I'm Tired of This "New World Order, Waaaaah" Stuff Being Spouted

[Curtis2011]

So many conspiracy theorists cry on about a "new world order" and how America or whoever is trying to take over the world.

Here's a news flash guys:

1. For one, the entire world is becoming more and more interdependent. This isn't a conspiracy, it's called economic development. When you create things like roads, then telephones, then the internet, the world becoming more interdependent isn't planned - it's inevitable.

2. For two, if you view the entire Earth as a single planet, and humanity from a "humanism" sort of perspective, then we are all already one giant "entity", just as a trillion different cells interact and happen to form one human body. We are like the growing "entity" of the human species, or even the growing entity of Earth, if you consider how all life on Earth affects each other.

3. Finally, a world government would only be bad if it were ruled by narcissistic people. If it were ruled by benevolent people, then it would end all war between humans. It would also spread the rule of the same laws to all parts of the earth. If you have studied economics, you know that the "rule of law" is highly correlated and accredited with positive economic development, meaning it helps society as a whole grow, and everyone gets wealthier.

If the leaders of our new world order are to be benevolent, then I eagerly await the day when all humans unite and recognize themselves as "one people", who have no need to go to war with themselves.

[blossom]

News Flash for you Curtis...the world IS run by Insane Psychopathic criminals who aren't benevolent and who don't give a crap about us! Have you ever known anyone in power who has been able to handle it without becoming an ego maniac? Possibly Abraham Lincoln was one, but he was a rare one.

Noone is actually saying that the inevitability of the modern worlds idea of "progress" is a conspiracy. We all know it's a reality.

I agree with your second point entirely but your third point seemed to be grossly naive and seems to have quite a wishful thinking quality to it...but you are entitled to dream...it's a nice dream, and I hope it does come to pass one day!

It's still a fact that the majority are NOT getting wealthier...the minority are though, and this is what the people in power are aiming for. What fun is it to be part of the "Elite" if everyone is up there with you? They need the majority to stay poor, so they can feel above us! Unless everyone in the world starts practising the Law of Attraction like yesterday...the majority will NOT be getting wealthier, they will be doing what they have always done...just scraping by. Studying economics seems to have blinded you to certain realities I'm afraid!

Originally Posted by Curtis2011

So many conspiracy theorists cry on about a "new world order" and how America or whoever is trying to take over the world.

Here's a news flash guys:

1. For one, the entire world is becoming more and more interdependent. This isn't a conspiracy, it's called economic development. When you create things like roads, then telephones, then the internet, the world becoming more interdependent isn't planned - it's inevitable.

2. For two, if you view the entire Earth as a single planet, and humanity from a "humanism" sort of perspective, then we are all already one giant "entity", just as a trillion different cells interact and happen to form one human body. We are like the growing "entity" of the human species, or even the growing entity of Earth, if you consider how all life on Earth affects each other.

3. Finally, a world government would only be bad if it were ruled by narcissistic people. If it were ruled by benevolent people, then it would end all war between humans. It would also spread the rule of the same laws to all parts of the earth. If you have studied economics, you know that the "rule of law" is highly correlated and accredited with positive economic development, meaning it helps society as a whole grow, and everyone gets wealthier.

If the leaders of our new world order are to be benevolent, then I eagerly await the day when all humans unite and recognize themselves as "one people", who have no need to go to war with themselves.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

I've tried explaining to numerous scared conspiracy theorists that we WILL have a new world order or we will die. They always took this as a threat or asked which evil Bilderberg member I was quoting.

Since we are interdependent, like you said, and there are so many of us, the only way we are going to progress as a species is to unify globally. In a sense it has already happened, there is just lag time with nationalism. That's all part of the process though. We can't have one nation's systems subjugating all the other's, or the unity would just erupt in violence sporadically. All different value systems will become integrated, but it won't happen overnight. It's going to be a long cultural transformation pioneered mostly by artistic people rather than politicians, shady corporate interests and secret societies.

I bought into the NWO scare for a little while and I see plenty of convincing evidence for it, but then I took the next logical step forward that other conspiracy theorists are either afraid to take or unaware of. I accepted it as inevitable and, dare I say it, potentially beneficial.

There are still shady things going on though and HOW the NWO comes about is still important to pay attention to. The power can pass into the hands of the sociopathic, malicious and greedy, there are no guarantees that it will work out in an optimal way. Like blossom pointed out, the world is not entirely in good hands right now.

