Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Left-Field

The 2012 Bilderberg Conference

86 posts in this topic

Yes history has shown that governments can be evil. It's also full of examples of how a strong central government has been a good thing.

I agree with you, Corp, but this begs an interesting question/discussion: Since a government can be either good or evil, is it wise to only have one government? In a world with multiple governments, if one happens to be evil, you can leave, and you have another government that can potentially fight off the evil. In a one world government, what happens if the government becomes evil? Where will you go?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/background][/size][/font][/color]

I agree with you, Corp, but this begs an interesting question/discussion: Since a government can be either good or evil, is it wise to only have one government? In a world with multiple governments, if one happens to be evil, you can leave, and you have another government that can potentially fight off the evil. In a one world government, what happens if the government becomes evil? Where will you go?

That's actually a reasonable concern Stellar. The best method would be to ensure that there are enough checks and balances in place that should a government become evil that the general population have methods to counter and remove them, much like the checks and balances many governments already have in place. Besides a single, effectively run world government has the potential to do a lot of good. No more wars, focused research, a pooling of knowledge and resources instead of using them against each other, and maybe even some real space exploration. There will always be risks, as there've been since the first nation was created, but I believe that with the proper model the benefits can outweight the risks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Corp, do you acknowledge that under a One World Government it would be far easier for the entire population of the world to be controlled, manipulated, and have laws and procedures forced upon them?

Do you realize it would become a process of eliminating diversity?

I also think it's foolish to believe a One World Government would eliminate war - especially given that a "War On Terror" will always be something that can be tossed about as a reason to have war. It's not as if a One World Government would eliminate terrorists.

There will always be an "enemy" in existence to be used as a reason for war. The people in power will fund and create the "enemy" themselves if need be. This has all ready been done throughout history as well. A One World Government would not change this.

Edited by Angel Left Wing
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you realize it would become a process of eliminating diversity?

Sorry, I only have a few minutes right now, but I have to ask....how would it eliminate diversity? That hasn't even been accomplished within the US with all of the different regions, religions and ethnicities and we are all under the same flag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Sorry, I only have a few minutes right now, but I have to ask....how would it eliminate diversity? That hasn't even been accomplished within the US with all of the different regions, religions and ethnicities and we are all under the same flag.

I don't mean cultural diversity as much as I mean political diversity (I should have been clearer about that). Under one government controlling all of us, where does the political opposition come from?

I should also add that under a One World Government, the America we know today would be forever changed.

Edited by Angel Left Wing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best method would be to ensure that there are enough checks and balances in place that should a government become evil that the general population have methods to counter and remove them, much like the checks and balances many governments already have in place.

Ahh, but I find that checks and balances can, over time, erode and be corrupted. Furthermore, they serve only as another level of bureaucracy that prevents any change and progress.

Besides a single, effectively run world government has the potential to do a lot of good. No more wars, focused research, a pooling of knowledge and resources instead of using them against each other, and maybe even some real space exploration. There will always be risks, as there've been since the first nation was created, but I believe that with the proper model the benefits can outweight the risks.

There really can be many benefits, I agree. I just think current human nature and mentality would prevent it from succeeding. I don't think we are ready for a one world government yet. I think that if we got rid of borders and had one governing body, the next lines of division would become either cultural (how do you satisfy all the different cultures with their own laws in a one government system?) or corporate. In fact, I think the problem might become both. There are many different countries with different mentalities and laws currently. A government with a sort of "one law fit's all" system would just serve to frustrate/anger all people. Furthermore, corporate corruption would be much worse as well. Corporate involvement in politics would be much easier, as there is less people involved that they have to convince/buy out. If you don't like how involved they've gotten, you have no place else to go.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corp, do you acknowledge that under a One World Government it would be far easier for the entire population of the world to be controlled, manipulated, and have laws and procedures forced upon them?

Do you realize it would become a process of eliminating diversity?

I also think it's foolish to believe a One World Government would eliminate war - especially given that a "War On Terror" will always be something that can be tossed about as a reason to have war. It's not as if a One World Government would eliminate terrorists.

There will always be an "enemy" in existence to be used as a reason for war. The people in power will fund and create the "enemy" themselves if need be. This has all ready been done throughout history as well. A One World Government would not change this.

Sure it would be easier. But not every government is North Korea so why would that suddenly change? Why would an elected planetary government suddenly decide they want to enslave everyone? It makes no sense unless you believe that anyone and everyone who might form said government is a horrible monster. I mean the US has the military might that if they wanted to start messing with their own people there's not many countries that are in a position to stop them. And yet Americans aren't all slaves.

Like how political diversity has been elminated in every single level of government across the world? Oh right there are still plenty of opposition parties around the world and if a world government was to be formed various political entities, with their own political outlook and view on how the planet should be run, would be formed. The entire population of the planet aren't going to start magically thinking the same way. The only way political diversity would end is if a ruling party outlawed all other political groups. And given the various cultural, religious, and political views there on around the world this would be a death wish.

I mean a single world government is going to be nearly impossible to hold together what with all the different viewpoints and cultures around the world. Seems almost every country has a separtist movement of some kind and the closest thing to a world government we have, the EU, is on very dangerous ground right now. So I don't see how any small group of people could hold any kind of total power. At least not for the next few generations. There's just too many viewpoints to make the level of control you're worried about possible.

