Best Reason Ever To Vote No To Lisbon

Sofa_King Good

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/blair-steps-up-fight-to-be-crowned-first-president-of--eu-1662928.html

Blair steps up fight to be crowned first 'President of EU.

From the article

But The Independent on Sunday has learnt that Mr Brown has accepted that his old rival should be in pole position for the appointment, on the basis that Britain needs to have a key figure in the architecture of the "new world order".

I wonder why it is mentioned in the mainstream media these days.

Personally Í'd would hate to have any connection at all with that smug...man.

Proven liar, Fabianist and partially to blame for every Iraqi who has lost their life due to the conflict.

So how would you guys like to refer to Blair as Mr President?

I hear he takes orders from the Pope too.
Who'd want a papist be crowned in a democratic process?

Sofa_King Good

Dont know f your taking the piss or not KM.

On the subject of Fabiansm.

Has anyone ever heard of Common Purpose?

Here is some b/g: and they have offices in Ireland

UpTheSlashers

A brit in charge of the new world order?

i was watching v for vendetta the other night :P

Diogenes

So the reason to vote "No" is that occasionally someone who you disagree with, may hold the position for a time.

Oh wow is that solid.

Heineken Helen

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/blair-steps-up-fight-to-be-crowned-first-president-of--eu-1662928.html

Blair steps up fight to be crowned first 'President of EU.

From the article


I wonder why it is mentioned in the mainstream media these days.

Personally Í'd would hate to have any connection at all with that smug...man.

Proven liar, Fabianist and partially to blame for every Iraqi who has lost their life due to the conflict.

So how would you guys like to refer to Blair as Mr President?

that's cos it's no longer a conspiracy theory... if it's accepted by the mainstream media... AND the government :eek:

In fairness though, we've been pushing for Bertie... so it's the done thing. Maybe Brown was giving a tongue in cheek remark?:eek: Highly doubtful though

Veni Vedi Vici

Hmm, to be fair the term 'new world order' seems to be rampant in the mainstream as of late.

Diogenes

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

Hmm, to be fair the term 'new world order' seems to be rampant in the mainstream as of late.

As of late? Try since end of the second world war.

Veni Vedi Vici

Diogenes wrote: »

As of late? Try since end of the second world war.

Can you elaborate on this? I'm not familiar with the history of the term.

I've found the following article to be of interest:

Despite the fact that the term “new world order” was mentioned in connection with the G20 this week hundreds of times by both global leaders and in news reports, it is still regarded as a “conspiracy theory” by that bastion of truthiness, Wikipedia.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown himself yesterday announced that the G20 heralded the creation of a “new world order” which would involve increased global regulation of economic markets.
A Google News search provides well over a thousand results of reports including the term “new world order” over the past couple of weeks.
Despite the fact that world leaders have been talking about a “new world order” for decades, in the context of the political agenda to diminish the power of sovereign states in favor of a move towards global governance, it was still regarded as a delusion of paranoid conspiracy theorists by the establishment media until relatively recently.
Now even Fox News and Sean Hannity are throwing their arms in the air and admitting that the “conspiracy theorists were right” as the agenda for global government is openly announced
However, the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which is notorious for being completely infested with maniacally obsessive trolls, crooked insiders, and establishment apologists, claims that in its warped version of reality, the “new world order” as a sinister concept is still a nebulous conspiracy theory.

But according to Wikipedia, it’s still a “conspiracy theory”.

Wikipedia attempts to make the differentiation by claiming that the new world order in the context of a sinister, undemocratic, and ultimately totalitarian political agenda, is a characterization embraced only by paranoid conspiracy theorists.
Presumably, Wikipedia is only willing to accept the fact that an agenda to create a new world order exists if that new world order equates to a happy, loving, positive move, where world bankers and global elitists really have the best interests of all of us at heart. Forgive us for being somewhat skeptical of that conclusion.
In reality, as we have exhaustively documented, the new world order has nothing to do with saving the world and everything to do with centralizing power and control into the hands of a gaggle of criminal globalists who are concerned about nothing other than increasing their domination over the planet - at the expense of the rest of the population.
The new world order is totalitarian by its very nature - shifting power away from sovereign countries to global institutions which have no accountability to the general public whatsoever, and through which the public has no voice or influence. That cannot be defined as anything else but undemocratic. There is no such thing as a “benign” new world order.
This very agenda was again enunciated this week by World Bank President and and Bilderberg elitist Robert Zoellick, who openly admitted the plan to eliminate national sovereignty and impose a global government during a speech on the eve of the G20 summit.
Speaking about the agenda to increase not just funding but power for international organizations on the back of the financial crisis, Zoellick stated, “If leaders are serious about creating new global responsibilities or governance, let them start by modernising multilateralism to empower the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank Group to monitor national policies.”
Proponents of a new world order have always disguised their rhetoric with flowery notions of achieving some kind of global utopia, but behind the scenes the real agenda has always been sinister, nepotistic and anathema to any reasonable notion of democratic freedom.
It’s about time the establishment media stopped parroting the words of globalists and blithely repeating the term “new world order” like it was going out of fashion, and actually started asking real questions about what it really means.

SOURCE: http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-world-order-still-a-conspiracy-theory.html

K-9

They don't really mention what "new World order" or "Global architecture" means. Seeing as Sarkozy told Obama to feck of when he wanted Turkey to join it, it doesn't seem very unified or Global?

There's a fair bit of politics to go yet before Blair gets it, not least of all, a second Lisbon referendum.

Diogenes

Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »

Can you elaborate on this? I'm not familiar with the history of the term.

See this is just conspiracy theory fodder, fixate on a term, and imagine it's the first time ever used.

Henry A. Kissinger, as Secretary of State in the mid-70's, was hoping to build what he called "a new structure of stability, a new order of peace." That structural metaphor was picked up later by both Mr. Gorbachev -- perestroika means "restructuring" -- and James Baker, whose "New Architecture" never made it out of the basement. But any use of the term new order , without the interceding word world , is insensitive, because it has connotations that should cause diplomats to shudder.

Die neue Ordnung was Hitler's language for imposing a National Socialist regime throughout Europe, much as co-prosperity sphere was the Japanese phrase for their imperial plan. During a visit to Berlin in 1940, Foreign Commissar V. M. Molotov asked Hitler, "What does the new order in Europe and Asia amount to, and what part is the U.S.S.R. to play in it?" Two years later, Stalin was saying, "They have turned Europe into a prison of nations, and this they call the 'new order' in Europe."

But wait -- years before, at the 1932 Democratic convention, F.D.R. pledged "a new deal for the American people." His next line, drafted by Samuel I. Rosenman or Raymond Moley: "Let us all here assembled constitute ourselves prophets of a new order of competence and of courage." The newspapers (led by a political cartoonist, Rollin Kirby) chose new deal over new order .

Ah but he's the best bit

The last spadefuls of the dig turn up a hyphenated world-order , meaning "an organized existence in this or another world," used by Archbishop Richard Trench of Ireland in 1846: "There is a nobler world-order than that in which we live and move," and finally, the Latin root ordiri , "to lay the warp," or to prepare the loom for the beginning of weaving.

Source; NY Times


And now the obligatory youtube clip from 1961 President Dwight D Einshower

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdrGKwkmxAU