CFR: Non-OPEC Producers Facing Production Hurdles

funzone36 · Heavy Crude Joined: Dec 04, 2005 Posts: 179

Well, I am not trying to prove that they are not trying. All I said was that it's impossible to implement such a concept. It won't happen. They may have a plan (and I do not brush aside this possibility) but whether they can successfully implement it is a totally different question. I could even name people I know who wants to control the world. Obviously, they know it won't happen. One world government is too ideal (too perfect). It's like trying to set up a Utopian world.

On the other hand, conspiracy theories seeks to simplify politics and economics. If you haven't noticed, theorists make their theories simple enough so that it can reach as much of the dumb masses (those who doesn't know anything about politics/economics) as possible. But I agree, politics and economics is more complex than what you and I are discussing. What I already posted is not even the tip of the iceberg of what I know about politics and economics so you cannot judge my knowledge with these few posts.

I do have a question for you. Do you desire a one world government? If not, why not? If yes, explain.

roccman: First, at least millions people belong to all those families. Second, powerful does not mean they want to control the world. Just because they are powerful is not proof of trying to implement a new world order. The possibility is there but it's not fact.

virgincrude · Heavy Crude Joined: Mar 09, 2006 Posts: 404

Good question funzone! Until I started reading about the various elite groups who basically decide the politics of the Western hemisphere, I had the same idealistic idea about globalization, the One Village type of dream, which has been used to smooth the acceptance of it. We were told the world is getting smaller, that citizens a few thousand miles away from each other can feel more connected by the advertising hype of Coca-cola, Nike, Disney, or whoever started selling their product as a life style affirmation first. We're all members of the World Village and felt all warm and fuzzy and connected.

Of course, the truth is horribly otherwise: mass dumbing down of the general populace and consistently misleading and twisted delivery of news in order to paint a picture which will keep the herd going in the same direction: buying, consuming, becoming ill and using prescribed drugs. When I found the idea of this utopian One World actually represented a loss of individual rights and freedoms, of cultural differences and personal choice, I started thinking otherwise. I don't see how a One World Government can succesfully handle the current vast diversity of cultures, ethnicities, religions, social customs etc., UNLESS it first destroys them, and homogeinises the citizenry: something which, on the face of it, appears to be working.

So, no, I don't desire a One World anything really. I like it just as messed up, complicated and complex as usual. Barring all the farking wars, of course.

Discovering PO was for me a fundamentally life changing realisation: it made me think different (as Apple would have you say) and start questioning most of the other fundamental 'givens' in my life. I don't know how other people can realise the enormous implications of PO, and yet go on accepting that other 'established' conceptions remain unquestionable. When you see how the fact of PO has been hidden, or buried or ignored by the media, how everybody has plain lied to the public about it, then how can you just sit back and accept every other official view or explanation regarding anything else?

funzone36 · Heavy Crude Joined: Dec 04, 2005 Posts: 179

Actually, the media has started covering peak oil much more frequently nowadays. Time Magazine is one of them: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1122019,00.html

It's not so much about lying to the public. It's more about how the masses simply do not care about such things and would rather follow their favorite celebrities instead. Or, it's rather that the masses think their lives are too busy with work, school, family, and shopping that they simply do not want to invest the time on such things. If everyone cared, the media would be more reluctant to spread false news or bad journalism.

Finally, it's clear that the UN did not support the Iraqi invasion. Now, a lot of people say that the Iraqi invasion was for a New World Order. These two statements contradict each other and they're inconsistent. Care to explain with proof?

roccman

funzone36 · Heavy Crude Joined: Dec 04, 2005 Posts: 179

There is no law that says it's mandatory to have a chip in your hand. The possibility is that it can happen in the future but something like this is likely to be met with huge criticisms and public outcry. I'd be surprised if both the House of Representatives and the Senate approves it. Even then, the US Supreme Court can reject it. In the history of Congress, they have rejected tons of laws that are unconstitutional.

Every country has laws that restricts freedom. The USA is relatively free when you compare to countries like Communist China, Russia, Iran, or Zimbabwe.

virgincrude · Heavy Crude Joined: Mar 09, 2006 Posts: 404

Funzone, who are you asking for explanation and proof? If you have so many questions, why don't you do some research? You could start here

A Century of War

Or here:

Naomi Klein

(Check out 'No Logo', too) Look for the BBC's "The Power of Nightmares" part 1, 2 and 3

Try this one

The True History of the Bilderbergs
The author also has a radio interview here, which explains things in a quite dumbed down way for those who have never imagined any of this stuff:

[url=/www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19016.htm]Information Clearing House[/url]

You think the media finally picking up on PO is a sign of absence of malicious intent? The fact that it HAS finally gone mainstream seems to suffice for you. Yes, the masses (of course, you and I don't form a part of them, now do we?) are too happy ignoring serious stories. You think their lives are too complicated trying to keep up with the mortgage and the bills, shopping and consuming. And how did they get that way?

