New World Order, a plan, not a conspiracy theory.

dense

People often say that those involved with promoting climate change, sustainability, climate justice etc. want to use these concerns to introduce a new world order.

Indeed, The Guardian has reported the Australian Prime Minister's advisor Maurice Newman accusing the UN of wanting to implement a new world order on the back of those subjects.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/may/08/australia-pms-adviser-climate-change-is-un-hoax-to-create-new-world-order

Is what he said true? Let's find out.

Let's take a look and see if there's any evidence to back up his claim.

Would one expect to find evidence of someone described by the UNFCCC as a "leader and visionary" announcing a new world order?

https://cop23.unfccc.int/event/first-adaptation-forum

Someone who is so highly regarded by the EU that they have addressed the European Commission about climate change, sustainability and climate justice?

https://ec.europa.eu/info/events/finance-170718-sustainable-finance_en

In her 2008 speech in Berlin at the launch of the International Renewable Energy Agency, Bianca Jagger, the aforementioned visionary and leader announced that:

Germany has shown great leadership and vision in spearheading the renewable energy revolution. We must grasp firmly the hand that is being offered to us and embark upon this revolution to prevent global climate disaster. I thank the German government for this opportunity, and Hermann Scheer for his outstanding work.

Also on behalf of the World Future Council, of which I am the Chair, I urge each of you support the establishment of IRENA as heralding a new world order, in which we can look forward to safe, affordable, secure and stable energy sources for all.

https://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/dinner-speech-conference-toward-establishment-international-renewable-energy-agency-irena-bianca-jagger/


That was in 2008.

Since then, the German Federal Government through WBGU has endorsed the ambition of IRENA to permit it to become a global over arching agency run by unelected officers with the authority to monitor and set individual nations economic growth.

About WBGU:

Serving global change politics

The German federal government set up WBGU as an independent, scientific advisory body in 1992 in the run-up to the Rio Earth Summit.

http://www.wbgu.de/en/about-us/mission/



Reflecting Miss Jagger's earlier inaugural New World Order announcement, the German Government-created WBGU openly acknowledges the unprecedented nature of what is required, admitting that it will be necessary that national sovereignty will be "transcended" in favour of a global commons.

Politically, this requires a historically unpreceden-
ted transcending of established sovereignty con-
cepts and purely power-driven global politics in
favour of ensuring the long-term availability of glo-
bal commons.

Summary PDF Link

http://www.wbgu.de/fileadmin/user_upload/wbgu.de/templates/dateien/veroeffentlichungen/hauptgutachten/jg2011/wbgu_jg2011_kurz_en.pdf


If you've gotten this far, congratulations, you will now realise that instead of being a conspiracy theory, a New Word Order of global control is quite openly a publicly stated aim of the climate change, climate justice and sustainability movement.

If you're still unsure I'd recommend a read of the UNFCCC's Christiana Figueres speech about intentionally transforming the global economy.

https://www.unric.org/en/latest-un-buzz/29623-figueres-first-time-the-world-economy-is-transformed-intentionally



BTW, a funny thing happened on the way to the forum.

So what is the aim of this New World Order?

Are you sure that when they say new world order, they aren't just meaning it in the way it appears to be: a world order that doesn't rely on fossil fuels?

Drumpot

Agenda 21 comes to mind. (As does “execute order 66” )

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

Explains why rural Ireland will be finished and promotes the end of families. Funny that people think “I don’t believe in religion, I’ve come to that conclusion myself ” and there is actually a driven agenda acrosss the globe that discards it subtlety.

Also , some of the strategies involve a futuristic world where people don’t even use the words mother or father. It’s actually in the agenda to destroy family values and replace them with community values. It shows how insidious plans can be hidden in plain sight. My issue isn’t with all the plans or specifically the agenda, it’s that nobody knows about it and there is never any mention of it.

Drumpot

Drumpot wrote: »

Agenda 21 comes to mind. (As does “execute order 66” )

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

Explains why rural Ireland will be finished and promotes the end of families. Funny that people think “I don’t believe in religion, I’ve come to that conclusion myself ” and there is actually a driven agenda acrosss the globe that discards it subtlety.

Also , some of the strategies involve a futuristic world where people don’t even use the words mother or father. It’s actually in the agenda to destroy family values and replace them with community values. It shows how insidious plans can be hidden in plain sight. My issue isn’t with all the plans or specifically the agenda, it’s that nobody knows about it and there is never any mention of it.

Where in Agenda 21 is any of that outlined?

dense

King Mob wrote: »

So what is the aim of this New World Order?

Are you sure that when they say new world order, they aren't just meaning it in the way it appears to be: a world order that doesn't rely on fossil fuels?

I don't see any room for confusion.

The stated aims of global control are clearly listed in my post above, and the NWO phrase was openly and deliberately used in public and was subsequently published; it wasn't for example, "tricked" out of Miss Jagger by a tabloid journalist when her guard may have been down.

Don't the aims appear consistent with what any New World Order aims would consist of?

Global control of citizens and nations, by a new single power seems a prerequisite.

I'm simply taking the speaker at face value, which I expect was her intention, and she is highly regarded by the EU and the UN and presumably those active within the various movements of which she speaks on

And I don't see a need to water down her very clear message, one heralding the ushering in of a global New World Order of economic control, all of which has the public support of the German Chancellor.

That's why I say it is a stated public plan, which it is, and not some woolly, unprovable consispiracy theory.

dense

dense wrote: »

Global control of citizens and nations, by a new single power seems a prerequisite.

Where did any of those people you quoted say anything like that?

You're not really taking it at face value if that's what you're getting from those quotes...

Is it because you believe that "New World Order" exclusively means the conspiracy theorist's definition of the phrase?

dense

King Mob wrote: »

Where did any of those people you quoted say anything like that?

You're not really taking it at face value if that's what you're getting from those quotes...

Is it because you believe that "New World Order" exclusively means the conspiracy theorist's definition of the phrase?

The common definition coincides with what I suspect most people would understand a NWO to be, eg, the Wikipedia definition of a NWO which states that:

"The common theme in conspiracy theories about a New World Order is that a secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world government—which will replace sovereign nation-states—and an all-encompassing propaganda whose ideology hails the establishment of the New World Order as the culmination of history's progress"

My initial post outlining the global aims I linked to fit the bill quite nicely in terms of control, loss of sovereignty and the use of all encompassing ideologies.