[blossom]

Can you speak about the potential benefits KV...I'm interested to hear any positives here.

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

I've tried explaining to numerous scared conspiracy theorists that we WILL have a new world order or we will die. They always took this as a threat or asked which evil Bilderberg member I was quoting.

Since we are interdependent, like you said, and there are so many of us, the only way we are going to progress as a species is to unify globally. In a sense it has already happened, there is just lag time with nationalism. That's all part of the process though. We can't have one nation's systems subjugating all the other's, or the unity would just erupt in violence sporadically. All different value systems will become integrated, but it won't happen overnight. It's going to be a long cultural transformation pioneered mostly by artistic people rather than politicians, shady corporate interests and secret societies.

I bought into the NWO scare for a little while and I see plenty of convincing evidence for it, but then I took the next logical step forward that other conspiracy theorists are either afraid to take or unaware of. I accepted it as inevitable and, dare I say it, potentially beneficial.

There are still shady things going on though and HOW the NWO comes about is still important to pay attention to. The power can pass into the hands of the sociopathic, malicious and greedy, there are no guarantees that it will work out in an optimal way. Like blossom pointed out, the world is not entirely in good hands right now.

[Curtis2011]

When fearing for the future and things like sociopaths taking over the world, it is important to remember how much more powerful truth (and therefore benevolence) is than falsity (and therefore egomania, oppression, etc).

No leader or entity based on lies and falsehood would even have the power to unite the entire world. It would literally require a benevolent leader to do so.

Something Hawkins said (paraphrased), "people inherently resist being ruled by oppression, but will gladly be ruled by someone they respect".

Even Hitler was a great statesman during his early years. It was only once he was chosen to be the sole leader of the government AND military of Germany that he let his ego get the best of him, and it was downhill from there. He probably wouldn't have ever been elected if he had started out a sociopath.

I guess going mad with power is probably still a real threat though unfortunately.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by blossom

Can you speak about the potential benefits KV...I'm interested to hear any positives here.

Where to start... let's start with space colonization. The inevitability of living on Earth is that we will overpopulate and destroy it if either we do not control the population with war, famine, disease and whatnot, completely harmonize the rate of birth and death so that it remains at a state of equilibrium or we move into space. As evidenced by all prior and ongoing space explorations, international collaboration is prudent if we are going to take the space route. The option of equilibrium would require such a great amount of interdependence and interconnectedness that nearly all barriers would have to be removed and we would need to operate as a whole. The first option of death and famine is a loss, not a benefit, unless you happen to have a rather twisted view of human suffering.

Suffering would be greatly reduced if we unified globally. Human competition would be almost nonexistant, on a grand scale. This competition is the obvious cause of most of human suffering. Wars between countries would not happen, because there would be only one country. The country of humanity's Earth. The major difference between whether this is going to be harmful or beneficial is if it is forced upon us rather than it being a natural part of our evolution as a species. If it is forced upon us, personal freedom will be horribly restricted and our every move would be watched and controlled. If it is a natural progression, we will all be intuitively in synch with each other, naturally realizing our deeper similarities while embracing and negotiating each other's superficial differences. The Biblical apocalypse, in a more metaphysical sense, was probably speaking of these two potential ways society could develop. The anti-christ, or anti everything unifying, would place one person, one power over all of humanity in a pyramid structure. This would be a horrific unification by force. The 'rapture' would be a raising of consciousness to a level where deep interconnection and compassion is a prominent and natural part of everyones every day being. People would not compete because "I" "you" separation would be seen as mere superficial convenience for the purpose of objectivity with the knowledge that we are one behind those masks. There would be no one in charge, everyone would be intercharged. These are of course two extremes and there are infinite potential turnouts for Earth.

It will probably happen somewhere in between, with culture metamorphosis from separate nation's cultural niches to human culture. This won't be a fake, cheesy amorphous mass of culture thought up by sci fi writers. It will be more amazing than anything we've seen our collective self create thus far. Of course, this doesn't stop at unification of all humankind. So the term should be expanded to 'space culture'.

The point though, is that 'space culture', the total unity of all things, is already here and has been forever. It's just acknowledging and manifesting that which will change everything.