If you didn't have a firm opinion against all alternative scenarios, you would not find it strange that 'conspiracy theorists' come out with many contradictions. Apparently, the Bilderbergs were against the Iraq war and generally are not too pleased with the Neo-cons in power right now. Of course, you can believe whatever you want. If you refuse to seek out the available documentation and facts (you don't have to put on your tin-foil hat, and you don't even have to go near Alex Jones!) then why bother challenging those who HAVE done some research? It is extremely complex and you have to do a lot of parsing, because there are a lot of whacky and distastefull individuals attached to the information. Which just ensures it remains where it is.

funzone36 · Heavy Crude Joined: Dec 04, 2005 Posts: 179

I've done my research. So far, these theories are simple (they are not complex) and they are not logical. I simply wish to ask you since you have been convinced of these theories. But it appears that you haven't come up with any persuasive information. Apparently, you haven't answered my UN question. Anyway,

For century of war, those events combined have weakened American economic power, not strengthened them.

Naomi Klein is a possibility but peak oil does decay military technology and American economic power. If America is already having a hard time with Iraq, don't even talk about the world.

If the members of the Bilderberg Club, the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations all desire the destruction of the growth economy then they would've crushed it decades ago. The Bilderberg group members are all powerful and in control of various governments and banks like the Federal Reserve.

I don't have a firm opinion about these alternative scenerios. If you haven't noticed, I have tried to study them. I just have my own criticisms about their accuracy. I don't simply believe something because I read about it. Nor do I use faith to believe these theories.

Lastly, they wouldn't be secret societies if you knew their plans. Their meetings are still largely behind closed doors. Nor will their plans be exactly the way you described if they were truth.

I find it ironic how these conspiracy propaganda can convince you. Hey, even I have a conspiracy to control the world, to tell you the truth.

roccman

funzone36 · Heavy Crude Joined: Dec 04, 2005 Posts: 179

Yes, it's possible that the process of legislation will be different when there is an economic crisis. There will be a lot of civil disorder after peak oil and it's possible that there will be martial law. Public safety will be required. But human chip implants is not guaranteed to happen. And even if they were, the only problems associated with them is privacy. Even today, we are all sacrificing privacy. You think the government does not know who you are right now? Implanted chips just makes it easier to process your ID.

Yea, the world is not Utopian and it was never Utopian in the first place. Who knows? Maybe there's going to be uprisings and revolutions. What are they going to do if we refuse to wear these chip implants? Kill us all? Then, let them. It's not going to do them any good when they kill their own human resources and like those conspiracy theories say, "their slaves".

*spit*

roccman

funzone36 · Heavy Crude Joined: Dec 04, 2005 Posts: 179

The suicide bombers? For every 1 suicide bomber, around 5 soldiers are dead. In this situation, the suicide bomber won.

If people like Alex Jones is speaking the truth, how come he's not dead yet?

roccman

funzone36 · Heavy Crude Joined: Dec 04, 2005 Posts: 179

Umm, that's why I'm asking. I don't know why. Look at William Cooper. He died.

virgincrude · Heavy Crude Joined: Mar 09, 2006 Posts: 404

funzone:

funzone36 · Heavy Crude Joined: Dec 04, 2005 Posts: 179

Discussions are the only way toward truth. But I agree that I have been suspicious of alternative views and I don't think there's anything wrong with questioning any sort of alternative views.

For vaccination, they talk about mercury but the mercury is water-soluble rather than fat-soluble. There have been cases when vaccination worked like smallpox. How come it's no longer an epidemic if it didn't work?

For IMF and World Bank, how come that overall, world poverty did decrease?

What I don't know is what sort of stuff is it that NASA can't explain?

How come the Bilderberg group is behind closed doors if they are in broad daylight?

If you do not believe in conspiracy then why these exchange of posts? I agree though that judging from the progress of these exchanges, it's not going to change my mind. So far, the arguments for these alternative views are still weak.

I've done my research and all over the place and all over the net, the arguments for these theories are weak. Some theories have loss its importance anyway.

Edit: This is my last post in this thread. This debate is largely based on faith about the inevitable conspiracy prophecies that one cannot prove nor disprove. It is based on future events. Goodbye.