Chancellor Gordon Brown wants a "New World Order"

[MKULTRA]

Chancellor Gordon Brown has spoken of the need for a "new world order" to deal with future security and environmental challenges. He called for a "new diplomacy" to go alongside military power to defeat terrorism, share prosperity and "win the battle of hearts and minds".
That meant strengthening Britain's global alliances but also reforming institutions such as the EU and UN.

I remember a time when they were actually shy about announcing this sort of thing but not anymore. I don't think giving more power to bankers, weapons dealers, and CEOs is going to reduce pollution, wars, or terrorism, since that's how they make all their money.

[Diamond Cross]

Nothing wrong with a one world government, as long as it's a Democracy.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Nothing wrong with a one world government, as long as it's a Democracy.

Democracy is one of the worst forms of government ever created in human history.

[MKULTRA]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Nothing wrong with a one world government, as long as it's a Democracy.

LMAO why would you want a Democracy? It's mob rule. If 51% vote for the other 49% to die then that is what happens. What you should be aiming for is a Constitutional Republic. And btw, the one world government being set up now is neither of those. It is also destined to destroy itself as soon as it achieves total power and it is ridiculous to think that everyone is so alike that they need the same government to rule over them or that this could even happen.

[7960]

Originally Posted by MKULTRA

[/size]I remember a time when they were actually shy about announcing this sort of thing .....

And I remember a time when someone could make a speech and not have someone pick 3 words out of context and make ignorant claims about them to support his paranoid delusions.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Democracy is one of the worst forms of government ever created in human history.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by 7960

And I remember a time when someone could make a speech and not have someone pick 3 words out of context and make ignorant claims about them to support his paranoid delusions.

you must several thousand years older than I thought

[m-b]

A ''New world order'' does not have to mean the same thing as nutty cospirators. i doubt he meant it in the context that we all know. That is why it is in '' '' marks...silly billies.

[MKULTRA]

Originally Posted by m-b

A ''New world order'' does not have to mean the same thing as nutty cospirators. i doubt he meant it in the context that we all know. That is why it is in '' '' marks...silly billies.

I think it means global government, which is what most of the so-called "nutty conspirators" believe it to be. That is what he is calling it and that is what he is advocating.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by MKULTRA

I think it means global government, which is what most of the so-called "nutty conspirators" believe it to be. That is what he is calling it and that is what he is advocating.

Or his intent could be harmless and he unknowningly used the buzzword thrown around by bored conspiracy theorists [this is what I think]

[7960]

Originally Posted by MKULTRA

I think it means global government, which is what most of the so-called "nutty conspirators" believe it to be. That is what he is calling it and that is what he is advocating.

Or yet again you have no clue what you're talking about and are taking his words out of context. If you read his actual words you'll see that's not what he meant.

And in keeping with how we're SUPPOSED to post, here is a link to an article that gives many of his words

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6277747.stm

And here's a bit of the text showing what he meant

He called for a "new diplomacy" to go alongside military power to defeat terrorism, share prosperity and "win the battle of hearts and minds". That meant strengthening Britain's global alliances but also reforming institutions such as the EU and UN.

But because "reforming the EU and UN" sounds a little I'll continue showing you what he meant

"But I believe that there is a collective interest that the world can be persuaded of, in the United Nations playing a bigger role in security, Nato playing a bigger role out of theatre, and also the European Union as a collective institution playing a fuller role in world politics."

but when asked if he thought about britain and the UN with respect to military action,

Brown said he would not pledge to always seek UN approval before taking military action.

So he wants countries to try diplomacy first. He wants the UN to take over as world police (presumably instead of the US) and he wants the EU to take a larger role in world politics. Yep, I see your "new world order" in there

[ballz2wallz]

A one-world government is exactly what's predicted in the Bible before the end of the world.

[m-b]

Originally Posted by MKULTRA

I think it means global government, which is what most of the so-called "nutty conspirators" believe it to be.