Worrying for our freedom is completely legitimate because of the potential dark side of universal unification, brought about through subjugation of will. There are so so so many cultural references for this divine play between forces. The story of The Lord of the Rings is one. Sauron creates a ring that is designed to dominate and unify everyone under his rule. Unity achieved through force. Or the ring is destroyed and we keep free will in play and gradually bring about unity through love, compassion, fairness, respect of free will, creative collaboration and so on and so forth.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by Curtis2011

When fearing for the future and things like sociopaths taking over the world, it is important to remember how much more powerful truth (and therefore benevolence) is than falsity (and therefore egomania, oppression, etc).

No leader or entity based on lies and falsehood would even have the power to unite the entire world. It would literally require a benevolent leader to do so.

Something Hawkins said (paraphrased), "people inherently resist being ruled by oppression, but will gladly be ruled by someone they respect".

Even Hitler was a great statesman during his early years. It was only once he was chosen to be the sole leader of the government AND military of Germany that he let his ego get the best of him, and it was downhill from there. He probably wouldn't have ever been elected if he had started out a sociopath.

I guess going mad with power is probably still a real threat though unfortunately.

The problem, curtis, is that it may not be a human at all that ends up ruling a potential world of darkness and control. Rather it could be something like a supercomputer with artificial intelligence, designed to bring everyone under its command by subjugation through any means necessary. Far out? The reality is closer than it may seem. We had the gall to invent the atom bomb and let that loose on the world. Now we are considering nanotechnological weaponry. Why not AI overlords?

Oh and blossom makes an excellent point about sociopaths too.

[blossom]

Sociopaths, by their very nature are supremely gifted in the art of manipulating everyone around them and creating a false persona to get where they want to get...as in Hitlers case. He was a voice of hope to millions in Germany at the time and knew how to tell them all what they desperately wanted to hear, and knew how to use the power of suggestion and symbols to attain his goals...of course they voted him in. They didn't find out what he was til it was too late.

Originally Posted by Curtis2011

When fearing for the future and things like sociopaths taking over the world, it is important to remember how much more powerful truth (and therefore benevolence) is than falsity (and therefore egomania, oppression, etc).

No leader or entity based on lies and falsehood would even have the power to unite the entire world. It would literally require a benevolent leader to do so.

Something Hawkins said (paraphrased), "people inherently resist being ruled by oppression, but will gladly be ruled by someone they respect".

Even Hitler was a great statesman during his early years. It was only once he was chosen to be the sole leader of the government AND military of Germany that he let his ego get the best of him, and it was downhill from there. He probably wouldn't have ever been elected if he had started out a sociopath.

I guess going mad with power is probably still a real threat though unfortunately.

[blossom]

I still have trouble accepting that space exploration is the only alternative...I'll have to sit with this one for a while. The thought of us just picking up our stuff and moseying on off to another planet, after we've finished with this one...probably to destroy it too, just doesn't sit well with me at all. I also know that eco-bags and recycling ain't gonna cut the mustard, the damage is far too extensive for that.

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

Where to start... let's start with space colonization. The inevitability of living on Earth is that we will overpopulate and destroy it if either we do not control the population with war, famine, disease and whatnot, completely harmonize the rate of birth and death so that it remains at a state of equilibrium or we move into space. As evidenced by all prior and ongoing space explorations, international collaboration is prudent if we are going to take the space route. The option of equilibrium would require such a great amount of interdependence and interconnectedness that nearly all barriers would have to be removed and we would need to operate as a whole. The first option of death and famine is a loss, not a benefit, unless you happen to have a rather twisted view of human suffering.

Suffering would be greatly reduced if we unified globally. Human competition would be almost nonexistant, on a grand scale. This competition is the obvious cause of most of human suffering. Wars between countries would not happen, because there would be only one country. The country of humanity's Earth. The major difference between whether this is going to be harmful or beneficial is if it is forced upon us rather than it being a natural part of our evolution as a species. If it is forced upon us, personal freedom will be horribly restricted and our every move would be watched and controlled. If it is a natural progression, we will all be intuitively in synch with each other, naturally realizing our deeper similarities while embracing and negotiating each other's superficial differences. The Biblical apocalypse, in a more metaphysical sense, was probably speaking of these two potential ways society could develop. The anti-christ, or anti everything unifying, would place one person, one power over all of humanity in a pyramid structure. This would be a horrific unification by force. The 'rapture' would be a raising of consciousness to a level where deep interconnection and compassion is a prominent and natural part of everyones every day being. People would not compete because "I" "you" separation would be seen as mere superficial convenience for the purpose of objectivity with the knowledge that we are one behind those masks. There would be no one in charge, everyone would be intercharged. These are of course two extremes and there are infinite potential turnouts for Earth.

