Forum Klix.ba

scooter21ba wrote:

cartman wrote:

scooter21ba wrote:guglo pretrazivao i ne vjerujem u taj NWO

Hhahahha, jednstavno volim pesimiste

sta je ovdje pesimisticno?
prije bih rekao da je optimisticno a ne kao sto ti kazes

cartman wrote:Pa ko kaze da ovaj svijet vec nije njihovo carstvo ? Pogledaj oko sebe. Pogledaj politicare, stroge hadzije... Jel mislis da je njima nesto tesko u zivotu? I ako se mozda pitas.. pa sto onda jednostavno nisu pokorili citav svijet u pocetku ? Mozda zato jer cekaju ( a i docekali su ), da im ga sami damo, da im ga poklonimo, da ne pitamo puno pitanja, da zivimo svoj "zivot", da sutimo i da budemo sretni sto je ziva glava, sto se ima za hranu, eventualno neko putovanje, auto... sto imamo plina,vode,struje. Jel ti shvatas da smo mi svi robovi , na neki nachin? Mi smo potrosni materijal, stoka, goveda, mi smo im moch. Da nije MTVa,BETa, svih medija, NBC,CBS,BBC,FOX,Disney etc, da nam je materijalisticki nacin zivota nametnut, jel ti fakat mislis da bi moje djete trazilo novi iPhone,iPod iOvo iOno, nove markirane tene, markirane hlache , majice itd... zato jer je to sto odredjuje polozaj u drustvu. Al jok... zivi sa zatvorenim ocima.

dr.gog wrote:Gdje mogu skinuti Zeitgeist sa već dodatim našim subtitlom, u dvd ili divx formatu?

scooter21ba wrote:

cartman wrote:Pa ko kaze da ovaj svijet vec nije njihovo carstvo ? Pogledaj oko sebe. Pogledaj politicare, stroge hadzije... Jel mislis da je njima nesto tesko u zivotu? I ako se mozda pitas.. pa sto onda jednostavno nisu pokorili citav svijet u pocetku ? Mozda zato jer cekaju ( a i docekali su ), da im ga sami damo, da im ga poklonimo, da ne pitamo puno pitanja, da zivimo svoj "zivot", da sutimo i da budemo sretni sto je ziva glava, sto se ima za hranu, eventualno neko putovanje, auto... sto imamo plina,vode,struje. Jel ti shvatas da smo mi svi robovi , na neki nachin? Mi smo potrosni materijal, stoka, goveda, mi smo im moch. Da nije MTVa,BETa, svih medija, NBC,CBS,BBC,FOX,Disney etc, da nam je materijalisticki nacin zivota nametnut, jel ti fakat mislis da bi moje djete trazilo novi iPhone,iPod iOvo iOno, nove markirane tene, markirane hlache , majice itd... zato jer je to sto odredjuje polozaj u drustvu. Al jok... zivi sa zatvorenim ocima.

ja kazem da nije njihovo carstvo
pa pogledaj politicare i sve stroge hadzije sta su nista vrijedniji od mene i od tebe i nista vise nisi ranjiviji od njih
ne znam za tebe al licno za mene nista u zivotu nije tesko jer to odredjuje nacin zivota a ne neko tamo
ajd kako kazes nisu odmah cekaju da im ga damo ko da im da gdje da odes da bi im dao na mjesec mozda?
pa nisu bas svi robovi ako sebe smatras robom samo ti ja sebe ne smatram
materijalisticki nacin zivota jeste nametnut ali ti si dovoljno zreo valjda da vidis sta ces kupiti
i vjerujem da si dovoljno pametan da neces kupiti iphone i pod iovo iono jer moras imati to da bi bio u trendu
ne znam za tebe ali ja za sebe kupujem ono sto ce mi koristiti i sto mi je potrebno a ne da bi imao pokazati nekome drugom sta imam
znaci za moju korist ako je to "njihova moc" neko radi i za moju "moc" ili za tvoju zavisno cime se bavimo
polozaj u drustvu ne odredjuje jeli nosis pradu cavalli ili sta ja znam nekoga nego koliko imas u mozgu
doduse cavalli i ostali odredjuju polozaj ovdje gdje je sistem vrijednosti ionako izokrenut do te granice da su idoli ljudi koji po svim mjerilima bi trebali lezati u zatvoru i odgovarati za svoje postupke bilo po zakonu drzave bilo po vjerskim knjigama bilo po moralnim nacelima koje covjek posjeduje
sva sreca pa svi nisu takvi da gledaju jeli neko tamo vozi audi ili ficu starog jeli nosi lacoste ili noname majicu hlace odijelo
ti ako mislis da ja zivim zatvorenih ociju samo nastavi al dobro vidim da dosta ljudi ima ispran mozak bas tim medijima koje ti pominjes al to ne pokazuje "njihovu moc" nego ljudsku glupost i povodljivost
u svakoj stvari ces naci teoriju zavjere pa cak i u obicnoj saobracajnoj nesreci
evo da dam primjer oko 9/11 moguce je da su ameri sami srusili twinse al to mi uopste ne govori da je u pitanju neka globalna zavjera i pitanje NWO nego interesa amerike da se domogne sirovina i moci sto naravno svako zeli jer je to u ljudskoj prirodi nego uspjesnije nego manje uspjesno neko lokalno neko globalno