All the while remembering that the phrase New World Order was actually used in the speech heralding the new era of sustainability.

Did you read the links I provided? Do they think they do not fit the criteria perfectly?

Looks like a perfect match to me, but as always with interpretations, YMMV

What is your definition of a New World Order?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)

dense

dense wrote: »

The common definition coincides with what I suspect most people would understand a NWO to be, eg, the Wikipedia definition of a NWO which states that:

The common theme in conspiracy theories ...

So you are in fact proposing a conspiracy theory...

dense wrote: »

My initial post outlining the global aims I linked to fit the bill quite nicely in terms of control, loss of sovereignty and the use of all encompassing ideologies.

None of what you posted fits at all.
Could you point to a specific example and explain how it is either of benefit to a conspiracy or points to one?

dense wrote: »

What is your definition of a New World Order?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)

A world order that is new and different to the old one.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)#History_of_the_term
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order_(politics)

When the British empire fell, it was a new world order...
When America became a superpower after WW2, it was a new world order...
When the Berlin Wall fell and the Cold War ended, it was a new world order...
When China over takes America's economy, it will be a new world order...

It's a fairly simple term to get your head around...

The conspiracy definition is a rather narrow definition that most people don't use.
When the people you quote use it, it's not in the conspiracy theory sense of the term.

It's a rather flimsy basis for an idea to rely on the assumption that these people are using in the way paranoid conspiracy mongers use the word.

God the people who come up with these things are so stupid. They've got to the top without anyone noticing and then give away the whole game by using a term like "new world order". How are they so powerful yet so dumb they can't think of another name?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

God the people who come up with these things are so stupid. They've got to the top without anyone noticing and then give away the whole game by using a term like "new world order". How are they so powerful yet so dumb they can't think of another name?

And when we ask for specific examples of these people's insidious plots, well then it's "They're obvious keeping them secret!"

The only explanation for it is that these evil masterminds just enjoy screwing with conspiracy theorists and leaving pointless, flimsy clues...

dense

King Mob wrote: »

So you are in fact proposing a conspiracy theory...

None of what you posted fits at all.
Could you point to a specific example and explain how it is either of benefit to a conspiracy or points to one?

A world order that is new and different to the old one.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)#History_of_the_term
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order_(politics)

When the British empire fell, it was a new world order...
When America became a superpower after WW2, it was a new world order...
When the Berlin Wall fell and the Cold War ended, it was a new world order...
When China over takes America's economy, it will be a new world order...

It's a fairly simple term to get your head around...

The conspiracy definition is a rather narrow definition that most people don't use.
When the people you quote use it, it's not in the conspiracy theory sense of the term.

It's a rather flimsy basis for an idea to rely on the assumption that these people are using in the way paranoid conspiracy mongers use the word.

Have you actually read the thread title at all?

The title should have been a giveaway, but obviously not.

I have said the plan for global economic control is not a conspiracy theory.
We both now agree that this is the case.

You say it's not a conspiracy theory and so do I. It is real.

Happy days.

dense

dense wrote: »

Have you actually read the thread title at all?

The title should have been a giveaway, but obviously not.

I have said the plan for global control is not a conspiracy theory.
We both now agree that this is the case.

You say it's not a conspiracy theory and so do I.

Happy days.

No, you claimed that it's not a conspiracy theory then proceeded to detail how you believe that a cabal of unknown people are conspiring to gain control of the world for some unknown nefarious purpose. Then you explained that the basis for this idea is that some people use the term "new world order" and you have assumed that they mean this in the same way as conspiracy theorists use.

That sounds an awful lot like a conspiracy theory to me...

So again, what have these people you are selectively quoting done that indicates that they are working towards this nefarious purpose?

dense

King Mob wrote: »

No, you claimed that it's not a conspiracy theory then proceeded to detail how you believe that a cabal of unknown people are conspiring to gain control of the world for some unknown nefarious purpose.

No, I'm sorry, that is what you seem to think I said.

Why keep falsely attributing things to me that I didn't say??

Everything is in the open in my opinion.

There is only one person who keeps on mentioning conspiracy theories and the usual stuff about a "cabal of unknown people", and it isn't me.

I have clearly outlined the people involved and their stated ambitions of a new world order culminating in being in an unelected position of dictating global economic control over individual nations, transcending sovereignty, all in their own words.


Edit: What "unknown nefarious purpose" are you talking about, and why?

Dohnjoe

dense wrote: »

I don't see any room for confusion.

There clearly is confusion

"New world order" is a phrase that has been used throughout history generally describing new geopolitical situations after significant events (e.g. world wars, fall of Communism)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_world_order_(politics)

The same phrase was later used by conspiracy theorists to describe varying and differing vague theories of "global domination" by their chosen group (Jews/Illuminati/Rothschilds/Communists/Freemasons/Aliens/UN/etc)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)

dense

dense wrote: »

No, I'm sorry, that is what you seem to think I said.

Why keep falsely attributing things to me that I didn't say??

Everything is in the open in my opinion.

There is only one person who keeps on mentioning conspiracy theories and the usual stuff about a "cabal of unknown people", and it isn't me.

So again, you're not suggesting a conspiracy theory, you're just suggesting a theory that some people are conspiring to take over the world?

Can you understand how some people might have trouble seeing the difference.
Just because you think your theory is true and "out in the open", it doesn't make it not a conspiracy theory.

dense wrote: »

I have clearly outlined the people involved and their stated ambitions of a new world order culminating in being in an unelected position of dictating global economic control over individual nations, transcending sovereignty, all in their own words.

Ok, who is involved and when have they said specifically that they want to control the world?
What specifically have these people done that furthers or benefits their goal?

Or again, are you basing all of that on the notion that there's only one possible interpretation of the phrase "New World Order."

Could you at least agreethat there's other, non-conspiracy theory meanings to the term?

dense wrote: »

Edit: What "unknown nefarious purpose" are you talking about, and why?

You tell us, it's your conspiracy theory.
Why do they want an unelected position of dictating global economic control over individual nations, transcending sovereignty?
****s and giggles?

dense

King Mob wrote: »

Why do they want an unelected position of dictating global economic control over individual nations, transcending sovereignty?

