Is the United Kingdom no longer a sovereign state?

Post Reply New Topic

You will not hear that stuff from me, but yes, that is the essence of the e-mail and article I first posted. In Latin of the back of the American dollar is a statement along the line of "announcing the birth of a new world order", and there is nothing going on today that is in conflict with Christianity's typical interpretation of "Revelation", the book.

I think it might have also helped that we were such new 'countries' that we didn't have nearly as much of the separate cultures, traditions, etc.. I get the sense that Europe will have a heck of a time actually making a united EU work all that much better than the UN at present.

What, you mean "Novus Ordo Seclorum", on the Great Seal of the United States? It's a quote from a poem by Virgil, usually translated as "a mighty series [or great order] of Ages is born anew". This is obviously intended to refer to the number carved into the bottom of the unfinished pyramid above, 1776, marking the official birth of the United States (I think the significance of the pyramid being unfinished needs little explanation).

Note that "seclorum" is a poetic form, the actual word being "seculorum" - it was common for Roman poets to omit one of the vowels in order to make a word fit its poetic meter. Note further that "seculorum" is a plural, meaning "ages" - "New World Order" would not translate into Latin as "Novus Ordo Seculorum" (in fact, according to the translation program I just referenced, that would be "Novus Universitas Ordo").

As for "Annuit Coeptis", that's even worse - that's not even a coherent phrase in Latin. Reportedly, the designer was reaching for a sense that a new beginning was being smiled upon by Providence, without including any actual religious references (per client request), so he reached into his flawed knowledge of church Latin and came up with those words.

Look, I'm sorry, but no matter how many paranoid conspiracy theorists parade their flawed views of reality across your internet searches, there simply is no One World Conspiracy trying to make us all into nice little imperial droids. Or, if there is, it's apparently managed to keep itself concealed for better than two centuries - which would make it far more efficient than any other method of governance yet devised, so maybe surrender would be the better option...

(Oh, on a side note - why exactly is a one-world government a bad thing? That seems to be an axiom of every One-World conspiracy theory I've heard so far, but no one seems willing to explain what the problem is.)

"That's what they want us to think?" When you utter that phrase, you've gone a little too far into tinfoil territory. Do you have an alternate interpretation of that particular speech that doesn't hinge on assumptions about information we don't have? Do you have other examples of such alleged declarations of a NWO conspiracy over the past few decades?


OK, I phrased that badly. I just meant that old ways of thinking are going to fall by the wayside as society changes.

We've not had a referendum on it since then. Yes we get elections, but neither of the main parties give us the choice of getting out of the EU. The problem is that at each general election there are usually more pressing issues. But as each election passes we are then sucked incrementally further into the EU superstate.

It's also interesting to consider that many British politicians aspire to be MEPs or Brussels bureaucrats as they get larger salaries and a massive expenses account over there. It's not in their interest to take us out.

I'm sure you're glad to see me, TLC.

Orwell, what is it with you and this word “conspiracy”? You seem to have decided that simply using the term “conspiracy theorist” in a condescending fashion is an easy and fail-safe way to establish your intellectual superiority.
But what is a “conspiracy”?
Isn’t any group that comes together to achieve a common goal a conspiracy?
Or is it only a conspiracy when the group is not open about their objectives?
Or perhaps any theory about a group you’ve never heard of can be classed as a conspiracy theory too?

As for objections to the EU, you probably wouldn’t understand, because you are a liberal. But I’ll answer anyway.

For one thing, nations do not need to be united politically in order to trade with each other. With regards to the supposed economic benefits of the EU, you can read online about how the EU has, for example, wrecked Britain’s fishing industry (via the Common Fisheries Policy). As for harmonizing laws being a good thing, it kind of depends on what those laws are.

