some schemes even accord those in power such arcane rights as the right to specify that people must accept monopoly script in return for their labor or property, known as "legal tender" laws, and the sole right to run certain businesses, such as the delivery of writings and packages, the driving of buses, or the picking up of garbage. Other schemes accord them the right to grant monopoly "franchises" to sell grain or to provide television or telephone services. Some give them the right to restrict access to certain occupations. Anyone who becomes a taxi driver, lawyer, or hairdresser without the approval of those who hold the monopoly may be fined or imprisoned. The potential that these powers have to induce the corruption and advantage-taking described above is here quite obvious.

In the next section I will try to give content to the claim that all persons have rights and also trace what the contours of these rights might be. But even if such a proposition can never be affirmatively demonstrated (although I am not suggesting that this is in fact the case), those who advocate a coercive monopoly of power to solve the problem of corruption and advantage-taking bear a heavy burden of proof. They must demonstrate that some people rightly hold power over others. The pursuit of this justification has spanned centuries, indeed, millennia of political theory. Thus far this claim remains unjustified. No moral theory attempting to justify a legal hierarchy among healthy adult human beings, such theories as "divine right," "social contract," or "natural law" has yet succeeded in doing so.

3
Conclusion

Adherents to the Power Principle have devised a rather peculiar way of dealing with the problem of human corruption and advantage-taking. They advocate giving some human beings a monopoly on the use of force, thereby elevating some human beings to a higher moral and legal status than others.

But no one can be sure to whom to give this monopoly. And, assuming that the initial allocation is made correctly, the alleged solution creates an irresistible target of opportunity for anyone in society who wishes to exploit another, and who is clever or ruthless enough to devise a way of capturing the monopoly that has been created. The monopoly also poses grave temptations to the good to become less than good, in short, the alleged solution to the problem of corruption is itself a most potent corrupting influence. Finally, in this scheme those who possess the monopoly, as a practical matter, are presumed to employ it properly, thus enhancing the ability of some to use the monopoly to take advantage of others.

While the shared monopoly concept gradually succumbs to the same problems as the pure monopoly concept, it succeeds both in highlighting the genuine problem with the Power Principle, the creation of the coercive monopoly of force, and the genuine solution to the problem of corruption and advantage-taking: a non-monopolistic system of force which could provide genuine checks and balances, but of a far more sophisticated variety than can be provided by any constitution. And the moral problem of inequality inherent in the Power Principle points the way to another facet of a genuine solution: an effort to craft a scheme of rights and obligations that all people can equally claim.

One must be careful to avoid attributing historical inevitability to the grave problems posed by the Power Principle. The argument presented here is that the Power Paradigm is inherently unstable and pernicious, as compared with a non-monopolistic legal order that will be described in Part Two of this article. http://members.aol.com/vlntryst/wn82.html

[legendary]

That's a really heavy suggestion, the setting up of an effective prison country, where no rules apply. you would either be sending people to their deaths, or creating a utopia where no laws exist and poeple are free to live ungoverend. you might see alot of people breaking the law just to get in to "prison"

if they create a better society that would be good for them. as for my society there would only be one law, which is that you cannot impose your will upon others. this stops theft, murder and other serious issues which need to be dealt with in society, but ultimately gives people total freedom to live their life as they wish so long as it does not stop somebody else doing the same. why would someone break one of these laws to leave if they could leave of their own free will anyway. criminals would not necessarily be sent to the same areas. if one group of people murder all their companions i would leave them to fend for themselves alone and in the wilderness and move other criminals to a different area. why make thousands of criminals congregate in one country or region? spread them out and they will need to work together with the few people they are with to have a decent quality of life with companionship rather than being totally alone and having to build your own shelter, find your own food etc

[emanuel]

I would just like to point out the irony in all those that are giving 'helpus' a hard time about having an unpopular view point. You all carry on giving it 'no government' because people should be free to do whatever as long as they don't hurt oneanother or stop another from doing their thing......while at the same time telling someone they cant or shouldn't have a different view to yourselves!!! Which in itself causes isolation and separation, therefore cancelling out your 'understanding' of being 'one'!

Just an observation ;)

[seercirra]

This is a dream of what YOU would like.
it is not what they, the illuminati have planned.

do you really think that this nwo world government really has a "harmonious way of thinking"??
9/11?
7/7?
iraq?
theres nothing harmonious about these people.

perhaps what you have in mind WOULD be good, i dont disagree with that. but what you have in mind WILL NEVER occur from the illuminati

the illuminati are VERY VERY BAD. lets just get this straight here.lol. i feel that the name of your post is very wrong.

any world government put in place by the leaders we have no will be one of total slavery, everlasting war, total dictatorship and total control.
they will acheive this through total fear.

the illuminati are good for NOTHING.
and i cant believe somebody on a david icke forum would post this stuff.
to me it looks like the artful works of a spin doctor.

we need to be marching in the street to stop this all from turning into a nightmare, not dreaming of what we would like. it'll never happen.