scooter21ba wrote:

cartman wrote:Pa ko kaze da ovaj svijet vec nije njihovo carstvo ? Pogledaj oko sebe. Pogledaj politicare, stroge hadzije... Jel mislis da je njima nesto tesko u zivotu? I ako se mozda pitas.. pa sto onda jednostavno nisu pokorili citav svijet u pocetku ? Mozda zato jer cekaju ( a i docekali su ), da im ga sami damo, da im ga poklonimo, da ne pitamo puno pitanja, da zivimo svoj "zivot", da sutimo i da budemo sretni sto je ziva glava, sto se ima za hranu, eventualno neko putovanje, auto... sto imamo plina,vode,struje. Jel ti shvatas da smo mi svi robovi , na neki nachin? Mi smo potrosni materijal, stoka, goveda, mi smo im moch. Da nije MTVa,BETa, svih medija, NBC,CBS,BBC,FOX,Disney etc, da nam je materijalisticki nacin zivota nametnut, jel ti fakat mislis da bi moje djete trazilo novi iPhone,iPod iOvo iOno, nove markirane tene, markirane hlache , majice itd... zato jer je to sto odredjuje polozaj u drustvu. Al jok... zivi sa zatvorenim ocima.

ja kazem da nije njihovo carstvo
pa pogledaj politicare i sve stroge hadzije sta su nista vrijedniji od mene i od tebe i nista vise nisi ranjiviji od njih
ne znam za tebe al licno za mene nista u zivotu nije tesko jer to odredjuje nacin zivota a ne neko tamo
ajd kako kazes nisu odmah cekaju da im ga damo ko da im da gdje da odes da bi im dao na mjesec mozda?
pa nisu bas svi robovi ako sebe smatras robom samo ti ja sebe ne smatram
materijalisticki nacin zivota jeste nametnut ali ti si dovoljno zreo valjda da vidis sta ces kupiti
i vjerujem da si dovoljno pametan da neces kupiti iphone i pod iovo iono jer moras imati to da bi bio u trendu
ne znam za tebe ali ja za sebe kupujem ono sto ce mi koristiti i sto mi je potrebno a ne da bi imao pokazati nekome drugom sta imam
znaci za moju korist ako je to "njihova moc" neko radi i za moju "moc" ili za tvoju zavisno cime se bavimo
polozaj u drustvu ne odredjuje jeli nosis pradu cavalli ili sta ja znam nekoga nego koliko imas u mozgu
doduse cavalli i ostali odredjuju polozaj ovdje gdje je sistem vrijednosti ionako izokrenut do te granice da su idoli ljudi koji po svim mjerilima bi trebali lezati u zatvoru i odgovarati za svoje postupke bilo po zakonu drzave bilo po vjerskim knjigama bilo po moralnim nacelima koje covjek posjeduje
sva sreca pa svi nisu takvi da gledaju jeli neko tamo vozi audi ili ficu starog jeli nosi lacoste ili noname majicu hlace odijelo
ti ako mislis da ja zivim zatvorenih ociju samo nastavi al dobro vidim da dosta ljudi ima ispran mozak bas tim medijima koje ti pominjes al to ne pokazuje "njihovu moc" nego ljudsku glupost i povodljivost
u svakoj stvari ces naci teoriju zavjere pa cak i u obicnoj saobracajnoj nesreci
evo da dam primjer oko 9/11 moguce je da su ameri sami srusili twinse al to mi uopste ne govori da je u pitanju neka globalna zavjera i pitanje NWO nego interesa amerike da se domogne sirovina i moci sto naravno svako zeli jer je to u ljudskoj prirodi nego uspjesnije nego manje uspjesno neko lokalno neko globalno

scooter21ba wrote:otkud ti to da se prepucavam
iznosim svoje misljenje o NWO o ljudima itd
ako mislis da je prepucavanje ne citaj
ne znam jeli se ovo sa dlakom i kolcem odnosilo na mene tako da necu komentirati

"...[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. this system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations....

