What about the U.N.?

Moderators: DrVolin, Elvis, Jeff

What about the U.N.?

Postby schizotypal » Thu Jul 13, 2006 4:30 pm

<!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2634703139474212867&q=bush+new+world+order">video.google.com/videopla...orld+order</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br>I often wonder if all this shit happening right now, wars, 9/11, terrorism, hunger, capitalism etc, will one day be used to blame certain men, idiologies, conspiracies etc, so that the only way out for the human race is to accept a world government.What if all this we see happening everyday is somekind of conditioning, "marketing", strategy to make us accept world government? I keep seeing the U.S. portrayed in the international press as the "Vilan" and the U.N. as a peacefull organization. There was Iraq, now Iran and Korea, then World War III, then certain puppets are sacrificed and finally the Fenix Rises from the ashes. <p></p><i></i>
schizotypal
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 10:37 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What about the U.N.?

Postby NewKid » Thu Jul 13, 2006 8:57 pm

Anything's possible, but I really don't see that happening. There's enough factional fighting and internecine warfare just within US/EU elites that I think getting enough of the world's elites all to agree on some sort of dejure world govt via the UN is unlikely. I think it would take an alien invasion (real or hoax) to get anywhere near seeing a one world govt. <br><br>I won't deny there's a bunch of rhetoric about one world govt out there, but there's a difference between one faction wanting something and actually gettting what it wants. Even if you ignore the popular resistance to this (from the right especially, a key block you need on your side to have an authoritarian society in my view), the "elite" just aren't all in agreement on doing anything like this.<br><br>What I really see is more of a defacto govt by private interests. I think Cheney, Schultz, Rohatyn and others even higher up essentially want to take away the monopoly on the legitimate use of force from the state and put it in the hands of private military firms and mercenaries. Private control with no transparency and no accountability in both economic and military realms, with very nominal democratic windowdressing in the political realm, seems to be the way it's going. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 7/13/06 7:16 pm<br></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What about the U.N.?

Postby schizotypal » Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:02 am

"I occasionally think, how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world. And yet, I ask: is not an alien force ALREADY among us?" <br><br>Ronald Reagan, in a speech at the United Nations<br><br>It seems to me that there is something behind controlling all these pupett factions. It's a conspiracy within a conspiracy within a conspiracy. <p></p><i></i>
schizotypal
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 10:37 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What about the U.N.?

Postby eroeoplier » Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:21 am

There is nothing wrong with the idea of a world government. The 'governing' of the world goes on today, and will go on tomorrow, and there's much to suggest that the right kind of official world government is the only thing that might deliver to all of humanity peace and prosperity. Unfortunately, a world full to the brim with thieves, liars and idiots isn't likely to come up with *that* kind of world government. <p></p><i></i>
eroeoplier
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 9:52 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What about the U.N.?