[mightiswrong]

What good would marching in the streets do? As long as we are dependent on their system for food, water etc. (i.e the system belonging to them) they have got us by the balls. Begging 'our masters' to lengthen our leash is disempowering. The plan to set up our own communities of Kin's Domains as layed out in the Ringing Cedars is a solution. Marching on the streets and being ridiculed by people who are quite happy sucking the Illuminati's cock seems like a pointless waste of time at this stage. A dream is important but it needs to be made into reality. Lead by example.

[gordonfreeman]

The person who created this thread is manipulated by the high-ranking officials, I think.

[mcthompson2x]

The person who created this thread is manipulated by the high-ranking officials, I think.

He's being manipulated by the media at the very least. I don't understand what's up for debate when the Illuminati have released legitimate documents through various government agencies stating their intentions. What's nice about killing large sections of the population, and offering servitude or imprisonment to the rest?

[gordonfreeman]

Its their evil agenda. The Reptilians, the Grays, and the Watchers are the darkness-influenced aliens that are the most highest of the highest in the pyramid. The Watchers come in first, then the Reptilians second, and the Robotic Grays third. They are all respected.

Some nordics and other aliens are interested in this agenda.

Hybrids as well.

The 'regular' humans are the very last in the pyramid.

[mcthompson2x]

Its their evil agenda. The Reptilians, the Grays, and the Watchers are the darkness-influenced aliens that are the most highest of the highest in the pyramid. The Watchers come in first, then the Reptilians second, and the Robotic Grays third. They are all respected.

Some nordics and other aliens are interested in this agenda.

Hybrids as well.

The 'regular' humans are the very last in the pyramid.

What do you know about the Watchers? Do you know anywhere that I could research this? I'm guessing these are shadow-people or whatever one would like to call them.

[empyblessing]

watchers now -___- linx plz

[helpus]

The title of this thread included a very important MAY in it's title..

i enclude some positive quotes posted on this thread each from an individual;

1. perhaps what you have in mind WOULD be good, i dont disagree with that

2. i think a one world people in theory would be great.

3. To suggest we, as modern people, don't need governing would suggest we are 'the' superior force of this plant. That we created ourselves!? I don't understand this to be true since all ancient 7. writings and folklore point to the fact that we were created by a superior body, whatever or whoever they were/are.

4. It's a nice idea in principal and would work with the right people running the show

5. I don't believe total anarchy would work, but what do I know?

6. would you give free reign to your child to do whatever it wanted to? Or would you 'govern' them, guide them and ultimately control them until they were 'able' to govern themselves? Mankind may have delusions of grandeur, like a snotty, rebellious teenager that thinks they know better than their parents.

7. A one world order could in theory be a posative thing

8. whilst i agree we do need to move towards a universal consciousness, or state of one love/agape diversity should be encouraged, so long as it does not lead to division.

To suggest i am spin doctor, manipulated by the media, a propaganda spewer, manipulated by high ranking officials and to suggest that my name "helpus" is some way connected to these accusations - not only do i find to be hurtful and offensive, but i also see how you are in some ways gloryfing me and giving me power that i just don't have. could you unwittingly be doing this to other innocent people?

I do take some postitives from this thread, and have read peoples concerns on the matter also.

I don't feel any more enlightened on the subject though, just more confused..

but the one thing i have come to realise from this thread is that the people who hate the heirachy so much, do not know enough about the "truth" and have no working model for a viable alternative to the society we are living in now.

It's also quite disturbing to think that without a working model or an alternative solution, how on earth do you expect the masses to ever accept your alternative to the NWO?

It just doesn't seem to be enough, having the information and sitting back and saying i told you so... what are you going to do about it? how are you ever going to put what you learn into practice?

Don't forget that this western society we live in now, controlled by reptilians and illumanti and all the evil that people claim is involved - actually offers people alot of good things... jobs, housing, material wealth, propserous families, world travel, choices to persue the arts, sport, a particular career...
everything is on tap, water electric, sewage, the internet, entertainment - people have the freedoms to help each other through charities, the disabled are better looked after, so are the elderely... and so on and on

what on earth are the masses going to say when you suggested that all the good things in their lives are actually born from evil? and should be erradicated?