"It must not be felt that these heads of the world's chief central banks were themselves substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather, they were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called 'international' or 'merchant' bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks. this dominance of investment bankers was based on their control over the flows of credit and investment funds in their own countries and throughout the world. They could dominate the financial and industrial systems of their own countries by their influence over the flow of current funds though bank loans, the discount rate, and the re-discounting of commercial debts; they could dominate governments by their own control over current government loans and the play of the international exchanges. Almost all of this power was exercised by the personal influence and prestige of men who had demonstrated their ability in the past to bring off successful financial coupes, to keep their word, to remain cool in a crisis, and to share their winning opportunities with their associates."

I could hardly believe what I was reading. I sat in the bookstore and read until closing time. I then bought the book and went home where I read almost all night. For the next twenty-five years I traveled throughout the United States, Europe and the Middle East following one lead after another to determine if the incredible words of the professor were really true. While serving as the Editor of a scholarly journal on international affairs, Director of the Center for Global Studies and foreign policy advisor for a key U. S. Senator in Washington, D. C., I conducted over 1000 interviews with influential world leaders, government officials, military generals, intelligence officers, scholars and businessmen, including corporate CEOs and prominent international bankers and investment bankers. I went through over 25,000 books and over 50,000 documents. I learned for myself that the professor was telling the truth.

And now for a world government
By Gideon Rachman

Published: December 8 2008 19:13 | Last updated: December 8 2008 19:13


I have never believed that there is a secret United Nations plot to take over the US. I have never seen black helicopters hovering in the sky above Montana. But, for the first time in my life, I think the formation of some sort of world government is plausible.

A “world government” would involve much more than co-operation between nations. It would be an entity with state-like characteristics, backed by a body of laws. The European Union has already set up a continental government for 27 countries, which could be a model. The EU has a supreme court, a currency, thousands of pages of law, a large civil service and the ability to deploy military force.

So could the European model go global? There are three reasons for thinking that it might.

First, it is increasingly clear that the most difficult issues facing national governments are international in nature: there is global warming, a global financial crisis and a “global war on terror”. moja nota: sve troje lazne i/ili vjestacki kreirane

Second, it could be done. The transport and communications revolutions have shrunk the world so that, as Geoffrey Blainey, an eminent Australian historian, has written: “For the first time in human history, world government of some sort is now possible.” Mr Blainey foresees an attempt to form a world government at some point in the next two centuries, which is an unusually long time horizon for the average newspaper column.

But – the third point – a change in the political atmosphere suggests that “global governance” could come much sooner than that. The financial crisis and climate change are pushing national governments towards global solutions, even in countries such as China and the US that are traditionally fierce guardians of national sovereignty.

Barack Obama, America’s president-in-waiting, does not share the Bush administration’s disdain for international agreements and treaties. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, he argued that: “When the world’s sole superpower willingly restrains its power and abides by internationally agreed-upon standards of conduct, it sends a message that these are rules worth following.” The importance that Mr Obama attaches to the UN is shown by the fact that he has appointed Susan Rice, one of his closest aides, as America’s ambassador to the UN, and given her a seat in the cabinet.

A taste of the ideas doing the rounds in Obama circles is offered by a recent report from the Managing Global Insecurity project, whose small US advisory group includes John Podesta, the man heading Mr Obama’s transition team and Strobe Talbott, the president of the Brookings Institution, from which Ms Rice has just emerged.

The MGI report argues for the creation of a UN high commissioner for counter-terrorist activity, a legally binding climate-change agreement negotiated under the auspices of the UN and the creation of a 50,000-strong UN peacekeeping force. Once countries had pledged troops to this reserve army, the UN would have first call upon them.

These are the kind of ideas that get people reaching for their rifles in America’s talk-radio heartland. Aware of the political sensitivity of its ideas, the MGI report opts for soothing language. It emphasises the need for American leadership and uses the term, “responsible sovereignty” – when calling for international co-operation – rather than the more radical-sounding phrase favoured in Europe, “shared sovereignty”. It also talks about “global governance” rather than world government.

But some European thinkers think that they recognise what is going on. Jacques Attali, an adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, argues that: “Global governance is just a euphemism for global government.” As far as he is concerned, some form of global government cannot come too soon. Mr Attali believes that the “core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law”.

So, it seems, everything is in place. For the first time since homo sapiens began to doodle on cave walls, there is an argument, an opportunity and a means to make serious steps towards a world government.

But let us not get carried away. While it seems feasible that some sort of world government might emerge over the next century, any push for “global governance” in the here and now will be a painful, slow process.

There are good and bad reasons for this. The bad reason is a lack of will and determination on the part of national, political leaders who – while they might like to talk about “a planet in peril” – are ultimately still much more focused on their next election, at home.

But this “problem” also hints at a more welcome reason why making progress on global governance will be slow sledding. Even in the EU – the heartland of law-based international government – the idea remains unpopular. The EU has suffered a series of humiliating defeats in referendums, when plans for “ever closer union” have been referred to the voters. In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians – and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters. International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic.