It will probably happen somewhere in between, with culture metamorphosis from separate nation's cultural niches to human culture. This won't be a fake, cheesy amorphous mass of culture thought up by sci fi writers. It will be more amazing than anything we've seen our collective self create thus far. Of course, this doesn't stop at unification of all humankind. So the term should be expanded to 'space culture'.

The point though, is that 'space culture', the total unity of all things, is already here and has been forever. It's just acknowledging and manifesting that which will change everything.

Worrying for our freedom is completely legitimate because of the potential dark side of universal unification, brought about through subjugation of will. There are so so so many cultural references for this divine play between forces. The story of The Lord of the Rings is one. Sauron creates a ring that is designed to dominate and unify everyone under his rule. Unity achieved through force. Or the ring is destroyed and we keep free will in play and gradually bring about unity through love, compassion, fairness, respect of free will, creative collaboration and so on and so forth.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by blossom

I still have trouble accepting that space exploration is the only alternative...I'll have to sit with this one for a while. The thought of us just picking up our stuff and moseying on off to another planet, after we've finished with this one...probably to destroy it too, just doesn't sit well with me at all. I also know that eco-bags and recycling ain't gonna cut it!

Look at Mars. There's really nothing to destroy. It would bring out our creative tendencies as we begin the arduous task of terraforming planets (Terraforming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). We don't have to be destructive. It's a bad habit brought to the extreme. A negative way of dealing with our problems. Space colonization will make us more inclined to deal with our problems in a more positive way, provided we don't do any reenactments of the movie Avatar, which in that case the 'space culture' I talked about comes into play.

[blossom]

Yeah...I guess the movie with Arnold Schwartznegger where humans have colonized Mars comes to mind...and that scene where he gets sucked out into the mars atmosphere and his eyeballs nearly pop out of his head, like my avatar, is what is causing a block in my mind right now

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

Look at Mars. There's really nothing to destroy. It would bring out our creative tendencies as we begin the arduous task of terraforming planets (Terraforming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). We don't have to be destructive. It's a bad habit brought to the extreme. A negative way of dealing with our problems. Space colonization will make us more inclined to deal with our problems in a more positive way, provided we don't do any reenactments of the movie Avatar, which in that case the 'space culture' I talked about comes into play.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by blossom

Yeah...I guess the movie with Arnold Schwartznegger where humans have colonized Mars comes to mind...and that scene where he gets sucked out into the mars atmosphere and his eyeballs nearly pop out of his head, like my avatar, is what is causing a block in my mind right now

Haha, double jointed eyeballs. You have a good movie scene recall memory. I can't even recall the names of most of my favorite movies, never mind which scene belongs to what movie and all that.

[blossom]

Either that, or I've just watched too many movies in my life.

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

Haha, double jointed eyeballs. You have a good movie scene recall memory. I can't even recall the names of most of my favorite movies, never mind which scene belongs to what movie and all that.

[sfx]

Why terraform a planet only to end up raping it dry?

It's easier, cheaper to just kill off people than trying to colonize other planets.

If there exist an intelligent civilization elsewhere already, who've achieved enlightenment and are observing us (they're UFOs?) they will not allow us to colonize any planet until we're ready to be responsible and at harmony with our own planet first.

1. Reproduce wisely.
2. Use resources wisely, and make sure they're renewable.
3. Stop fighting among ourselves.


If the bible/testaments are any indication of a history book instead of religion, we're all prisoners on this planet because we're not worthy yet to move out of it and Lucifer's 'elite' minions are the ones deciding our future.


Therefore if these 'elites' are the ones in charge of this planet, it makes sense for them to just kill us off to reduce our population than to waste money and precious resources developing technology to explore space and colonize other planets.



I don't want to discuss moral/ethics. I will stick purely to human race survival instincts.

Based on required/necessity to continue the human race, quality ones at that, it makes logical (but not ethical sense) to stealthily murder/kill off a huge proportion of 'useless eaters' on this planet.


