installing democracy, while the Protocols presents the shadowy leaders lurking behind the Revolutionaries as Machiavellians. He also contrasts Napoleon’s non-violent means with those of the Protocol conspirators. Again, this fails to prove the Protocol’s authenticity- it could be presented as deliberate inversion of roles, with the usual embellishment of paranoia.

Regarding the Future-orientation of the Protocols; Myers suggests that WWI, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Balfour Declaration and the attempt to make the League of Nations a World Government at the Peace Conference of Versailles, “seemed to bear out predictions in the Protocols.” However, these concepts were not exactly unthinkable at the time of writing. The fact that all these events took place after the writing of the Protocols is not evidence that they resulted from a grand conspiracy. The author of the Protocols makes the same mistake as many of the posters on this thread- to draw a connection between all of these events back to one point.

Thus, your argument that the Protocols were drawing on many of these pre-existing fears is beside the point.

Another mistake is to read history backwards. Rather than seeing 9/11 as the event which provided the US with the political will to deal (however ineptly) with the problem of Saddam Hussein, it is argued (not here, thankfully, yet,) that the US government orchestrated it because it wanted to attack Iraq. Rather than seeing the Cold War as a victory of Free Market Democracy over Totalitarian Communism, it is viewed as an orchestrated event designed to sell more guns.

And one more thing people. Which UN theory are we going by- that the US is pulling all the strings, (bushbred,) or that it is part of the New World Order to create a One World Government (wobbles)? It is tenuously related to the implication in the Protocols that the Jewish (or super-rich bankers of no fixed nationality, Chris) conspiracy is behind both the dominance of big finance and the Bolshevik revolution.

I always thought much of the US’ opposition to the UN was based on the principle of national sovereignty.

Shaw- your arguments later.

Shonga,

What you still don't get is that you are NOT going to change the way the world works by bad mouthing the top players.

What is necessary is to point out why terrorism is occurring using a solid applied science focus and gain the trust of the Powers that be (PTB). You then need to have a strategy that can take the world from where it is now to some new place that addresses the main issues of Energy security, corruption, global war, global pollution, climate change and especially OVERPOPULATION.

If one can do that, the PTB WILL listen because I can assure you they do not have solutions right now. They are in denial and it is apparent that their final solution is to just let the world collapse into war and make damn sure they are on the winning side. The combined trajectory of all the above problems ensures this is true.

The ONLY strategy large enough to get us out of this jam is to look at the THERMODYNAMICS of civilisation and develop a differential entropy map across all major capital flows across the world.

Such a map (morse mapping) not only gives to the minute static pictures of what is happening in terms of global economic thermodynamics but also yields harmonic time dependent solutions which can be modelled and tracked just like hurricanes are, across the ocean surface.

As time goes by such a map will become more and more trusted. If all nations have internet access to it there will be a common enemy that is well defined for all mankind to witness

dozer,

There's a bit of a summary about the history of New World Order at this link -

http://www.constitution.org/col/cuddy_nwo.htm

Your response seems to get a mention in the very first paragraph.

Continued,

That will be the beginning of the end of all our problems. The Magic of Apollo was just a meagre foretaste.. Because if 6.5 billion people on this planet finally figure we are all on the same side then the next step, true space expansionism, will become a reality that will solve our insoluble problems for as long as the SUN shines. At least a billion years of free solar energy at densities thousands of times what we now imagine, could sustain civilsation and propel it well beyond this solar system while making our current desire to reproduce ourselves into extinction on Earth a new found blessing. It would create nothing short of an upscaled ENERGY internet right across our Solar System and at a cost and in a timeframe comparable to the way the Internet has developed in the last 20 years. 6.5 billion focussed people CAN DO!

In space you will need all the people you can procreate to assimilate the massive energy fluxes and fill the voids.

And can any of us say this is not mankind's true purpose? What a damn shame if by negative thinking and little mindedness we miss this opportunity. If we let our world collapse in the next 30 years as oil runs dry, it may take 1000 years or more before nature can evolve life to this pinnacle of technological achievement again.

dozer,

Sorry to bring it down to this level but I fully believe that the US was at least partially involved in the 9/11 attacks.

I don't see it as a Jewish conspiracy, or a Christian one, nor do I buy the official conspiracy theory about a cave dwelling madman.

Its just politics, and power. And its not unprecendented, maybe on this scale, but the idea of an expansionist state attacking its own people to justify its military ventures, its a pretty old idea. And there is documented evidence that the US has dabbled with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

I could go on with the dozens of strange occurences about that day, but I'll leave it there, for the moment

KAEP,
Iappreciate what you say, my question is how many timies, how much science? To the best of my limited knowledge the world was first told about climatechange/ global warming in a Warning to the World in 1992, a statement predicting exactly what we now have in weather patterns and warming of the globe, signed by 1,600 emenent scientists.

Just latety we have had the Stein compliled by Britian's Chief Scientist, along with a former Chief economist of the World Bank, well credentialed people, frustration begins to grow as non-action occurs. We should be speaking about "sustainable economies" not "growth economies" for the betterment of the human race.