Finally; you now accept what I've said (and shown) but now want to know why those ambitions I have linked to exist.

I can't help there.

-I've no more idea about "why" than you have!

You could try the contact details on the WBGU site I linked to in the OP where we read that:

"Politically, this requires a historically unprecedented transcending of established sovereignty concepts and purely power-driven global politics in favour of ensuring the long-term availability of global commons"

Their contact details are here:

http://www.wbgu.de/en/metanavi-en/contact/

And Bianca Jagger could probably do a good job of explaining her end of things.

I don't have her contact details to hand.

These are real people and real organisations, not a shady unknown cabal or whatever the phrase you used earlier.

dense

dense wrote: »

Finally; you now accept what I've said (and shown) but now want to know why those ambitions I have linked to exist.

I don't accept your interpretation that these people you are quoting are aiming to do what you claim.
They aren't trying to take over the world.

dense wrote: »

I can't help there.

-I've no more idea about "why" than you have!

So then when I described it as a unknown, nefarious purpose, I was correct.

dense wrote: »

"Politically, this requires a historically unprecedented transcending of established sovereignty concepts and purely power-driven global politics in favour of ensuring the long-term availability of global commons"

SO how does that become:

ambitions of a new world order culminating in being in an unelected position of dictating global economic control over individual nations, transcending sovereignty, all in their own words.

That's a huge leap, assuming that taking that quote out of context is something you can fairly do...

dense wrote: »

These are real people and real organisations, not a shady unknown cabal or whatever the phrase you used earlier.

Sure, then it's just a conspiracy theory you have about those people in that case.

Now again, do you agree that there is more than one interpretation of the phrase "new world order"?

And why don't you contact her and ask her to explain why she is trying to take over the world since you are the one who is concerned about it?
Surely she'll explain her evil master plan in exact detail.

dense

King Mob wrote: »

So then when I described it as a unknown, nefarious purpose, I was correct.

The aims are known. We've just read them.

You asked me why it is that they want to do what they have outlined, I said I don't know, and I don't.

But I'm sure they do and would be best placed to tell you if you ask them.

Why do you think you are correct to allege that Miss Jagger and the organisations we've being reading about here have an unknown, typically wicked and criminal purpose?

Have you any evidence to back up that assertion to show that you are correct?

Acrually, I'm not interested, it's a very serious allegation to make, and one that I'm having nothing to do with.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/nefarious

adjective

(typically of an action or activity) wicked or criminal.
‘the nefarious activities of the organized-crime syndicates’


https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/nefarious

Nefarious comes from the Latin nefas "crime, impiety." If something is nefarious, it is criminal, evil, malicious and wicked.

dense

dense wrote: »

The aims are known. We've just read them.

You asked me why it is that they want to do what they have outlined, I said I don't know, and I don't.

But if you don't know why they are doing something, then how can you say their aims are known?

dense wrote: »

But I'm sure they do and would be best placed to tell you if you ask them.

Again, you are the one proposing that they are aiming to take over the world. Maybe this is something you should have checked out.

dense wrote: »

Why do you think you are correct to allege that Miss Jagger and the organisations we've being reading about here have an unknown, typically wicked and criminal purpose?

I don't think that they have any such purpose because you have not convinced me that their aims are what you say they are.

The fact that you posted in the conspiracy theory forum, and are relying on the conspiracy theory definition of a common phrase implies that you believe that they have some neferious aims or are otherwise shady.

Do you think that they do not have some some evil purpose?

Do you think that there will be no ill effects of their alleged aims?
If not, why exactly did you post this here?


Also, this is the 3rd time I've asked: Do you agree that there are other interpretations of the phrase "new world order"?
Cause, again from a link you provided:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/new_world_order

NOUN
A new or alternative model of social organization, interaction, or control; (Politics) a new balance of power among nations, sometimes as manifested in arrangements established internationally for preserving political stability; especially (in recent use) the state of global politics and the global economy following the end of the Cold War.

dense

King Mob wrote: »

But if you don't know why they are doing something, then how can you say their aims are known?

Because I've linked to them.
We, that is, you and I, have acknowledged that they exist.

You are now asking me "why" they exist.

That's a completely different question, and I'm not their spokesperson, that's why I would advise you to contact them directly if you need further information, such as "why" they exist.

Do you accept and understand that?

King Mob wrote: »

Again, you are the one proposing that they are aiming to take over the world. Maybe this is something you should have checked out.

I didn't say that. Why make things up?

King Mob wrote: »

I don't think that they have any such purpose because you have not convinced me that their aims are what you say they are.

That's fine.

King Mob wrote: »

The fact that you posted in the conspiracy theory forum, and are relying on the conspiracy theory definition of a common phrase implies that you believe that they have some neferious aims or are otherwise shady.

No it doesn't.

That is what you think.

You brought nefarious into the conversation so don't try to say I did.

King Mob wrote: »

Do you think that they do not have some some evil purpose?

No.

King Mob wrote: »

Do you think that there will be no ill effects of their alleged aims?
If not, why exactly did you post this here?

No.

I posted here because a Moderator in a different thread advised me to.

King Mob wrote: »

Also, this is the 3rd time I've asked: Do you agree that there are other interpretations of the phrase "new world order"?

Yes of course there are.

I've already quite clearly told you that the New World Order phrase is open to different interpretations.

Why do you keep on asking these repetitive and circular questions?

Are you reading my posts at all, or just trolling me?

dense wrote: »

Looks like a perfect match to me, but as always with interpretations, YMMV

What is your definition of a New World Order?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)

Dohnjoe

dense wrote: »

that's why I would advise you to contact them directly if you need further information, such as "why" they exist.

Contact who?

As explained "New world order" is a subjective phrase, it's not an organisation

For example, after World War 1 and 2, boundaries and borders were redrawn, new countries became powerful nations, old powers faded away. The order of power and ideologies had changed in the world, a new world order so to speak (as various politicians and leaders put it in the day)

Again, it's a phrase like "the third world". There isn't literally a "third world", nor is there an organisation.

dense

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Contact who?

