New world order

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt Hester

Is this thread a troll?
Back to the topic, there is nothing wrong with a ban on military style assault rifles, in my opion. You don't need them for self defense or for hunting.

---

If we don't need them, cops and army don't need them either. The 2nd amendment was brought in because of tyrannical government. It is the ONLY thing stopping the NWO from unveiling it's ugly face from behind the shadows.

That's why there is a campaign against private firearm ownership.

And quit slinging the CNN-programming term "Conspiracy theorist" around. It's not a fucking theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Rockefeller

"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

---

Trying to discredit my quotes from Weishaupt is a lame attempt as well. It is well known that he was not only the founder of the illuminati, but also the head behind the infiltration of the masons, morphing them from an "architectural apprenticeship organization" into what is now known as the "Free" masons, which is now a vehicle for the global dissemination of revolutionary anarchistic ideology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eddie Bravo

Would you put a sign up in front of your house that said "Gun Free Home"??

---

obama sure wouldn't!!!

My prediction- four years from now Obama will "be forced" to use executive order to cancel the next presidential elections to remain in power for some reason or another. He will need us unarmed by then in order to control the revolt. This is what other dictators that take over countries do, cancel or control "elections" to stay in power. Rule the country for a long time until the US/UN helps rebels remove him from power. Who is going to help us? The US citizens being armed was viewed as pretty important to our founding fathers. To prevent this very thing from happening again. Control by an unfair tyranical government/dictator. It amazes me how many jumped on the Myan's end of the would band wagon, but don't give the slightest credit to biblical prophesy. It predicted Isreal becoming a country again, and predicts other major things will happen during the generation the sees Isreal become a country again. That means the generation around in 1948 is getting pretty old!! Crap is getting deep, so much BJJ to master so little time!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt Hester

Is this thread a troll?
Back to the topic, there is nothing wrong with a ban on military style assault rifles, in my opion. You don't need them for self defense or for hunting.

---

Your correct, you don't need them to protect against robbers and thiefs or for hunting. You need them to Fight 1 million Chinese on our soil or to overthrow a tyranical US government. You want to fight with muskets against machine guns? or at least have high capacity semi autos against machine guns. I'll opt for semi autos, still out gunned but if there are enough we will have a chance. That is the sole reason our founding fathers of this country felt such a strong desire to include that in our constitution!!

These are the current police:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_HyyDHyAwI6...t+cops+rnc.jpg

They certainly aren't dressed to serve and protect YOU or ME.


Support copblock.org
Support facebook.com/copblock
Support facebook.com/filmingcops

I'm not Anti-Cop. I am Anti NWO-pig though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloadae

Well, it seems we have different view on how oversight influences ownership.

---

No. I know how oversight influences ownership. You don't. It's that simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloadae

Ooh...I didn't really appeal to authority, I was simply saying that people can disagree with eachother on economic issues without being "morrons". If one claims that the followers of a widely popular economic theory, in both academic and political circles, are all lacking intellect...I would consider that another huge over-simplification.

---

It isn't an over-simplification, it is a fact. Opinions do not exist; they are only preferences. It isn't a question over whether you prefer the color blue over red. It is a question of which economic theory is correct, or at the very least, better. There is a definite answer. Whether or not some people prefer Keynesianism over free markets is inconsequential. They are wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloadae

Concerning the quotes.
"Deflection"? If you show me a youtube-clip with a shitload of quotes, each quote without further comment, source or its original context - of course that clip will be of very limited value from a scientific standpoint.

---

Those quotes are sourced, and the context is self-contained within them. Many of them are actual VIDEO clips. Do they need "sources" as well? An invalid could understand.

Either you are a complete idiot, or you are intentionally feigning ignorance, making you a troll.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloadae

To me, the quote says the following:
- "Political extremists", which Rockefeller obviously disagrees with, since this is a negative label, are attacking the Rockefeller-family for their influence in American politic/economics
- Some people claim he is part of a "cabal" working against the US
- Rockefeller proudly admits that he is working for a more "integrated global political and economic" community. And that he is working with other people to achieve that.

---

Let's examine the juicy bit of the quote in detail, shall we? I'll split it into the two sentences which make up the comment:

Sentence A:
"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as internationalists and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will."

Sentence B:
"If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

Now, let's consider the fact that Sentence B immediately follows Sentence A.