Space travel/colonization need not be rushed and when that level has been achieved it should only be allowed for qualified humans to experience, not the 'useless eaters' on this planet currently overpopulating it.


Based on a necessity mindset, without a care about anyone's religious values or their right to decide, a strong leader should be ready to exterminate inferior useless eaters.

The only problem now is, who gets to decide who is a useless eater?

[blossom]

This also makes sense from the mind of a psychopathic criminal intent on saving money that could be spent on other things...like himself!

From a cold hard point of logic, the Earth would probably be better off!

Originally Posted by sfx

Why terraform a planet only to end up raping it dry?

It's easier, cheaper to just kill off people than trying to colonize other planets.

If there exist an intelligent civilization elsewhere already, who've achieved enlightenment and are observing us (they're UFOs?) they will not allow us to colonize any planet until we're ready to be responsible and at harmony with our own planet first.

1. Reproduce wisely.
2. Use resources wisely, and make sure they're renewable.
3. Stop fighting among ourselves.


If the bible/testaments are any indication of a history book instead of religion, we're all prisoners on this planet because we're not worthy yet to move out of it and Lucifer's 'elite' minions are the ones deciding our future.


Therefore if these 'elites' are the ones in charge of this planet, it makes sense for them to just kill us off to reduce our population than to waste money and precious resources developing technology to explore space and colonize other planets.



I don't want to discuss moral/ethics. I will stick purely to human race survival instincts.

Based on required/necessity to continue the human race, quality ones at that, it makes logical (but not ethical sense) to stealthily murder/kill off a huge proportion of 'useless eaters' on this planet.


Space travel/colonization need not be rushed and when that level has been achieved it should only be allowed for qualified humans to experience, not the 'useless eaters' on this planet currently overpopulating it.


Based on a necessity mindset, without a care about anyone's religious values or their right to decide, a strong leader should be ready to exterminate inferior useless eaters.

The only problem now is, who gets to decide who is a useless eater?

[sfx]

Originally Posted by blossom

This also makes sense from the mind of a psychopathic criminal intent on saving money that could be spent on other things...like himself!

From a cold hard point of logic, the Earth would probably be better off!

Exactly. Now you know why people are wary and don't trust the elites, because that is exactly the mindset I described.


Global warming etc... you get the idea.. all their excuses.

[blossom]

Oh, I've known about this for years...it's Curtis who seems to have some doubts.

Originally Posted by sfx

Exactly. Now you know why people are wary and don't trust the elites, because that is exactly the mindset I described.


Global warming etc... you get the idea.. all their excuses.

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by sfx

Exactly. Now you know why people are wary and don't trust the elites, because that is exactly the mindset I described.

Okay seriously, what the **** is "the elites" ?

You are talking about human beings, not some inhuman alien overlords. If by elite you mean a politician, guess what - if you look up the history of any politician, you will find out that they are just another human being who happened to have strived to get into a political office, and at some point succeeded. Before they were "elite politicians", they were regular humans, and in fact they still are. They just have more political influence than the average person.

If "the elites" refers to anyone with lots of money, then guess what? You are talking about Steve Pavlina too! He has money, criticize him for being evil and plotting our destruction! You are also talking about Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, who have donated literally tens of billions of dollars of their own money to charity work and to help those who are less fortunate around the world.

I don't think you realize that most people who have tons of money actually earned it by starting a successful business, or investing wisely, or succeeding in some other part of life. Very few people actually get rich by ripping others off, or robbing banks, etc. There are some who inherit money from their parents, but complaining about this is like complaining about being born with a different skin color, or being born male instead of female, or anything else that you can't control - that's just it. You can't control it, and neither could the people who happened to be born into wealth, so obviously it isn't "them being evil" to inherit their parents' wealth.

Instead of blaming all the world's problems on the mystical, magical "elites", why don't you actually name somebody for God's sake and say specifically how they have contributed to making you suffer?

In psychology (and spirituality), we learn that by blaming someone else for our problems, we are giving away our power to outside circumstances and thus lose the power to actually better our situation. This is exactly what conspiracy theorists are doing to themselves, by blaming "the rich" or "the elite" or "the president" for intentionally keeping you from being successful, when in reality, most successful people don't give a **** about who you are or whether you become successful or not. In fact, most successful people WANT others to become successful so they will stop bitching about being unsuccessful.