As explained "New world order" is a subjective phrase, it's not an organisation

For example, after World War 1 and 2, boundaries and borders were redrawn, new countries became powerful nations, old powers faded away. The order of power and ideologies had changed in the world, a new world order so to speak (as various politicians and leaders put it in the day)

Again, it's a phrase like "the third world". There isn't literally a "third world", nor is there an organisation.

Contact the people I mentioned in the OP.

I've given King Mob the contact details of the WBGU

Here it is again, just in case

http://www.wbgu.de/en/metanavi-en/contact/

I'll also give you Bianca Jagger's Foundation contact details.

Unit 246, 272 Kensington High Street
London, W8 6ND
Fax:

+44 (0)20 7361 0077
Twitter:
Twitter @BiancaJagger

Perhaps you could both ask her what she meant by New World Order, eh?

I'm getting the impression that whatever I say is going to be unacceptable one way or the other, so go directly to the horse's mouth as they say and take it up with her.

Let me know how you get on.

Dohnjoe

This one is very bizarre, it's some sort of global conspiracy by Bianca Jagger?

dense

dense wrote: »

Because I've linked to them.
We, that is, you and I, have acknowledged that they exist.

No, you have claimed what their aims are, but I don't buy your interpretation because it's based on some silly assumptions.

dense wrote: »

You are now asking me "why" they exist.

That's a completely different question, and I'm not their spokesperson, that's why I would advise you to contact them directly if you need further information, such as "why" they exist.

But again, you are the one proposing this conspiracy theory. You are the one who thinks they are trying to subvert sovereignty and install unelected one world government.
Why haven't you contacted them to ask why?

dense wrote: »

I didn't say that. Why make things up?

No it doesn't.

That is what you think.

You brought nefarious into the conversation so don't try to say I did.

No.

No.

I posted here because a Moderator in a different thread advised me to.

So now I'm confused about why you posted this at all.
What point are you trying to make?

dense wrote: »

Yes of course there are.

I've already quite clearly told you that the New World Order phrase is open to different interpretations.

Why do you keep on asking these repetitive and circular questions?

Are you reading my posts at all, or just trolling me?

I have to ask the same question many times as they are often ignored.

So then, if there are other interpretations for "New World Order", isn't it likely that the people you quote mean one of those other interpretations?
Especially given that the conspiracy theory interpretation implies nefarious ends which you apparently don't believe in.

And then, if they in fact don't mean the conspiracy theory definition, what basis do you have for claiming what these people's aims are?

Dohnjoe

Dohnjoe wrote: »

This one is very bizarre, it's some sort of global conspiracy by Bianca Jagger?

And she's doing it for no evil or selfish ends apparently...

dense

King Mob wrote: »

No, you have claimed what their aims are, but I don't buy your interpretation because it's based on some silly assumptions.

And you have already acknowledged that the aims exist.
I did link to the aims of course, which made it a bit difficult to deny that they exist.

Your issue earlier was why they exist.

Have you decided they don't exist now?

King Mob wrote: »

But again, you are the one proposing this conspiracy theory.

No, you are confusing your posts with mine.

You say it's a conspiracy theory, with nefarious ends, and something about a cabal of unknown shady people.

And where you're getting all that from, I've no idea.

The thread title very clearly says there is no conspiracy theory.

King Mob wrote: »

You are the one who thinks they are trying to subvert sovereignty and install unelected one world government.

I didn't mention one world government.

I linked to them saying that their ambition requires a historically unprecedented transcending of established sovereignty concepts and purely power driven global politics in favour of ensuring the long-term availability of global commons.

King Mob wrote: »

Why haven't you contacted them to ask why?

Because I don't care why.

Here's a comic that might have the answers.


"Comic „The Great Transformation: Climate – Can we beat the Heat?“


A comic explains the WBGU flagship report „World in Transition – A Social Contract for Sustainability“.

Climate change, the Anthropocene, rising CO2 levels, the Earth Summit in Rio, wind turbines, combined heat and power generation, desertification, biodiversity loss, Germany's Renewable Energy Act, pioneers of change – what do all these terms mean exactly and how are they all linked? This comic offers answers."


http://www.wbgu.de/en/comics/comic-transformation/

King Mob wrote: »

So now I'm confused about why you posted this at all.
What point are you trying to make?

I wanted to show whether the Australian PM's advisor was right about the climate movement wanting to introduce a New World Order.

He was.

King Mob wrote: »

I have to ask the same question many times as they are often ignored.

Well no you don't.

I'm not obliged to answer you either.
Especially when I'd already agreed about what you kept asking.

See below.

King Mob wrote: »

So then, if there are other interpretations for "New World Order", isn't it likely that the people you quote mean one of those other interpretations?

Did I not already say that the phrase New World Order is open to interpretation?

Would you like me to say it again? (How many times is required? 4, 34, 201?)

King Mob wrote: »

Especially given that the conspiracy theory interpretation implies nefarious ends which you apparently don't believe in.

What conspiracy theory?

King Mob wrote: »

And then, if they in fact don't mean the conspiracy theory definition, what basis do you have for claiming what these people's aims are?

What conspiracy theory have you identified?
Is it a secret hush hush one, with nefarious ends?

Spill the beans?

In fact, do you want to start a seperate thread about it, alleging that the people whose aims we've been learning about in this thread are engaged in criminal activities and a conspiracy theory?

Because that is what you keep saying here, and with not one shred of evidence being offered to back it up.

I don't entertain unfounded allegations.

Good night.

dense

dense wrote: »

And you have already acknowledged that the aims exist.
I did link to the aims of course, which made it a bit difficult to deny that they exist.

Your issue earlier was why they exist.

Have you decided they don't exist now?

I have not acknowledged the aims exist as your interpret them. I believe that you are misrepresenting them.

dense wrote: »

The thread title very clearly says there is no conspiracy theory.

So... Why post it at all?
Why not post it in politics? Why do you think you were told to post it here?

dense wrote: »

I didn't mention one world government.

I linked to them saying that their ambition requires a historically unprecedented transcending of established sovereignty concepts and purely power driven global politics in favour of ensuring the long-term availability of global commons.

You have mentioned it. Repeatedly.

The stated aims of global control are clearly listed in my post above, and the NWO phrase was openly and deliberately used in public and was subsequently published; it wasn't for example, "tricked" out of Miss Jagger by a tabloid journalist when her guard may have been down.