[loderlive]

I don't believe total anarchy would work

Look around you. Anarchy is here. So in that we agree. The dispute is in its perception.

[helpus]

Look around you. Anarchy is here. So in that we agree. The dispute is in its perception.


i was quoting another poster on this thread - i clearly stated that

[loderlive]

i was quoting another poster on this thread - i clearly stated that

Yes, just a response to a quote you quoted.

[mightiswrong]

Anarchy is a situation where no one rules over anyone else. It therefore is the opposite of chaos. It is a negation of the word rule.

It just doesn't seem to be enough, having the information and sitting back and saying i told you so... what are you going to do about it? how are you ever going to put what you learn into practice?

Agreed. What are your suggestions?

[helpus]

"""It just doesn't seem to be enough, having the information and sitting back and saying i told you so... what are you going to do about it? how are you ever going to put what you learn into practice?

Agreed. What are your suggestions?"""

Not sure.. however it would seem likely that the best form of uncovering or changing anything would be from within. I don't really understand why Mr Icke wouldn't want to be elected into government (posts or explanations welcome)

A phrase; "keep your friends close by, your enemies even closer"

Perhaps by creating a new political party where theorists pooled their money and resources and tried to get into power, at least get into a situation where everyone is at the same table?... i realise that there maybe governments within governments but attacking from the outside only makes theorists look like terrorists.. not really it's a democracy, but the masses would feel like the status quo was being threatened and that could be looked upon as terrorism. It's much better to be talking on a level playing field as much as possible.

the masses hold celebrities in god like status - recruitment of such celebrities into voicing theories - would make spreading possible truths alot more palatable - with due respect to Mr Icke his public profile has been somewhat tarnished partially by the media but mainly due to the seemingly outlandish and alien viewpoints he holds. People need to hear these things from other people they put faith in... and the more the merrier.

I really don't know what you could do... i just know that the human race needs to go to the next level of consiousness in order for us evolve - and that can only come from unity, i don't see anybody else actively persuing unity other than the illuminati.

another phrase - "better the devil we know" - we don't know enough, but we learn more all the time..

[mightiswrong]

i don't see anybody else actively persuing unity other than the illuminati.

Maybe you should stop reading terrorist propaganda and realise that coercing everyone to submit to a world government has nothing to do with unity and everything to do with fascism.

ter·ror·ism
–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes [e.g. finance our killing machine or go to jail].
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing [e.g. 7/7 or 9/11] or of resisting a government.

[helpus]

you asked me for opinions on what could be done, i gave them, and instead of adding your own or commenting on them you decided to teach me an english lesson on the word terrorism.

i said "Perhaps by creating a new political party where theorists pooled their money and resources and tried to get into power, at least get into a situation where everyone is at the same table?... i realise that there maybe governments within governments but attacking from the outside only makes theorists look like terrorists.. not really it's a democracy, but the masses would feel like the status quo was being threatened and that could be looked upon as terrorism. It's much better to be talking on a level playing field as much as possible."

you said "ter·ror·ism
–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes [e.g. finance our killing machine or go to jail].

where's the difference in what i said and what you are trying to educate me on?

this is really boring, frustrating and i am loosing all faith in this forum, and with that comes losing faith in the truths that are important to us all.

i came to Mr Icke's website openminded, and i am leaving openminded.. albeit a bit more tarnished about the "truth" than i was before.

i shall take myself elsewhere - good luck with your bickering.

[mightiswrong]

Trying to define anarchy as chaos, peaceful people terrorists and terrorism unity is not truth.

[loderlive]

this is really boring, frustrating and i am loosing all faith in this forum, and with that comes losing faith in the truths that are important to us all.

i came to Mr Icke's website openminded, and i am leaving openminded.. albeit a bit more tarnished about the "truth" than i was before.

i shall take myself elsewhere - good luck with your bickering.

Why the announcement? If it feels right to you, just do it.

[helpus]

Why the announcement? If it feels right to you, just do it.

i started the thread, so i'm just ending it....

please feel free to discuss it further, if it's possible to have a discussion on here.

[mcthompson2x]

Trying to define anarchy as chaos, peaceful people terrorists and terrorism unity is not truth.