[rei]

how about the way J.P. Morgan cut the funding for Tesla's project which would have offered free electricity to everyone?

not exactly the best interest for all involved, and we could argue that i, you, and everyone else 'suffers' because they no longer have free access to electricity, when we would have had that option. we have to pay for it, because of Morgan's penchant for withdrawing support for anything he couldn't profit from.

not as extreme as what you seem to be asking for, but it does speak to your point. i feel like you wish to invalidate this other perspective by framing it as hysterical, when there are also rationally minded people who have explored these ideas.

[Brutha]

Rather it could be something like a supercomputer with artificial intelligence, designed to bring everyone under its command by subjugation through any means necessary. Far out? The reality is closer than it may seem.

That however depends entirely on artificial intelligence development and doesn't depend at all on the politics towards a one world government.

If some team of five Indians manage to program an AGI in two decades that can improve itself rapidly those five Indians can just go and rule the world.
They don't need any political ties to do so.
To recite John Robb at verbatim.
We're moving towards the point where one man can declare war on the rest of the world and win.

Even Hitler was a great statesman during his early years. It was only once he was chosen to be the sole leader of the government AND military of Germany that he let his ego get the best of him, and it was downhill from there. He probably wouldn't have ever been elected if he had started out a sociopath.

You don't consider someone who organizes an unsuccessful coup d'etat to be a sociopath?

Look at Mars. There's really nothing to destroy.

Actually some people are interested in whether there's life on Mars that developed independently from earth. If we try to terraform we might lose evidence about it.

[Mounds]

I strongly disagree that people who are successful want everyone else to be successful too. Those successful people would stand to lose big time.
For example, what if Africa's impoverished and war torn countries suddenly solved all their problems? Many luxuries were used to would suddenly become very expensive (diamonds anyone?).
How about Donald Trump? I do not think for a second that he wants his competitors to be successful... as a result, he might be unsuccessful.
I've read that it would take two billion dollars to solve world hunger. The Iraq war might cost one TRILLION dollars to the US alone. Why the hell are they even there? Does anyone actually have a good answer? Most people would agree the terms for going into Iraq were based on false implications, yet the fighting rages on. Thank goodness there isn't a world government. If the US can pull this stunt off, imagine what a world government could do.
Additionally, think about the logistics. Are we talking a democracy? Does the Australian bushman have the same voting rights as the American? Would culture be retained? Would we all have to speak one language? One currency?
Ugh.. boggles the mind!

-Tim

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by Brutha

That however depends entirely on artificial intelligence development and doesn't depend at all on the politics towards a one world government.

If some team of five Indians manage to program an AGI in two decades that can improve itself rapidly those five Indians can just go and rule the world.
They don't need any political ties to do so.
To recite John Robb at verbatim.
We're moving towards the point where one man can declare war on the rest of the world and win.
You don't consider someone who organizes an unsuccessful coup d'etat to be a sociopath?
Actually some people are interested in whether there's life on Mars that developed independently from earth. If we try to terraform we might lose evidence about it.

Firstly, if there is life on Mars the best way to find out would be colonization so we could perform 24/7 explorations. For all we know, Mars could have been the victim of global nuclear war some time in our solar system's distant past. There is compelling evidence of highly intelligent life interacting with early civilizations. Read Chariots of the Gods if this perspective interests you. Fascinating read. I couldn't put it down until I was finished.

And yes that does depend on politics. How would it not
The invention of nuclear weapons had a huge political impact. Oppenheimer and his crew didn't aim warheads at every country and demand to be enthroned either. Scientific advancements of that magnitude always have political impacts, because a country inevitably wants to use it as a bigger stick to swing around, where the scientist will want nothing to do with intimidation. There are numerous organizations, notably the United Nations, Lucis Trust, the Bilderberg Group, the Rockefeller dynasty, the Council on Foreign Relations and many more who wish to see a one world government. They don't hide this either and anyone who says otherwise is either blatantly ignoring their openly expressed interests or has never taken the time to research these group's motives (which, again, are openly stated). It would be foolish to think that a technological development that would make their goal achievable would not be bought by these people (some of the richest and most powerful people in the world, what can't they buy?). Of course, AI isn't the only way this could be accomplished. Nanotechnology is another big frontier that has close ties with AI. I could think of hundreds of ways nanotech could be exploited to put everyone in the world under one's thumb. The scientists may not have the sheer testicular fortitude to take over the entire world after making a discovery and may be more comfortable with selling out, while keeping their finger on a hidden killswitch.