In Sentence B, Rockefeller admits that he is "guilty" of a "charge", and that he is proud of it. Now, the task is deciphering exactly what "charge" he is referencing. It can be inferred that the "charge" is contained within the immediately preceding sentence due to the phrase "If that's..." which begins Sentence B -- "that" being the referenced charge contained in Sentence A.

Now let's take a look at Sentence A.

In Sentence A, we see that Rockefeller lists two things which can be attributed to the "charge", both of which are supported by a modifier to expand the context. We come to this conclusion because he starts the sentence with "Some even believe..." which can be directly linked to "If that's the charge..." in the next sentence. Now, what do "some" believe? Let's take the sentence apart.

Subject 1: "...we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States..."
Modifier 1: "...characterizing my family and me as internationalists..."

Subject 2: "... [we are] conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure..."
Modifier 2: "...one world, if you will."

Okay, now let's put it all together!

Rockefeller, by his own admission and with great pride, is guilty of being part of a secret cabal of internationalists working against the best interests of the United States which conspires to build a one world, globally integrated political and economic structure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloadae

This is not a proof that there is a NWO.
This is not some startling revelation.

---

Startling? No.

Proof of a NWO? What is the NWO?

New World Order - n. : The goal of a secret cabal of internationalists working against the best interests of the United States which conspires to build a one world, globally integrated political and economic structure.

You should see a dentist. I don't think that foot can be dislodged without surgery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloadae

Rockefeller is a capitalist who makes a lot of profit from abroad. It's quite natural that he will have an international perspective on economy and making money. And in a political climate which allows him to do so. With as little taxation as possible, just like you prefer.

---

The last thing someone like Rockefeller would want is smaller taxes. Where do you think he gets the money to pursue the global agenda? How would he be able to control his less affluent potential competitors?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloadae

It is of course possible to intepret it as "I stand guilty [of being a part of] a secret cabal." Especially if you're looking for that connection.

---

Or if you have a brain. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aloadae

However, when choosing between to alternatives, I prefer the one which is the most likely.
So, what are the alternative interpretations of what Rockefeller says:

1. He admits to being part of a secret cabal, with the meaning of a small, hidden, secret, clearly defined organization, with mystical/satanic/kabbalistic ideas, which holds close to absolute power over the world, but conspires to bring it together under an obvious political and military dictatorship.
2. He admits to being part of a movement of globalists who wants to open up the world markets to his financial interests.

---

In Interpretation 2 you conveniently disregard the fact that Rockefeller's statement included the word "political" and instead narrow your focus on the word "economic". Let's see it again:

"...more integrated global political and economic structure..."

So, the revised version of Interpretation 2 is thus:

2. He admits to being part of a movement of globalists who wants to open up the world markets to his financial interests and the world governments to his political interests.

In this case, both interpretation 1 and 2 mean the exact same thing. It also means the whole of your argument is emetic refuse.

I would call you a paid shill if I thought you were competent enough to get the job. You've only served to descredit your own "view" and strengthen the topic at hand. So thanks, I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt Hester

Is this thread a troll?
Back to the topic, there is nothing wrong with a ban on military style assault rifles, in my opion. You don't need them for self defense or for hunting.

---

"What is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, father of the Bill of Rights

"The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of the republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, 1833, U.S. Supreme Court Justice


Re-examine your definition of self defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg W

My prediction- four years from now Obama will "be forced" to use executive order to cancel the next presidential elections to remain in power for some reason or another. He will need us unarmed by then in order to control the revolt.

---

He wouldn't need an executive order to cancel elections. He would only need to overturn the Twenty-second Amendment which prohibits presidents from serving more than two terms, and they would flock to vote him in again. FDR actually won four terms of office before the amendment was ratified, but he died before starting his fourth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg W

Crap is getting deep, so much BJJ to master so little time!!

---

Tell me about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nathan Kelso

He wouldn't need an executive order to cancel elections. He would only need to overturn the Twenty-second Amendment which prohibits presidents from serving more than two terms, and they would flock to vote him in again. FDR actually won four terms of office before the amendment was ratified, but he died before starting his fourth.



Tell me about it.

---

Obama is not really in charge, his handlers (Bankers) have him in check. So it doesnt really matter if he is in office again or not. The next president be it Republican or democrat will be bought and paid for, and kept in check as well.