...

Global control of citizens and nations, by a new single power seems a prerequisite.

The common definition coincides with what I suspect most people would understand a NWO to be, eg, the Wikipedia definition of a NWO which states that:

"The common theme in conspiracy theories about a New World Order is that a secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world government—which will replace sovereign nation-states—and an all-encompassing propaganda whose ideology hails the establishment of the New World Order as the culmination of history's progress"

I have clearly outlined the people involved and their stated ambitions of a new world order culminating in being in an unelected position of dictating global economic control over individual nations, transcending sovereignty, all in their own words.

dense wrote: »

Did I not already say that the phrase New World Order is open to interpretation?

Yes, but you keep dodging the follow up question.

If these people mean something other than the conspiracy definition of the phrase, what are you basing your conclusion about their aims on?

What leads you to believe that these people have:
"ambitions of a new world order culminating in being in an unelected position of dictating global economic control over individual nations, transcending sovereignty"
Could you point to an example of one of those people directly saying this, perhaps?

Overheal

From the Opening post's last link (PDF):

http://www.wbgu.de/fileadmin/user_upload/wbgu.de/templates/dateien/veroeffentlichungen/hauptgutachten/jg2011/wbgu_jg2011_kurz_en.pdf

"Extensive Global Governance Architecture for the Transformation

A generally high level of international cooperation, global coordination and political pro-activeness are central conditions for the success of the transformation. The global development dynamics trend reversal that is needed will therefore not be achievable without comprehensive, long-term oriented international regulatory policies with an equitable world order as its goal. In the following, the WBGU outlines three steps with progressive ambition levels on the path towards the necessary ‘revolution in global cooperation’.

> Revitalised multilateralism (low ambition level): Inevitably, non-cooperation regarding central issues of global environmental and climate change leads to an escalation of conflicting interests and distributional conflicts. To prevent this, the key actors of world politics must find a new mode of international diplomacy as soon as possible. In the view of the WBGU, the G20 are generally suitable for handling this task, as they not only carry a high level of climate political responsibility, but also have correspondingly high potentials for transformation. The WBGU therefore recommends working towards the goal of a global transformation road map within the scope of the G20, or a comparable sub-global constellation. The benchmark for the practical decisions this kind of plan might include should at the very least be a G20 crisis management in the context of the global financial crisis. The interests of smaller and poorer developing countries would have to be taken into account in a plausible way to allow for a gradual pro-transformation mobilisation across the international community as a whole. The German federal government and the European Union should, through credible leadership, also aim for a high level of ambition as far as this joint cause is concerned, and meet the other states with a committed and mediating attitude. The G20 could then even become the driving force behind modernising the entire UN system.

> Transformative global infrastructure development (medium ambition level): The transformation focuses on three fundamental national and global economy ‘infrastructures’: the energy systems, urban areas, and land-use systems. Compliance with the 2 °C guard rail is only possible if we have changed our course towards low-carbon in all three of these transformation fields by 2020. However, all three fields lack problem-adequate global governance mechanisms to coordinate global and national transformation goals, develop the corresponding indicators and routes for transformation, and define suitable incentive systems.
Accordingly, the WBGU recommends that suitably capable international organisations are either authorised to act, or newly established and provided with adequate resources. One important point of reference is provided by the UNFCCC, particularly in view of the emissions restrictions that have been negotiated there. The mechanisms that were additionally agreed upon, for example on the transfer of technology or forest protection, should be developed and implemented quickly (bundles 7 and 9). In the transformation field of energy, the German federal government should actively support a shift in the objectives of the IEA towards sustainable energy policies, the improvement of organisation accessibility for developing countries, the strengthening of IRENA as the driving force behind the international diffusion of regenerative energies, and the upgrading of the status of UN-Energy (bundle 9). Regarding urbanisation (bundle 6) and global land-use (bundle 7), the WBGU initially recommends the establishment of a ‘World Commission for Low-Carbon Urban Development’ and a ‘Global Commission for Sustainable Land-Use’. On the strength of the findings of the latter commission, the FAO should then develop a suitable range of instruments to ensure the climate friendliness of national and global land-use paths. Due to the impact of the rapid urbanisation on climate protection, and the fact that the UN-Habitat programme is not adequately equipped to deal with this aspect, the WBGU also recommends the establishment of a UN Specialised Agency for sustainable urbanisation with a strong mandate (bundle 6).

> Equitable new global system (high ambition level): In accordance with the global social contract for sustainability, the ultimate goal of a revised global governance architecture must be the creation of a new, equitable global system. Its institutions must put the international community in a position that leaves them capable of appreciating the complex interdependencies of the global society within the scope determined by the limits imposed by our planet, as soon as within the first half of the 21st century, to allow for timely and adequate response. This demanding process is comparable with the embedding of market dynamics in constitutional states, democracies and welfare states during the last great transformation into an industrialised society, which led to the stabilisation and acceptance of this new form of society in the first place.
Politically, this requires a historically unprecedented transcending of established sovereignty concepts and purely power-driven global politics in favour of ensuring the long-term availability of global commons. Sustainable strategies and concepts must be developed for this in order to embed sustainable global development in transnational democratic structures, to formulate answers to the 21st century questions regarding global equity and distribution of resources, and, not least, to be able to claim world-wide legitimacy.
This means concrete academic search processes, for example by global governance theoreticians, international law experts, cosmopolitans, transnationalists and philosophers of justice to formulate legitimate and realisable norms, rules and procedures which, all together, could form the basis of an ideal global social contract. This would be something of a quantum leap for civilisation, on par for example with the transition of the feudal systems to constitutional states and democracy. Comparably to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, however, it should in principle also be possible to reach a universal consensus regarding human civilisation‘s ability to survive within the natural boundaries imposed by planet Earth. This necessarily presupposes an extensive ‘Global Enlightenment’, which must be aimed towards promoting cooperative behaviour and accelerating the formation of relevant global social standards and debate. The WBGU strongly advises the use of the coming Rio+20 Conference as a historic chance for such an enlightenment process. A corresponding summit declaration could serve as a future reference framework and point of reference for global enlightenment, and help to initiate an effective, long-term paradigm shift."

Perhaps this will demystify this conversation a bit.