[Piercetheveil]

It is common for people on the outside to think those on the inside have something odd or weird going on.

Labels such as elite, conspiracy, wasps, blah blah are largely useless. I would be interested to see how many that throw these terms out have played with anyone in an intimate way that has vast influence/wealth/power.

It is not nearly as cut and dried as the "them/us" argument makes it out to be.

I know plenty of people in the deca-million club and find them to be gracious and loving people. It is a TOUGH thing to be publicly wealthy. The issues surrounding wealth and choices are vast and heavy.

If this is of interest then either become it or influence the influencers by starting to develop a relationship with them.

[Mounds]

When we do get life on Mars, I call the girl with three boobs.

[rei]

Originally Posted by Mounds

When we do get life on Mars, I call the girl with three boobs.

three mounds claimed by Mounds

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by Piercetheveil

It is common for people on the outside to think those on the inside have something odd or weird going on.

Labels such as elite, conspiracy, wasps, blah blah are largely useless. I would be interested to see how many that throw these terms out have played with anyone in an intimate way that has vast influence/wealth/power.

It is not nearly as cut and dried as the "them/us" argument makes it out to be.

I know plenty of people in the deca-million club and find them to be gracious and loving people. It is a TOUGH thing to be publicly wealthy. The issues surrounding wealth and choices are vast and heavy.

If this is of interest then either become it or influence the influencers by starting to develop a relationship with them.

No doubt. I hope I made my viewpoint clear, that I do not take on a simplistic "us vs. them" attitude toward this issue.

[Brutha]

Firstly, if there is life on Mars the best way to find out would be colonization so we could perform 24/7 explorations.

No, if we do that we wouldn't know whether we brought the life to Mars or whether it was there before we came.

The invention of nuclear weapons had a huge political impact. Oppenheimer and his crew didn't aim warheads at every country and demand to be enthroned either. Scientific advancements of that magnitude always have political impacts, because a country inevitably wants to use it as a bigger stick to swing around, where the scientist will want nothing to do with intimidation.

It's sort of political when five guys in India decide to rule the world.
It's however not the politics we are used to.

You don't need to intimidate anyone to rule the world with an AGI.

It would be foolish to think that a technological development that would make their goal achievable would not be bought by these people (some of the richest and most powerful people in the world, what can't they buy?).

If someone would actually believeable go out and show that they have control over a fully functioning AGI but don't have any power it's not a money issue. One party with enough power like a random secret service, the mafia or another non state could simply go and raid the house.

not exactly the best interest for all involved, and we could argue that i, you, and everyone else 'suffers' because they no longer have free access to electricity, when we would have had that option. we have to pay for it, because of Morgan's penchant for withdrawing support for anything he couldn't profit from.

There are people who play around with Tesla's ideas these days with actually have computers with help a bit and who still don't succeed in producing free energy.
And really, if you have a patent that allows you to produce energy you can sell the energy to make money.

Oppenheimer and his crew didn't aim warheads at every country and demand to be enthroned either.

They didn't have such a choice. Even if they did the CIA could have simply killed them.
It's however vastly different if you have a group of five people that sits somewhere and controls a AGI that hacks itselfs into all computers and improves itself.

Once the AGI is in all computers it can actually control the information flow to prevent anyone from noticing.
Afterwards an good faithed scientist would gather a few people interesting in FAI and work to play God.

If you have infinitive power you don't give it away for money. You either give it away because you think it's ethically the right thing to do or you use the power yourself.

The 21st century isn't a time anymore where nation states or for that matter people who control the agenda of a nation state have all the power. Superempowerment is the keyword.
The development of the atomic bomb happened in a different era.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by Brutha

No, if we do that we wouldn't know whether we brought the life to Mars or whether it was there before we came.
It's sort of political when five guys in India decide to rule the world.
It's however not the politics we are used to.

Doesn't sending probes to Mars basically do the same thing? Interference is interference.

Originally Posted by Brutha

You don't need to intimidate anyone to rule the world with an AGI.
If someone would actually believeable go out and show that they have control over a fully functioning AGI but don't have any power it's not a money issue. One party with enough power like a random secret service, the mafia or another non state could simply go and raid the house.