There's war and then there's "war". Sure there will be terrorists and rebellions but it will be nothing like what we've seen in the past. We won't have armies cutting into each other, entire cities being leveled, crazied militias raping their way across a country without anyone giving a damn. That form of war would stop. The fear of nuclear war would be gone. World War Three, which several members thing is only a few years away, won't happen. I'd trade all that for fighting a drug lord any day.

You know actually now that I think about it the idea that the elite want to continue to drive war profits actually goes against your fear of a one world government. With a single military that would only be dealing with small bands of fighters the military complex would see their profits drop like a two ton weight. Tanks? Stealth fighters? Aircraft carriers? Well we don't need those for dealing with a few hundred guys with AKs. Military funding would naturally drop away and be put into other projects. It's been claimed by others that the military corporate complex is running the show and they would hate the idea of a single planetary government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Don´t we already kind of have a one world government? It is called the IMF. Individual countries cannot introduce legislation or make certain policies unless it agrees with IMF policy. Austerity measures imposed by the IMF on individual countries are one example of the control they have over member states.

Before the International Monetary Fund (IMF) will release funds to developing countries, it requires structural adjustment of their governments and economies.

The IMF pushes the governments of debtor nations to dismantle, or privatize, many state agencies, ostensibly in order to reduce government spending. It also encourages countries to adopt "flexible," or lax, labor and environmental standards.

In order to balance the budget, the IMF typically pushes governments to slash their spending to very low levels, sometimes completely eliminating some government programs. Such spending cuts force governments to hand over crucial government functions, such as health care and education, to the private sector, where services which may have been free or inexpensive are subjected to high charges that often put them out of reach for the poor.

In addition to the privatization of social services, the Fund pushes governments to become more "competitive" by lowering environmental, labor and financial standards. IMF-imposed budget cuts further cripple governments capacity to develop and enforce regulations regarding the environment and social welfare.

The combination of these policies, downsizing or privatizing government agencies and lowering regulatory standards, shrinks the government's capacity to provide essential services and to protect citizens by monitoring labor laws, environmental guidelines and financial regulations.

So it begs the question: How much sovereignty to individual nations really have??

Edited by jugoso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the IMF forces countries to wipe out entire government services...yet Europe is having some major budget issues because they aren't make any real cuts to their government services. If the IMF is controlling the world they're doing a really bad job of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the IMF forces countries to wipe out entire government services.

In some cases yes and in other cases forces them to greatly reduce and or increase the cost to one which many can´t afford.

EU austerity drive country by country http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10162176

.yet Europe is having some major budget issues because they aren't make any real cuts to their government services.

Yes they have and are

Greek MPs have approved a controversial package of austerity measures, demanded by the eurozone and IMF in return for a 130bn euro ($170bn; £110bn) bailout.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17007761

Italy and Spain have passed new austerity measures as they battle to control their debts.

The upper house of Italy's parliament agreed to introduce an austerity package which will cut its deficit by some $70bn (54bn euros) over the next three years.

The British government has unveiled the largest cuts to public spending since World War II in a bid to bring its huge debt burden under control.

The five-year austerity program will cost the nation the loss of half a million public-sector jobs, and will slash social benefits for many millions of Britons.

If the IMF is controlling the world they're doing a really bad job of it.

I didn´t suggest that they “control the world” but rather are in a position where they can “forcé” countries to do things that the majority of the people are not in agreement with. New governments are elected that promise to not do some of these things but soon realize their hands are tied.

They do it indirectly through pressure on their members "democratically elected" governments. People are p***ed off so bumps along the road are to be expected. In the end,most are forced to accept the measures or they are ****ed.

Hence my question: How much sovereignty to individual nations really have??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're entitled to give your own take on the videos, but I find it to be a pretty innacurate one.

The WeOurChange.org people do not behave like "mad-men," nor do they approach the people they question in any way that goes against what the "established" media does when they actually attempt to report on an issue.

Lou Dobbs had absolutely no problem with the way the WeOurChange.org members approached him. He was polite, and even though he let it be known he didn't care to get too deeply into a discussion about Bilderberg, the reporters were appreciative of the fact that he didn't play dumb and acknowldged the fact that the Bilderberg Group exists.

The video with Lawrence O'Donnel is done without any of the claims you make above occurring. And most interesting about that video is that O'Donnel claims he knows absolutely nothing about the Bilderberg Group despite the fact he is a member of the mainstream media and people are here stating how the mainstream media "covers" the event and that the event itself is well known.

The video with Paula Zahn is also done very politely despite that fact that she too claims to have no idea what the Bilderberg Group is. This stands in total contrast to claims others have made that the mainstream media covers the event. They clearly can't cover it if they have no idea what it is. And if they truly have no idea what it is, then that only lends support to those of us stating the Bilderberg Group and the annual conference they hold is done secretively and with as little media attention as possible.

If you want me to go through each one of the videos individually I will, but the three I note above clearly show a behaviour that does not fall in line with your description of the WeOurChange.org members behaving like "mad-men."

The "mad-men" comment was in relation to them stalking one woman through and building and then into the street, not the way they approached anyone but the way they acted afterwards.

As for the rest of your post it seems funny to me how the fact they choose to ignore the question seems to promote the idea of it as an evil organisation. The fact of the matter is that they know people that get carried away with these kind of things exist and the last thing they want to do is give credence to people's paranoia. They are most likely warned at these events not to talk to anyone about it and probably for good reason too, I fail to see anything that suggests these organisations are anything but a load of fat-cats getting together to discuss business deals and whilst suspicious as to their activity I would never take it to the nth degree as some people seem to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.