The world’s most pressing political problems may indeed be international in nature, but the average citizen’s political identity remains stubbornly local. Until somebody cracks this problem, that plan for world government may have to stay locked away in a safe at the UN.

scooter21ba wrote:veleposlanik to je tvoje misljenje razmisljanje i vidjenje stvari
mislim da malo pretjerujes u tome i da u svemu vidis teorije zavjere
mala paranoicno?
opet kazem tvoj izbor i tvoje razmisljanje pogledi itd
ja ostajem pri svome da ne vjerujem u te pokrete tajna drustva koja upravljaju citavim svijetom itd
vjerovatno postoje neka drustva rituali i sve to opisano ali ne upravljaju svijetom cak ni kontinetima pojedinacno

_veleposlanik wrote:pa, nazvali su me paranoikom vise puta, valjda su takvi simptomi prema meni od ljudi koji ne zele da se probude, koji imaju sebi validno objasnjenje za sva ta pitanja...

Arminovski wrote:

_veleposlanik wrote:pa, nazvali su me paranoikom vise puta, valjda su takvi simptomi prema meni od ljudi koji ne zele da se probude, koji imaju sebi validno objasnjenje za sva ta pitanja...

Tvoje pravo ime Neo i uskoro ces biti kontaktiran od strane Morpheusa. Budi blizu telefona.

zonbirile wrote:

scooter21ba wrote:veleposlanik to je tvoje misljenje razmisljanje i vidjenje stvari
mislim da malo pretjerujes u tome i da u svemu vidis teorije zavjere
mala paranoicno?
opet kazem tvoj izbor i tvoje razmisljanje pogledi itd
ja ostajem pri svome da ne vjerujem u te pokrete tajna drustva koja upravljaju citavim svijetom itd
vjerovatno postoje neka drustva rituali i sve to opisano ali ne upravljaju svijetom cak ni kontinetima pojedinacno

ne znam odakle vam konstantno priča o teoriji zavjere,majstori rade svoj posao,samo vam se slika o čemu se radi,niko ne spominje zavjeru.To što ti ne vjeruješ ne znači da ne postoje,ali ima puno dokaza da upravljaju,a ti argumentuj da ne upravljaju.
Analiziraj nastanak Amerike,Kanade,Australije,WWI,WWII.Teško češ naći na internetu treba malo više pročitati.
Evo FED je privatni,i svi vlasnici su članovi tajnih društava.Na tebi je da istražiš ko su oni ,ko je ko u kojem društvu.Malo im pogledaj i porodično stablo,pa onda korelacija sa nastankom Novog svijeta(NWO),pa WWI;WWII.

_veleposlanik wrote:ahuseino, logika nije plafon u shvatanju, ili kada govorimo o istini. moglo bi se reci, da u vecini slucajeva istina prevazilazi logiku i realnost... logika je racionalno razmisljanje, strukturalno (ponekad i shablonski). sta ako je tvoj mozak "oblikovan" kao sto kazes odredjenom pozadinom ili biasom, kako onda mozes logiku uzimati kao krajnji vazeci faktor u diskusiji?

uostalom, svijet uopste nije racionalan, vec bi se mogao opisati sasvim suprotno od toga, prema tome, uzimanje previse logike nije neko mjerilo u argumentaciji ili diskusiji... (posebno u ovim temama o kojima razgovaramo)

zonbirile wrote:alhuseino
FED spominjem kao polazište za diskusiju,koji implicira mnoge stvari,ali ja od tebe ni na jednom postu ne dobih nešto,konkretno osim uopštene filozofske rasprave.Evo ja tvrdim da je Rotšild na prelasku u 20 stoljeće imao polovicu ukupnog svjetskog bogatstva.Sad koliko ima ...ne znam.Ostalo dijele Rokfeleri,Morgani,Walberg,ali nije to problem ima na Forbsovoj listi nominalno bogatijih,ali oni su krug/alka.Melinda Gates je platila upad u kolo -krug i dalje je samo malo papačinca sa lovom,sa perifernim položajem i uticajem .Kisinđer nije ni na jednoj listi,nema "društva" gdje nije involiran.Imena su uzeta onako kao ilustracija.Ako mi odgovoriš piši mi konkretno,nemoj molim te tumačiti moje i svoje stavove.Daj nešto konkretno.Znaš li čija je najjača firma za obnovu Iraka,da Bušev rođak obezbjeđuje aerodrom za 1000 000 $ dnevno,a aerodrom zatvoren početkom rata.Čudno kako vjerujemo za našu halku,i igrače koje je tvore,a veću i jaču ne možemo si predočiti.Sve je jednostavno do bola,kao i zadnja pljačka,sinovi i unuci ekipe iz 1929g ponovili igru.Svi se zgražavaju,kada prođe svi će pisati kao i onda-post festum.