Postby Gouda » Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:01 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I think Cheney, Schultz, Rohatyn and others even higher up essentially want to take away the monopoly on the legitimate use of force from the state and put it in the hands of private military firms and mercenaries. Private control with no transparency and no accountability in both economic and military realms, with very nominal democratic windowdressing in the political realm, seems to be the way it's going.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br>Yes, more or less, true. Coincidentally, I have a little something I'll be posting today on that theme re: Pentagon Inc. <br><br>Too many people have been hoodwinked by the spectre of a blue helmeted NWO under a UN world government. Utter crap. Maybe that really was the dream in a few heads at one time - or the bait and switch plan. If anything, Rockefellers, Maurice Strong and the Lucis people are helping to bait the UN and switch to the corporate (occult?) capital one world order, which is, if you have not noticed, actually dominating things at the moment, to our detriment. Yes, there are Rockefeller quotes out there stating their dream is a "one world order," and this is true - but it is not what many have been led to think by Bircher fundies. The Rockefellers are consumate capitalist gurus. Capitalism made them and they are not about to give that up. Capital thrives under prediciability and/or control (intelligence and military power) - this is why they would like a one world order: to preserve and maintain control under this system. They have used governments very effectively, but that is changing - corporations are much more efficient and palatable to most people. Look at the <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>trend</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->: the world's government functions are being privatized: militaries, intelligence, health, education, service delivery etc. It's the fulfillment of the Dutch East India Company's wildest guided reincarnation fantasies. <br><br>On the one hand, the UN has been shunted into acting as the world's leading relief agency - and they can barely do that properly. Even if they were able to do that properly, it would only better serve the global war powers, to legitimize and justify their destructive actions, in service to the emerging one world market. Go ahead big guys, rip apart Haiti, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan...we'll be there to clean up after you & slap on a humanitarian gloss - <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>and</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> help you privatize their institutions, resources and open their markets on your terms. On the other hand, that is the only useful funtion the UN serves right now: as a vessel for US/UK/Israeli corporate interests. <br><br>Moreover, the NGO community (those do-gooder agencies) is becoming increasingly corporate in character, in terms of financing, bureaucracy, and accountability to their "brand" and the bottom line, which may not be "profit" per se, but their "stock" on the NGO market - Oxfam Inc., a blue chip org. They are "nongovernmental"...great and exactly! Because, alas, they are really "pro-neoliberal", agents of the free market, free trade, and learned subservience to the New Market Order. The enabling Soros Complex also comes to mind. Also loaded with spooks. <br><br>Anyway, I am still convinced the propaganda surrounding "the Nine" gods seeking to rule us again actually is to prepare us for rule under a magical council of Nine corporate conglomerates controlling the entirety of the world's resources and wealth. Maitreya, Chairman of the Board of Nine, Ascended Corporate Master. Or something like that, no? <br> <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What about the U.N.?

Postby Gouda » Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:33 am

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Apropos</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->....Just out, from somewhere in northeast Indiana, latest <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>The Calumet Review:</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>On the UN: <br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Some of our local Porter County loons have, in addition to their Patriot Radio station (93.3 FM, audible from Hobart to Westville on a “good” day—that’s about twenty miles, for you lucky non-Calumetians) and the homemade signs of Farmer Fruitbat (Indiana 149 from the corner of US 6 to an undefined point some several hundred yards north), placed where folks might see ‘em some placards out on the interstate (94) urging “US out of UN.” Like so much with the “Patriot” types, they have it right—sort of—but for all the wrong reasons. The Calumet Review agrees—the United Nations should, in its present form and incarnation, cease to be. Not because it isn’t the pliant (and suppliant) instrument of US policy, but because it is precisely that instrument and ever has been. Similarly, all the crap run by Soros’ money should cease to be, not because Soros is Jewish and out to destroy honest Christian nations, if not the blood of Our Precious Savior altogether, it’s not even because he’s Hungarian, but because Soros is a capitalist pig and his “open society” is a vision (and reality) of corporate (and currency speculator) tyranny.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>On NGO: <br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Whatever NGOs and their supporters intentions are, the reality is that they—to be clear, the NGOs--suck. They are precisely what Christian missionaries were in centuries past (and, are still)—something like a fifth column. Anybody remember a countrypolitan song from 1980 or so called “Pickin’ Up Strangers?” Sung by Johnny somebody, friend, as I recall of Mickey Gilley’s. Anyway, the chorus rang like such:<br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em><br>Pickin’ up strangers, lemme tell ya ‘bout the dangers (Repeat)<br>Some’re just come in peace, they say<br>Next thing y’know, one’ll steal yer heart away.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>(As a young afficianado of hillbilly music, I always wondered what summergists were—some kind of cult? Like the Hare Krishnas? Wisdom, if such it can be named, straightened me out on the drawled mumble of this ditty.) <br><br>NGOs are the Strangers of this (not Merle Haggard’s) song—‘cept they won’t steal yer heart away, but rather yer sovereignty. For one thing, a whole lot of NGOs are QGOs—quasi-governmental organizations. I’m not even counting the frickin’ NED, which is altogether governmental and altogether wicked. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>More: <!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Here’s how the venerable James Petras put it in 1997 (Monthly Review, Vol. 49, No. 7):<br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>By the early 1980s the more perceptive sectors of the neoliberal ruling classes realized that their policies were polarizing the society and provoking large-scale social discontent. Neoliberal politicians began to finance and promote a parallel strategy "from below," the promotion of "grassroots" organization with an "anti-statist" ideology to intervene among potentially conflictory classes, to create a "social cushion." These organizations were financially dependent on neoliberal sources and were directly involved in competing with socio-political movements for the allegiance of local leaders and activist communities. By the 1990s these organizations, described as "nongovernmental," numbered in the thousands and were receiving close to four billion dollars world-wide.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><br>In closing:<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>This is the world of the PR scumbags: what is called when battling on the behalf of polluters and toxics “astroturf,” or fake-grassroots lobbying. What slick masters we have, eh? There’s of course another term for such practices when applied to people named Gotti, Capone, Noriega—money-laundering. (See also that outstanding book, the copies of which, sadly, we’ve all given away and must acquire more, Toxic Sludge is Good for You, whose authors escape us for the moment.) This, too, is part of a wave of privatization (on which, see more below, in I.B. Dog’s essay on bottled water—ed.), in this instance of foreign policy. Here again we see the thread which binds the missionary tradition to the modern NGO. For, despite the alleged separation of church and state, religious organizations, both Jewish (in the case of Israel, an altogether special case) and Christian, have figured by various means, in the advancing of American foreign policy aims for decades. Evangelical Protestantism, with increasing gusto during the Reagan years, as one might imagine, has figured especially heavily, for which see Sara Diamond’s Spiritual Warfare, The Politics of the Christian Right. These churches and their adjutant ”ministries” and parachurch organizations (of, for instance, Bible societies and “Bible translators”) have advanced the neoliberal, neocolonial, and downright genocidal agendas of agribusiness and right-wing governments in Paraguay and Brasil and have served as conduits for American tax money (through AID and other agencies) to death squads in the Philippines. <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> <br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>The Calumet Review,</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br>Volume Three, Number Four, Sometime in 2006 <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What about the U.N.?