Now, if this is not a Conspiracy Theory why is it in Conspiracy Theories? I read it as them advocating for a UN-tier body responsible for ecological and climatological matters, given that ecology and climate both don't give AF about your country's borders; something that sets rules that the member nations are meant to ratify, like the Declaration of Human Rights, which itself begot a New World Order.

dense

Overheal wrote: »

From the Opening post's last link (PDF):

http://www.wbgu.de/fileadmin/user_upload/wbgu.de/templates/dateien/veroeffentlichungen/hauptgutachten/jg2011/wbgu_jg2011_kurz_en.pdf

"Extensive Global Governance Architecture for the Transformation

A generally high level of international cooperation, global coordination and political pro-activeness are central conditions for the success of the transformation. The global development dynamics trend reversal that is needed will therefore not be achievable without comprehensive, long-term oriented international regulatory policies with an equitable world order as its goal. In the following, the WBGU outlines three steps with progressive ambition levels on the path towards the necessary ‘revolution in global cooperation’.

> Revitalised multilateralism (low ambition level): Inevitably, non-cooperation regarding central issues of global environmental and climate change leads to an escalation of conflicting interests and distributional conflicts. To prevent this, the key actors of world politics must find a new mode of international diplomacy as soon as possible. In the view of the WBGU, the G20 are generally suitable for handling this task, as they not only carry a high level of climate political responsibility, but also have correspondingly high potentials for transformation. The WBGU therefore recommends working towards the goal of a global transformation road map within the scope of the G20, or a comparable sub-global constellation. The benchmark for the practical decisions this kind of plan might include should at the very least be a G20 crisis management in the context of the global financial crisis. The interests of smaller and poorer developing countries would have to be taken into account in a plausible way to allow for a gradual pro-transformation mobilisation across the international community as a whole. The German federal government and the European Union should, through credible leadership, also aim for a high level of ambition as far as this joint cause is concerned, and meet the other states with a committed and mediating attitude. The G20 could then even become the driving force behind modernising the entire UN system.

> Transformative global infrastructure development (medium ambition level): The transformation focuses on three fundamental national and global economy ‘infrastructures’: the energy systems, urban areas, and land-use systems. Compliance with the 2 °C guard rail is only possible if we have changed our course towards low-carbon in all three of these transformation fields by 2020. However, all three fields lack problem-adequate global governance mechanisms to coordinate global and national transformation goals, develop the corresponding indicators and routes for transformation, and define suitable incentive systems.
Accordingly, the WBGU recommends that suitably capable international organisations are either authorised to act, or newly established and provided with adequate resources. One important point of reference is provided by the UNFCCC, particularly in view of the emissions restrictions that have been negotiated there. The mechanisms that were additionally agreed upon, for example on the transfer of technology or forest protection, should be developed and implemented quickly (bundles 7 and 9). In the transformation field of energy, the German federal government should actively support a shift in the objectives of the IEA towards sustainable energy policies, the improvement of organisation accessibility for developing countries, the strengthening of IRENA as the driving force behind the international diffusion of regenerative energies, and the upgrading of the status of UN-Energy (bundle 9). Regarding urbanisation (bundle 6) and global land-use (bundle 7), the WBGU initially recommends the establishment of a ‘World Commission for Low-Carbon Urban Development’ and a ‘Global Commission for Sustainable Land-Use’. On the strength of the findings of the latter commission, the FAO should then develop a suitable range of instruments to ensure the climate friendliness of national and global land-use paths. Due to the impact of the rapid urbanisation on climate protection, and the fact that the UN-Habitat programme is not adequately equipped to deal with this aspect, the WBGU also recommends the establishment of a UN Specialised Agency for sustainable urbanisation with a strong mandate (bundle 6).

> Equitable new global system (high ambition level): In accordance with the global social contract for sustainability, the ultimate goal of a revised global governance architecture must be the creation of a new, equitable global system. Its institutions must put the international community in a position that leaves them capable of appreciating the complex interdependencies of the global society within the scope determined by the limits imposed by our planet, as soon as within the first half of the 21st century, to allow for timely and adequate response. This demanding process is comparable with the embedding of market dynamics in constitutional states, democracies and welfare states during the last great transformation into an industrialised society, which led to the stabilisation and acceptance of this new form of society in the first place.
Politically, this requires a historically unprecedented transcending of established sovereignty concepts and purely power-driven global politics in favour of ensuring the long-term availability of global commons. Sustainable strategies and concepts must be developed for this in order to embed sustainable global development in transnational democratic structures, to formulate answers to the 21st century questions regarding global equity and distribution of resources, and, not least, to be able to claim world-wide legitimacy.
This means concrete academic search processes, for example by global governance theoreticians, international law experts, cosmopolitans, transnationalists and philosophers of justice to formulate legitimate and realisable norms, rules and procedures which, all together, could form the basis of an ideal global social contract. This would be something of a quantum leap for civilisation, on par for example with the transition of the feudal systems to constitutional states and democracy. Comparably to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, however, it should in principle also be possible to reach a universal consensus regarding human civilisation‘s ability to survive within the natural boundaries imposed by planet Earth. This necessarily presupposes an extensive ‘Global Enlightenment’, which must be aimed towards promoting cooperative behaviour and accelerating the formation of relevant global social standards and debate. The WBGU strongly advises the use of the coming Rio+20 Conference as a historic chance for such an enlightenment process. A corresponding summit declaration could serve as a future reference framework and point of reference for global enlightenment, and help to initiate an effective, long-term paradigm shift."

Perhaps this will demystify this conversation a bit.

Now, if this is not a Conspiracy Theory why is it in Conspiracy Theories? I read it as them advocating for a UN-tier body responsible for ecological and climatological matters, given that ecology and climate both don't give AF about your country's borders; something that sets rules that the member nations are meant to ratify, like the Declaration of Human Rights, which itself begot a New World Order.

It's here because it sounds like a CT to install a NWO.

Personally speaking, these theories are difficult to prove, and therefore easy to dismiss as just another CT.

Clicking a couple of links proves this is real, yet it gets dismissed as a CT.

The literature you've quoted shows that it's real plan there for anyone to read, endorsed by the German Chancellor and is not to be dismissed as another NWO Conspiracy Theory.