I was agreeing with you. ''i doubt he meant it in the context that we all know''. As in ''which is what most of the so-called "nutty conspirators" believe it to be'' .

That is what he is calling it and that is what he is advocating.

I'm not agreeing with you here. Imho it is in '' '' marks because it eludes to the sentiment you suggest. Not that it has to be the same thing you say.

Does this stop a confusion we may have.

My e.g:

'' Western goverments need to stop the indirect proctectionism through a ''new world order'' [of realisation] and find a ''global understanding'' and more ''fair trade'' ''.

Actual e.g:

"you cannot meet the challenges of the future by simply building the present in the image of the past". imho it means we need a ''new world order''

BBC NEWS | Politics | Brown wants a 'new world order'

I can see how his statements can be viewed the way you interprete them.

Just remember what is going on in the world that prevents such concepts from coming to pass.

We do all have to ''work together'' does that mean a ''new world order'' ?. Well yeah if you remove the conotations you place upon it.

[m-b]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

A one-world government is exactly what's predicted in the Bible before the end of the world.

''exactly'' i doubt that. Do you mean what we have interpreted over time. Like the majority af what is in the bible.

All the ''prophecies'' in the bible have already come to pass. It is history. We need to deal with that.

Rome was supposed to be the ''one-world government'' that disintergrated a very very long time ago.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by m-b

''exactly'' i doubt that. Do you mean what we have interpreted over time. Like the majority af what is in the bible.

All the ''prophecies'' in the bible have already come to pass. It is history. We need to deal with that.

Rome was supposed to be the ''one-world government'' that disintergrated a very very long time ago.

I have no idea what you're talking about

Rome was hardly representative of the world. I think we know in this day and age what the world consists of.

Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on your assumption that things have changed? There are many more prophecies in the Bible that have yet come to pass. The most recent big one was the reinstatement of Israel as a nation.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Phantom

you must several thousand years older than I thought

[7960]

Originally Posted by Phantom

you must several thousand years older than I thought

My birthday was exactly one week ago today

[m-b]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I have no idea what you're talking about

Your not the first or the last

Rome was hardly representative of the world.

Say you were to sit in the middle of Rome a few thousand years ago.

http://wps.ablongman.com/wps/media/o...es/KISH106.jpg

The heart of the 'empire', all the land as far as you see has been conqurerd by Rome. You were not aware of anything beyond your vision. The tales you heard the myths you believed, all pointed to nothing outside of ''The empires'' domain. Imho The roman ''empire'' would appear to be the ''one-world government'' .'Would that not seem like it would be a truth ?.


Yes THIS day and age. We take the prophecies of a more naive world and opinion and transplant it onto ideas that sprang up over those few thousand years. Not many are willing to suggest the bible is nothing more than a early history lesson, based on [ofcourse] history and on concepts that were not true and a tad misguided [yes i may just burn in ''hell'']..

Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on your assumption that things have changed?

Things do not truely change i suppose. ''America'' is the new ''Rome'' like Britain was the a hundred or so years ago. We all think America 'rules the world' just like we presumed Britain did a while back and like ancient scholars thought Rome did.

All three 'empires' will eventually fell [or will fall]. The concept of a 'empire' falling is not new. It is almost a enevitability. I don't suggest ancient scholars were stupid, just insightful as to the working of the world. They just got a little carried away and ofcourse had to presume that it all had to come to a end some day.

There are many more prophecies in the Bible that have yet come to pass. The most recent big one was the reinstatement of Israel as a nation.

The 'promised land' was always going to be a prophecy to be 'reinstated'.
It is called HOPE.

''Israel did possess the land of promise for a long time; yet keeping the land depended on their faithfulness to God. When their faith failed, God chastened ''

[m-b]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

A one-world government is exactly what's predicted in the Bible before the end of the world.

Well we have hundreds of thousands of years to wait. I think we all might be dead by then. Everybody it seems wants everything to happen NOW. Not going to happen imho.