Postby schizotypal » Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:53 am

I think that there is a deep intimate connection between the New Age religion (aka luciferianism) and the UN.<br><br>Watch this:<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6160041888120783114&q=new+age">video.google.com/videopla...&q=new+age</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Although it is a documentary made from a Christian perspective, it says a lot a bout the UN and the New Age.<br><br>I think that capitalism, bush & co. etc, are being used. They are going to be the New Nazis of the 21st century, probably even judged and condemned on War Crimes / human rights violation etc. The deception is that what is behind all this, is the root of the tree, the root of all evil, and their objective is World Government, not as an end to itself, but as a mean to achieve a certain end. Maybe the enslavement of the collective human consciousness. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=schizotypal@rigorousintuition>schizotypal</A> at: 7/14/06 5:00 am<br></i>
schizotypal
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 10:37 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What about the U.N.?

Postby NewKid » Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:08 am

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Anyway, I am still convinced the propaganda surrounding "the Nine" gods seeking to rule us again actually is to prepare us for rule under a magical council of Nine corporate conglomerates controlling the entirety of the world's resources and wealth. Maitreya, Chairman of the Board of Nine, Ascended Corporate Master. Or something like that, no? <hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>It's certainly a fascinating subject. I do have trouble seeing how somebody like Maitreya could be credibly presented as some sort of savior figure to secular elites, barring some sort of new age electromagnetic mind war on the population. <br><br>Normally, I tend to think massive paradigm shifts or global mind change and stuff like that would be pretty far out there and pretty unlikely, especially considering it's been talked about for awhile and hasn't happened. But given the rapidly approaching impact of technology on the human condition, the merging of man and machine, etc., I think the time is approaching where, if any of these plans really exist, you will see them within the next 10 or 15 years. <br><br>We need a core of serious investigative journalists who do nothing but investigate Maurice Strong, Lucis Trust, the Nine, pedophilia and all this high weirdness and report back. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 7/14/06 5:09 am<br></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What about the U.N.?