Wanderer78

'group think' and 'herd mentality', there's no nwo folks, find some hobbies, quick!

dense

dense wrote: »

It's here because it sounds like a CT to install a NWO.

But it doesn't because you don't believe it's going to have any ill effect, nor is it illegal or nefarious or hidden.
And you also said that it has nothing to do with a one world government.

So in what way is it like a conspiracy to install a NWO?

How does any of that translate to your claim that they have "ambitions of a new world order culminating in being in an unelected position of dictating global economic control over individual nations, transcending sovereignty"?

What about that is in anyway worrisome or scary or even a bad idea?

Dohnjoe

dense wrote: »

It's here because it sounds like a CT to install a NWO.

You keep using phrases that betray belief in some sort of tangible identifiable group..

1. As mentioned, "New World Order" or "NWO" is a phrase, not an entity or organisation that is "installed"

2. It's a subjective description. Politicians and leaders have been using the phrase to loosely describe a sea-change in geopolitics or different ideological eras/epochs

3. There isn't literally an organisation called "the Third World", "the Arab Spring" or "the New World Order" so it can't be headed by someone. Bianca Jagger, David Ike, George Soros, The Illuminati, etc are not, to the best of our knowledge, sitting at a desk, picking up the phone and saying; "New world order, how can I help you?"

4. I think I'm starting to piece this together, do you believe man-made climate change is a hoax or a conspiracy?

Wanderer78

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You keep using phrases that betray belief in some sort of tangible identifiable group..

1. As mentioned, "New World Order" or "NWO" is a phrase, not an entity or organisation that is "installed"

2. It's a subjective description. Politicians and leaders have been using the phrase to loosely describe a sea-change in geopolitics or different ideological eras/epochs

3. There isn't literally an organisation called "the Third World", "the Arab Spring" or "the New World Order" so it can't be headed by someone. Bianca Jagger, David Ike, George Soros, The Illuminati, etc are not, to the best of our knowledge, sitting at a desk, picking up the phone and saying; "New world order, how can I help you?"

4. I think I'm starting to piece this together, do you believe man-made climate change is a hoax or a conspiracy?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057828857

Squidwert

The New World Order (NWO) An Overview
http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/

Dohnjoe

Squidwert wrote: »

The New World Order (NWO) An Overview
http://educate-yourself.org/nwo/

To quote from this:

"The United Nations, along with all the agencies working under the UN umbrella, such as the World Health Organization (WHO), are full time players in this scheme. Similarly, NATO is a military tool of the NWO.

The leaders of all major industrial countries like the United States, England, Germany, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, etc. (E.g. members of the "G7/G8" ) are active and fully cooperative participants in this conspiracy. "

So Donald Trump is a part of this NWO conspiracy?

Most conspiracy theorists will immediately say no and hastily concoct some reason why.. but what really bakes their noodle is then how did he win the presidency?

However if you admit he's part of it, then he's a puppet. A bitter pill for CTers to swallow either way

Choices, choices.

dense

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You keep using phrases that betray belief in some sort of tangible identifiable group..

1. As mentioned, "New World Order" or "NWO" is a phrase, not an entity or organisation that is "installed"

2. It's a subjective description. Politicians and leaders have been using the phrase to loosely describe a sea-change in geopolitics or different ideological eras/epochs

3. There isn't literally an organisation called "the Third World", "the Arab Spring" or "the New World Order" so it can't be headed by someone. Bianca Jagger, David Ike, George Soros, The Illuminati, etc are not, to the best of our knowledge, sitting at a desk, picking up the phone and saying; "New world order, how can I help you?"

4. I think I'm starting to piece this together, do you believe man-made climate change is a hoax or a conspiracy?

Seeing as Miss Jagger used the phrase and you're not one bit happy with my interpretation, and reject it, does it not make sense that she would seem best placed to explain what she meant by saying a new world order?

You say one thing, someone else can say something else, but only she could tell you who's right.

She could independently adjudicate the matter for you and anyone else that sees room for confusion in the matter.

Why not reach out to her?
As far as I can see she'll speak to anyone who'll listen to her.......

Essentially you're asking me if I think that man has instigated climate change by manually adding CO2 to the atmosphere, and if I think that man can similarly reverse, control, and prevent the climate from undesirably changing in the future by manually adjusting the level of atmospheric CO2.

We could discuss that quite separate topic in the Climate Change thread if you like.

It's here:

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057828857/42/#post106220604


Regardless, I fail to see what my opinion on that has got to do with Bianca Jagger's and the German Goveenment's WBGU's hopes for a new world order where national sovereignty will require being transcended in favour of a new global common.

dense

dense wrote: »

Seeing as Miss Jagger used the phrase and you're not one bit happy with my interpretation, and reject it,

You've yet to explain how your interpretation is correct or why anyone should believe it.

dense wrote: »

Regardless, I fail to see what my opinion on that has got to do with Bianca Jagger's and the German Goveenment's WBGU's hopes for a new world order where national sovereignty will require being transcended in favour of a new global common.

Could you detail what you believe this actually means and what it actually entails?
Is Bianca jagger somehow going to control all governments? Or...?

dense

King Mob wrote: »

You've yet to explain how your interpretation is correct or why anyone should believe it.

My interpretation is of no more value than yours, and yours is worth no more than mine.

We're not pulling the proverbial strings after all.

That's why I've advised contacting Ms. Jagger to see if her interpretation matches yours.

If it does, it does, and you win!

I can't see any other way round it for you.

Does that sound like something you'd be interested in doing?

King Mob wrote: »

Could you detail what you believe this actually means and what it actually entails?
Is Bianca jagger somehow going to control all governments? Or...?

How would I able to detail any more than what's in the public domain???

I don't go in for fantasising about things.......

Dohnjoe

dense wrote: »

My interpretation is of no more value than yours, and yours is worth no more than mine.

Is a flawed way of thinking. A faulty interpretation does not automatically carry the same weight of the correct interpretation

dense

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Is a flawed way of thinking. A faulty interpretation does not automatically carry the same weight of the correct interpretation

Who is best placed to explain the correct interpretation of Bianca Jagger's use of the phrase?

King Mob, you, or Bianca Jagger?

Think about it for a moment.

Personally, I'd go with the latter.

What sort of broken logic could possibly suggest otherwise?