You are exactly right. I just don't understand the way you are thinking, "helpus" - how can you possibly think that the Illuminati has achieved ANYTHING good? We are their slaves. They regulate competition into non-existence and own nearly every major industry in the world. We are manipulated and lied to on a daily basis, many of us are harvested for experimentation, sex or anything else. We don't have the right to free speech, we don't have most of the rights in the Bill of Rights, and it's worse over in Europe. The Illuminati set up 9/11 and got us into the Iraq War. They are preparing to take us to war with Iran. How can you possibly say these monsters are trying to unify anything? The reason I don't trust you is because I can't begin to understand how you can integrate terrorism, fascism and mind control with unity. It is completely illogical.

[noobcybot]

i started the thread, so i'm just ending it....

please feel free to discuss it further, if it's possible to have a discussion on here.

What exactly did you hope to gain from this though? We all know a one world government could be posative in the right conditions. yet we are now more concearned with an evil nwo that might just be a reality for us right at this moment and trying to figure out for ourselves what is the best thing to do about it. If talking about it helps us come to a good conclusion in the end then it is ok, I think we are at least gaining some ground on this forum so to just come on and start a thread that will not really go anywhere, of course people will bicker because we are mostly trying to get to grips with being responsible for ourselves and others by not relying on "leaders" who dont give a rats ass about us and taking the east way out by having the government do everything for us at the cost of our freedom and health and sanity and maybe even our Pagan souls.

[mountain]

In all truth I personally feel that the 'Illuminati' will evolve with the rest of us... I feel they want us to realise our own negativity so that they can evolve themselves because as a human race, we commit acts against nature and each other often without consideration for others.

They realise OUR demise will be THEIR demise so they truly want us to wake up. That is why I cannot feel hatred for them. I hope I am not confusing anyone, just going by my heart's feelings. That is why people like you and I are here today!

[mcthompson2x]

In all truth I personally feel that the 'Illuminati' will evolve with the rest of us... I feel they want us to realise our own negativity so that they can evolve themselves because as a human race, we commit acts against nature and each other often without consideration for others.

They realise OUR demise will be THEIR demise so they truly want us to wake up. That is why I cannot feel hatred for them. I hope I am not confusing anyone, just going by my heart's feelings. That is why people like you and I are here today!

Do you mean subconsciously or something? Because I think the last thing they want people doing is waking up, or they'd be running all kinds of information over the television screen involving the secrets of the universe. They're more likely to poke out your eyes than open them.

[cycles of time]

Hey,

I am thinking about the diversity of religion and poiltics and common thought, and that everyone seems to have an opinion about the history and the future and the reality of religion, politics and history combined.

I am interested in asking some questions, but in a manchester accent not a Bush "questions" accent (lol !!?)

i'm really into the idea of eradicating multple religions, for so far they seem to only seperate many people from understanding each other.

i'm also into uniting people towards a one world government, maybe not where we are are controlled, but maybe where we are universally thinking along the same lines.

i personally would like to see a one world government if it eradiacates the total confusion that comes with multiple religions, if it unities various countries and cultures and ways of thinking...

i'm up for a one world harmonious way of thinking.. it could maybe see the end of division

i would like to advocate the possibilty of a one world government that united everybody in a good way, with us all involved, helping each other to progress to our spiritual next level.

One World government.. a swear word with so many beautiful possibilites

peace

scott

and what religion/ language should that be??

lemme guess?????

[legendary]

I would just like to point out the irony in all those that are giving 'helpus' a hard time about having an unpopular view point. You all carry on giving it 'no government' because people should be free to do whatever as long as they don't hurt oneanother or stop another from doing their thing......while at the same time telling someone they cant or shouldn't have a different view to yourselves!!! Which in itself causes isolation and separation, therefore cancelling out your 'understanding' of being 'one'!

Just an observation ;)


if you were referring to me and my idea that the only law should be that you do not impose your will upon others, i do realise that in order to enforce this you would have to inflict your will upon them through relocation but if they have broken the laws of my society they are free to start their own in a different place. or even to leave without breaking a law. as for this being an imposition of my will upon everyone that is as far from the truth as is possible. maybe i don't like people smoking crack on the streets or prostituting themselves but as long as they do so without stopping me from doing what i choose then how can i judge them? if they go on to steal and murder then far from me imposing my will upon them by exiling them, they have already imposed their will upon others in a far more heavy handed way, and if they are unrepentant then surely they feel the societies laws are injust and as such exile is the only logical solution as there would be no politician spinning out by laws and making changes

[helpus]

and what religion/ language should that be??

lemme guess?????

Did you ever guess? i lost track of this thread. If i said "none" would it help you make up your mind?

anyway x

[helpus]

funny how the zeitgeist movement answered my pleas for someone to come up with a better of how to do IT rather than just whingeing about IT.

sweet thread, i asked and i learnt. thanks all :)