Postby Gouda » Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:04 am

NK: <!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I do have trouble seeing how somebody like Maitreya could be credibly presented as some sort of savior figure to secular elites<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> I use "Maitreya" as a figurative composite of both secular and spiritual jerks - not actually a "somebody" - "Maitreya" also being the subject of various interpretations: the Creme people think it is a specific somebody, but most others versed in eastern traditions would beg to differ as M. represents many different things. I don't think a single personage glowing at the head leading a council of conglomerates will literally emerge. But that does not mean we should not be aware of and vigilant against the thinking and the agendas that would have something eerily close to that emerge. <br><br>eroeoplier wrote "...there's much to suggest that the right kind of official world government is the only thing that might deliver to all of humanity peace and prosperity." I remember this being debated here before (if you can find a thread called "what is so bad about Maurice Strong?" or something like that.) Of course it is a tautology to say: "a good world government would be good" and "a fascist world government would be bad," Chomsky opting for totalitarian rule to save our sorry asses from eco-disaster notwithstanding. eroeoplier is right to assume that no good government can emerge on a planet overrun by treacherous idiots. I interpret this as meaning that a good global government will not, cannot not emerge (of, by and for the people) when the people are ignorant. OK. So then it has to be "benevolently imposed" on us for our own sake. By whom? Ah, there's the catch. Who is best positioned to impose anything, and HOW did THEY get in this position. If they are using capitalism as a means to a better, fairer future, then I don't truss 'em because their means are suspect! If the means are suspect, you can bet the ends will be too. <br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>We need a core of serious investigative journalists who do nothing but investigate Maurice Strong, Lucis Trust, the Nine, pedophilia and all this high weirdness and report back.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> Yessiree bob. Hopefully they do not fall under the employ of said subjects of investigation. <br><br>schizo: <!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I think that capitalism, bush & co. etc, are being used.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--> In a way, I'll have to agree there - modified as "temporary; using and being used." I like my nasty picture of 9 corporations, but I think that if that point is reached, it won't be capitalism anymore, it will have served its purpose. Capitalism is the perfect vehicle to consolidate wealth power and control - once that is accomplished, then bye bye birdie. I don't think that point will be reached anyway - it's just what I think they <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>might </em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->have in mind, and they want our mind to be of their mind. If the inherent flaws of capitalism do not bring this agenda down on its lonesome, hopefully the people will aid that task. What replaces what when capitalism falls? This is the key: how we bring it down will determine what we want to see replace it. Therein may be the kernel of an answer to what sort of "government" (or non-government) will best keep us from degrading, raping, and destroying ourselves. <br><br>***<br><br>RE: the google video: "The New Age - A Pathway to Paradise? (1983)" Interesting viewing, actually, despite some very drippy Christian conversion testimonials. Might be worthy of a separate thread. Great interview with some logically-acrobatic Creme/Maitryeya devotees. There is also appropriate linking of Aryan/Nazism to Shambala, Alice Baily & Creme to the New Age revival as a preparation for something or someone even "bigger than Hitler." So I agree with many of the producer's conclusions - they are right to be suspicious - but for different reasons. Where they see the rise of new age mysticism as threatening their Christianity (one "true path" vs. another "truth path" crap) and bringing on the "antichrist", I see it as the replacement of one mind control system over another. "Planetary management" - this language is right out of the corporate manual. Anywho, the documentary, made in 1983, often crosses paths with some of the lines of thinking in <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>The Stargate Conspiracy</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, sans SC's excellent inquiry into links with the intelligence-research complex. I noticed in the rolling credits that one "Larry King" is listed as Post-production. Hope it is not <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>that</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> Larry King. <br><br>I would suggest a new thread for this video because I think linking this stuff it to the UN is misleading. The Aquarian Conspiracy stuff touches a lot more than just the UN, a small bit player. As I tried to argue above, the UN is inept but as an instrument of US and market agendas (which may also indeed be, as schizotypal suggests, instruments of something else. Higher weirdness, for example.) <p></p><i></i>
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What about the U.N.?