Dohnjoe

dense wrote: »

Who is best placed to explain the correct interpretation of Bianca Jagger's use of the phrase?

King Mob, you, or Bianca Jagger?

Think about it for a moment.

Personally, I'd go with the latter.

What sort of broken logic could possibly suggest otherwise?

There another possibility you have missed

That you have misinterpreted it and have started a post on a public forum based entirely on that misinterpretation

dense

Dohnjoe wrote: »

There another possibility you have missed

That you have misinterpreted it and have started a post on a public forum based entirely on that misinterpretation

There's only one way to find out..........

Next please.

Ajsoprano

I think a new world order would be an excellent way of doing things.
Reasons would be scrapping the market.
Better division of resources.
Reduction of climate change ozone layer.
A fairer world.
Lower hourly working week.

It’s a bit of a no brainer.

I think the only people who gain from the new world order conspiracy is the few at the top with all the riches.

Dohnjoe

"Hello Bianca"

"Hi"

"When you mentioned 'New World Order' in your speech.. did you mean it literally? that you are head of a new supreme leadership on earth comprised o-"

"-click"



I'll stick with the misinterpretation part

4068ac1elhodqr

Most of all of the above is 'random gobbledygook word vomit'.

However a former high ranking Canadian defence chief believes exactly what the title of this thread suggests.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5568394/who-is-paul-hellyer-conspiracy-theories-aliens-illuminti/
Then again he's now 94, and probably flogging a book or something.

gerrytoo

In EUROPE we have free movement of services and in case anybody missed the purpose it is not to enhance the lives of employees . We also have a situation in IRELAND where we now have to shun some of our cultural values in case we might offend non nationals . I welcome non nationalists to our shores and am not racist and I believe that people of all faiths and nationalities should be allowed to express their beliefs freely as long as they do not restrict the freedom of others . I do not have to believe that anybody set out to create a NEW WORLD ORDER but let us put ourselves in the minds of the SUPER rich for a moment . They can buy anything they want , no worries about a home , college fees , health insurance , cost of a holiday so they need something to play with and that happens to be us . The most effective way to conquer the world is to get rid of families and communities so that everybody regards themselves as an individual. Ring a bell?

dense

dense wrote: »

My interpretation is of no more value than yours, and yours is worth no more than mine.

We're not pulling the proverbial strings after all.

No, they are not of equal value.
For you to be right it means that there is a conspiracy to install one random person as a world controlling dictator for motives unknown and for some reason everyone's ok with it.
For me to be right, someone on the internet needs to be misinterpreting something.

Which of these scenarios are more likely.

dense wrote: »

That's why I've advised contacting Ms. Jagger to see if her interpretation matches yours.

If it does, it does, and you win!

I can't see any other way round it for you.

Does that sound like something you'd be interested in doing?

No, not really. It sounds like a silly tactic for you to avoid addressing points.
You have not shown that your interpretation is convincing. You have not actually detailed anything that seems to be worth discussing and you have not detailed any of the consequences of the conspiracy theory. And on top of that, you have contradicted yourself several times.

I don't see why I would need to call this person to ask if she's part of a conspiracy that makes no sense and I have no reason to believe exists.

Again, it's your conspiracy theory. You're the one who seems concerned about this issue. Why haven't you called?

dense wrote: »

How would I able to detail any more than what's in the public domain???

I don't go in for fantasising about things.......

Well you can explain what installing a new world order actually entails.
You could explain in what ways would they transcend sovereignty.
You could explain where you got the notion that there would be an unelected position that dictates stuff to all governments.
You could actually outline your problems or worries about their aims.

Are you now suggesting that the details of this plan and the aims of the people involved are hidden?

dense

King Mob wrote: »

You have not shown that your interpretation is convincing.

Yes I have.

This is good game isn't it?
Reminds of the shool yard!

But seriously, why not take up your concerns with those who are causing you to be so concerned?

Think of this as being a bit like a newspaper, no one is going to lose sleep about whether you can understand what you've read or not, and plaguing a reporter with endless circular questions about what's a pretty easy to follow story isn't really going to make it any easier for you to understand if they're not bothered entertaining you.

Do you follow?

jaxxx

Meh, I'm holding out for the next Ice Age. Then things might be balanced a bit.

dense

dense wrote: »

Yes I have.


But seriously, why not take up your concerns with those who are causing you to be so concerned?

You have not shown any reason to conclude your interpretation is convincing.
Or that it's not ridiculous.

Your position is based on a single, narrow interpretation of a phrase.
But then you also claimed not to believe that your theory is not connected to any of the defining points of that interpretation of the phrase.

You have then dodged every question put to you.

If my questions are circular, it's because you are avoiding the questions and issues.
If your theory was so "easy to follow" you could explain it easily.

Again:
You could explain what installing a new world order actually entails.
You could explain in what ways would they transcend sovereignty.
You could explain where you got the notion that there would be an unelected position that dictates stuff to all governments.
You could actually outline your problems or worries about their aims.

dense

King Mob wrote: »

You have not shown any reason to conclude your interpretation is convincing.
Or that it's not ridiculous.

Your position is based on a single, narrow interpretation of a phrase.
But then you also claimed not to believe that your theory is not connected to any of the defining points of that interpretation of the phrase.

You have then dodged every question put to you.

If my questions are circular, it's because you are avoiding the questions and issues.
If your theory was so "easy to follow" you could explain it easily.

Again:
You could explain what installing a new world order actually entails.
You could explain in what ways would they transcend sovereignty.
You could explain where you got the notion that there would be an unelected position that dictates stuff to all governments.
You could actually outline your problems or worries about their aims.

Let me know when will you be providing the readers with evidence to prove why I'm wrong.

Being confused about what I've said doesn't equate to anything other than being in a state of confusion.

You need to refute what I've said.

Does that seen like something you can do?

How about if you spend a few hours on Google and try to find Bianca Jagger disputing my interpretation of what she meant.

And see if you can find the WBGU saying its had a change of position and is no longer going to pursue it's published ambition which will require the transcending of sovereignty for a global common.

And, see if you can find Angela Merkel withdrawing her support for the WBGU.

They're just a few pointers to get you started.

If you can do that you will have proven that I'm wrong and you were right.

Until then, you haven't.