But more important than the EU’s economic inefficiency and undemocratic nature, is an aspect of the EU highlighted by the following story:



I know I’ve mentioned to you before about the Western elites engineering Third World immigration into their own countries. You dismissed the idea as (guess what) a “conspiracy theory” because (among other reasons) you seem to view mass immigration as something that just happens, like the wind and the rain (except in countries where it doesn’t, like Japan and Israel [oh, and Japan is “racist” but Israel isn’t, and so on ]). So anyway, I’ll try again, with help from the above article.

What the above article helps to illustrate is that the European elites are helping to engineer the deliberate demographic transformation of their own countries and their own continent. Past elites might have oppressed their own people, but they never tried to demographically replace them before; if anything is “new” about this “new world order” people speak of, it is this.

The ordinary European people are prevented from protesting against what is being done to them with draconian laws against “hate” and “discrimination”. (Belgium even has a law against “incitement to discrimination” (!), which was used to ban a nationalist political party.) Similar laws are being used and will be used to compel us to celebrate homosexuality, or prevent us from displaying Christian symbols in public places.

This is all completely consistent with liberalism, which is really just a secular religion, waging war against nature, breaking down natural bonds, organic communities and higher social orders (such as race, nation, culture, religion, family) to leave only atomised individuals - producers and consumers – whose only ties to one another are economic and bureaucratic.

The EU is a stepping-stone towards this nightmarish future. EU bureaucrats are keen to get Turkey on board when the conditions become favourable. Next stop North Africa?



Perhaps you should research more widely before you declare what seems likely or unlikely.
Consider the case of Frederick Toben. In 2008, the German authorities tried to extradite him from the UK under a European Arrest Warrant for “revisionist” material he’d published on a website in Australia. They failed in their attempt on that occasion, but the signs are there. To paraphrase that old favourite Niemoller "first they came for the revisionists, and I did not speak out..."



You are mistaking change for progress.
And “racist” seems to be one of your favourite terms of abuse, much like “conspiracy theorist”.
It’s bizarre that you can moan on these forums about being victimised by affirmative action for being white, and yet you take such pleasure in condemning whoever you perceive (rightly or wrongly) to be a pro-white advocate.
Perhaps you naively believe that all those non-whites who support affirmative action really are by “equality” and are simply a little misguided?



You’ve expressed scepticism about democracy elsewhere, so it’s strange you are giving democracy so much credit here. The British people have never been asked whether or not they want political union with Europe, but that is what they are getting.
Did you hear about the Lisbon Treaty? The only country that even offered a referendum to its own people was Ireland, and the European elites just ignored their No vote and made them vote again until they got the answer they wanted.

No, I just generally regard conspiracy theories to be sufficiently implausible explanations that I rule them out.


The term conspiracy refers to secret planning. In most contexts, it is assumed that the objectives of a conspiracy are somewhat nefarious.


True, but it is easier if there are well-laid-out agreements between several countries to manage trade, which is largely what the EU does. The common currency has certainly helped trade within Europe.


True.



This "secret plot" is also described as "controversial" and they give a number of different people's comments on it. Do you see a contradiction?

Find a real news source. It's one thing to argue that a particular change in immigration policy is a bad idea, but that article was just straight up BS.


I dismissed it as a conspiracy theory because it is a conspiracy theory. You claim the "elites" are "engineering" mass immigration. If they were doing that, it would by definition be a conspiracy, because they aren't claiming to be promoting mass immigration.


I support freedom of speech for everyone, even wingnuts like yourself. I'm pretty sure you're wrong about Christian symbols in public places though- or are you referring to Christian symbols on government property?


You list "race, nation, culture, religion, family" as examples of social order. Europeans did not view themselves as part of a European race until relatively recently (past couple hundred years) and certainly did not have any racial loyalties based on it until quite recently. The nation-state really didn't exist until Louis XIV. People still organize by culture, class, and other communities.


Again, I support freedom of speech. Even for revisionists and neo-Nazis.


An individual can't really be "victimized" by affirmative action per se. It's just bad policy with negative effects on the system. And the term "pro-white advocate" is meaningless to me. I am pro-Western. I have not met anyone who is "pro white." I've met plenty who are anti-black, anti-Arab, etc.


It makes perfect sense to support a policy that benefits you. But affirmative action was implemented almost entirely by misguided white people.


You were the one complaining about not having a chance for democracy in the EU.

Too far for you, possibly, but not for everyone ... and please remember I do not claim any ability to prove what you cannot disprove.



Do you have any idea how many non-pluralists will have to stop breathing in order for that to ever happen?

Copout because you can't bring anything concrete.


I need a more precise term. What do you mean by "non-pluralists?"

Rubbish.



Anyone GWB considers a terrorist:

Yeah, I think the people who are not with "us" will continue to be marginalized and will more or less go away. Some of them will change their views, others will b***h about how everything was better in the good old days, others will make some violent stand against civilization and lose. But they won't be adding to their numbers much, and for the most part they will die out with the people who currently are against "us."

Unless the two of us are interpreting "those who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom" very differently, then yeah, I'm just going to go back to my original claim that "non-pluralists" (by your definition) are racists and bigots. You basically just now claimed to be opposed to tolerance and freedom.

Lee, this is probably going to come as a shock to you, but neither Bush nor his puppetmasters hold office in the US any longer. Back in 2008, we had this election thingy (you know, that thing that you don't think can change anything), and Bush's entire political party was pretty soundly trounced - you might have heard something from your tinfoil supplier about this fellow named Obama? In fact, in the most recent election cycle, the only way any Republican could win office in most of the US was to disavow any connection with Bush or the "neoconservative" wing of the Republican party (with certain notable exceptions, like parts of upstate New York, but those would seem to be outliers). Bush can hate whomever he wants, but what he wants is no longer in any way related to US policies.

Coderac, a "conspiracy theory" is any crackpot hypothesis which would require a hypercompetent, usually widespread conspiracy to be carried out. Said conspiracy would have to be able to operate in complete secrecy, yet employ a rather large number of agents, while experiencing absolutely no major security leaks - an ability beyond the CIA, the KGB, Mossad, or MI-6, certainly. When such an agency is required in order to make your theory work, said theory may safely be dismissed as being improbable at best. (For instance, the idea that the famed 1947 incident at Roswell, NM, was in fact a crashed alien spacecraft, which is still being studied at variously either Dreamland or Wright-Patterson AFB, and it is all being kept completely hidden by the US government, supposes that over the past 62 years there has not been one person either corrupt enough or idealistic enough to release the evidence to, say, the New York Times, or even the Post. Keep in mind that this is the same government that couldn't keep Soviet agents from stealing hydrogen-bomb technology in the 1950s despite McCarthyims making everyone paranoid about that very thing, and later couldn't keep a third-rate burglary on the President's political opponents under wraps during a war. Hardly seems likely, now does it?)

Irrelevant.



This is not a matter of interpretation:

----------
Progress
A royal journey marked by pomp and pageant;
The progressive (pompous) development of humankind.

Pluralism
A theory that there are more than one or two kinds of ultimate reality;
A theory that reality is composed of a plurality of entities;
A state of society in which members of diverse groups maintain autonomous participations in and developments of their respective groups within a common, global civilization.

Tolerance
Sympathy or indulgence for differing or conflicting beliefs or practices;
Allowable deviations from a standard;
The capacity to endure or become less responsive to something.

Freedom
A state of exemption from external power or control; liberty*;
Exemption from fate, necessity, or external restraint or constraint;
License; improper familiarity; violation of the rules of correctness.
(*Liberty suggests release from all restraint or compulsion.)
----------

From what dictionary are you getting these definitions? They are very cynical.

Leejosepho, do you ever listen to Alex Jones? I'm curious because a lot of what you're saying is in sync with his conspiracy theories. Another question, would you happen to be a Libertarian by chance?