Of course.

Originally Posted by Brutha

Once the AGI is in all computers it can actually control the information flow to prevent anyone from noticing.
Afterwards an good faithed scientist would gather a few people interesting in FAI and work to play God.

You missed the point of the AI. It would be sentient, autonomous. Meaning it wouldn't need to be in anyone's hards. It could play God without anyone working through it.

Originally Posted by Brutha

If you have infinitive power you don't give it away for money. You either give it away because you think it's ethically the right thing to do or you use the power yourself.

Touche. Money wouldn't even be an issue. Don't know how I missed that

The 21st century isn't a time anymore where nation states or for that matter people who control the agenda of a nation state have all the power. Superempowerment is the keyword.
The development of the atomic bomb happened in a different era.[/QUOTE]

It did happen in a different era, but the immediate effect was the U.S. becoming the dominant nation. If this AI was developed by a Russian team of scientists, that team would be intimately connected with the government, so the government would most likely get control of the AI. But again, the whole point of the AI argument is that the AI is sentient and would only obey its creators on its own terms. Nukes, in a less prominent way, have a power of their own independent from who is firing them.

[blossom]

I don't believe ALL people who have tons of money are 'bad' people. I've met a number of Uber wealthy people also, and they were really nice, generous individuals. I've also met a few really poor people who were utter *******...so it's never as cut and dried.

We do live in a society though , where the emotion of Envy is what can drive a person to become rich. So, if a really rich person didn't have a ton of people who are poor envying him/her, it probably wouldn't be as fun for them. There's nothing inherently wrong with wanting to be, or being rich, but not everyone who is rich is a nice person either, and it shouldn't be assumed that because people who are rich are self-made, that they are not consumed by the power that money represents in society. Distorted beliefs about money still exist in everyones psyche, and they need to be addressed by both rich and poor people. But for the majority of really rich people, it doesn't serve their interests to want everyone to be rich like them!

Originally Posted by Piercetheveil

It is common for people on the outside to think those on the inside have something odd or weird going on.

Labels such as elite, conspiracy, wasps, blah blah are largely useless. I would be interested to see how many that throw these terms out have played with anyone in an intimate way that has vast influence/wealth/power.

It is not nearly as cut and dried as the "them/us" argument makes it out to be.

I know plenty of people in the deca-million club and find them to be gracious and loving people. It is a TOUGH thing to be publicly wealthy. The issues surrounding wealth and choices are vast and heavy.

If this is of interest then either become it or influence the influencers by starting to develop a relationship with them.

[royster]

As a veteran 9/11 Truther (8 years) I can state that my own intentions were not to "whine" or point out the sky is falling; it was exposure of the event, the individuals perpetuating it, and their methods. It's stunning to see and hear so many people brush away facts by calling them "conspiracy theory", when those same people have only a 50-year scope on history, and not much more. Those whose studies take them back to antiquity have some pretty astounding finds that are unimaginable in present times, but only because the present times are the direct result of the influence of a tainted media. A media, our antiquity sleuths find, that is controlled by entities with advantages a bit beyond the scope of the mortals they've dumbed down. [In the 1970's, UFO's were a hot topic. Project Blue Book successfully diminished interest, and eventually made the topic taboo.] To "whine" about "whiners of the NWO" indicates a disinterest in facts which disrupt one's own personal comfort. There will BE no personal comfort when the struggle for world domination is over, the contest being won by those with ill intentions.

I see many threads on this forum chewing the fat about politics or current events; there are no political solutions to what is clearly a spiritual problem. As long as the public subscribes to the puppet show of "two party systems" and the insinuation of "democracy", the game is permitted to continue on the terms of the oppressors.

My own resolve is now to focus on changing myself by addressing impacted energies and listening closer to the voice of nature; the politics is either going to kill us or keep us the same, but it will never solve our problems. In exposing my own inner-"NWO', I address the outer fractal NWO. By refusing to subscribe to that tail-chacing circle of political circus, I allow purer energies to guide me. In understanding this guidance, I share it in hopes some may validate their own spiritual paths. The rest will have to experience the consequences of their own belief structure.

ALL of it is a learning experience, valued for whatever the individual needs. Eternity is a long f***ing time; I doubt Republicans OR Democrats will endure 1-1000the of 1% of it in their present ego-incarnations.

And we'll learn from THAT, too.