Postby eroeoplier » Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:22 am

"I think that capitalism, bush & co. etc, are being used. They are going to be the New Nazis of the 21st century, probably even judged and condemned on War Crimes / human rights violation etc. The deception is that what is behind all this, is the root of the tree, the root of all evil, and their objective is World Government, not as an end to itself, but as a mean to achieve a certain end. Maybe the enslavement of the collective human consciousness."<br><br><br>Bush & Co *are,* in the terms used, the new "Nazis" of the 21st century. They *are* guilty of war crimes and human rights violations, so it would only be just if they were tried and convicted for their crimes. I've been hearing here and there about Marilyn Ferguson, Alice Bailey and Crowley, and how they're part of the whole Illuminati thing...well I watched the video and I think it's truly laughable (leaving Crowley out of it here - the doco doesn't cover him). All I saw was Christians who were worried about the weakening of their religion, and Americans who were worried about the potential loss of their role as Decider Numero Uno.<br><br>America's political consciousness has been utterly distorted by anti-communist rhetoric. It's completely forgotten how to play fair. Yes there is something rotten inside the UN - it's called the BIS, the World Bank, the IMF. And there is nothing at the heart of "New Age" thinking that would sanction the destruction these organisations wreak. And last I heard, the BIS, WB & IMF weren't first on the list of organisations America, or its elite, would like to do away with.<br><br>The fact is Ferguson's Aquarian conspiracy has been a colossal failure - isn't that obvious? Ultimately, I really do think any influence the New Age movement might have on the UN would likely be a positive one. To the extent that it encourages only navel gazing, it's influence on the individual is a different matter. <p></p><i></i>
eroeoplier
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 9:52 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What about the U.N.?

Postby schizotypal » Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:49 am

Ever heard of Agenda 21?<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NewAge/Earth_Charter_Ark.htm">www.conspiracyarchive.com...er_Ark.htm</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--> <p></p><i></i>
schizotypal
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 10:37 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What about the U.N.?

Postby schizotypal » Fri Jul 14, 2006 11:27 am

I think it is extremely important to have the UN into consideration when looking at the bigger picture and not just the US, bush etc. Because everything's just turning too blatant and obvious, and if people can't realize what, they will be caught of guard, and they'll be praising and empowering the "devil" itself. A world government is an essential step in their Master Plan, to have the whole human race united into 1 system, 1 belief, 1 law, 1 mind. World government is not an end, it is a mean to a achieve a certain purpose. This purpose is imo, the hijack of the collective human consciousness, the harness of it's incredible power. We are some kind of machines/computers, collectively we are just tiny cells of a larger organism, a larger machine with an incredible power/counsciousness. How could they harness this power, get all the cells to unite and function together with a separate world? In a world with countries, borders, division, etc? We already live in 1 one culture, the American "culture", here, capitalism and America have served their purpose. They are now to be sacrificed, so the next step can be achieved: One World, Socialism/Communism. <p></p><i></i>
schizotypal
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 10:37 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What about the U.N.?

Postby Gouda » Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:00 pm

schizo, when the one world socialist order meditates its way past all those transnational corporations, Wall Street, Citibank, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, the World Bank, the IMF, the WTO and my Chamber of Commerce and their myriad intelligence agencies and mercenaries, what do you think will happen to them? Will they be disbanded and told to hand over all their stuff to Maurice Strong? I mean, since capitalists run the world (and running it into the ground they are) I assume, as the masters, they will have to order themselves to step down...and become, socialists??? <br><br>In lieu of socialism (seems you are not a big fan, eh?) what do you propose to fill the void once capitalism voluntarily sacrifices itself? Yes, what do you propose? <br><br>And by the way, how are you linking socialism with the new age? The google film does not mention socialism & neither does "agenda 21" at the illuminati website. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gouda@rigorousintuition>Gouda</A> at: 7/14/06 10:06 am<br></i>
User avatar
Gouda
 
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 1:53 am
Location: a circular mould
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What about the U.N.?

Postby schizotypal » Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:18 pm

The socialist system that is planed will be for the masses only. The capitalists overlords will continue to become overlords. The program will be rewritten, but the programers are the same. Also... try to look at the bigger picture. I mean, do you really believe that mortal human beings are runing the show? No, the plan outwheigts us in its power, age and compreension.<br><br>I propose anarchy. The end of any kind of power system. The end of civilization, and the return to the archaic. It's the only way to be sure.<br>Civilization is the conspiracy. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=schizotypal@rigorousintuition>schizotypal</A> at: 7/14/06 12:22 pm<br></i>
schizotypal
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 10:37 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: What about the U.N.?

Postby NewKid » Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:10 pm

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I mean, do you really believe that mortal human beings are runing the show?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I'm not sure I follow you here. Could you hash this out some more? <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=newkid@rigorousintuition>NewKid</A> at: 7/14/06 5:40 pm<br></i>
NewKid
 
Posts: 1036
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:57 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to Deep Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest