invisible empire

[where]

Lame.

[christo-f]

Yeah, I am fully expecting it to be about as factually based as any Michael Moore piece. But I gotta see it first. I also figured that there would be what you are saying, the "New World Order" quotes taken out of context.

 

I wasn't sure what they were referring to at first. If they were going to claim "OMGzor, US trying to rule the world after the fall of communism" I was just going to post the Old News Rocks meme. But then I read that preview up top and am fully prepared for lulz. For going by their own theories, if there was some over-arching controlling power in the world and these guys were exposing it, I'd expect them to be long dead.

 

But they aint, they making moviez y'all!!

 

Will watch it and will give credit where credit is due, because I don't care what the truth is, as long as I understand it.

[russell jones]

It's even sillier than Michael Moore... at least Moore shuts up sometimes and relates personal anecdotes that have real meaning between his poor arguments.

 

I hope they're making money... I can respect that in a warped way.

[lord_casek]

Christo... I wouldn't bother, unless you are interested in the silly entertainment value of it.

 

In the first ten minutes:

 

Politicians use the phrase New World Order! Oh My! It must be true...

 

except that are using the phrase in an entirely different historical context than conspiracy theorists. Almost all of them are referring to post-Cold War balance of power changes.

 

Hitler was on the cover of Time magazine! With the implication that they were somehow supporting him. Seriously? Really? Do people believe this shit?

 

 

You would be wrong.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/10/AR2009111015034.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

 

The Hitler on Time was to illustrate that there was support for him here. Which there was.

Bankers funding his rise to power, etc.

 

http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2010/04/16/the-brics-plotting-a-new-world-order/

 

 

Michael Moore Calls For New 9/11 Investigation

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/19/101515/249

[lord_casek]

Nope, not sure why either as I'm using a US gateway.

 

 

I'll shrink it and up it to megaupload

[russell jones]

You would be wrong.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/10/AR2009111015034.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

 

The Hitler on Time was to illustrate that there was support for him here. Which there was.

Bankers funding his rise to power, etc.

 

http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2010/04/16/the-brics-plotting-a-new-world-order/

 

 

Michael Moore Calls For New 9/11 Investigation

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/19/101515/249

 

I'm sorry Casek, but I fail to see how what you posted makes me wrong.

[Zig]

ok, yea i do believe this stuff...

 

Christo... I wouldn't bother, unless you are interested in the silly entertainment value of it.

 

In the first ten minutes:

 

Politicians use the phrase New World Order! Oh My! It must be true...

 

except that are using the phrase in an entirely different historical context than conspiracy theorists. Almost all of them are referring to post-Cold War balance of power changes.

 

Hitler was on the cover of Time magazine! With the implication that they were somehow supporting him. Seriously? Really? Do people believe this shit?

 

I don't really believe these quotes are taken out of context. The context of the movie is the term "New World Order". Bermas says, in the beginning of the documentary, that this term was coined by the establishment themselves, and isn't a term that was made up by "conspiracy theorists" or "tinfoil hat wearers". So, the first ten minutes of the movie is showcasing exactly that; the politicians, mainstream media figures, and other prominent personalities using it. Bermas highlights the perception of the term when he says, "In fact, when it is used [New World Order], that person is often dismissed out-of-hand because of the perception that it is nothing more than a conspiracy theory." Further into the film, G. Edward Griffin says, "The New World Order means different things to different people. But, to those who expect to be in control of it, it means the same thing, it means all the world under their control. They believe that somebody must rule, after all the people are too darn dumb to know how to rule themselves. They figure that is their role." So, it's possible that in certain contexts of the speeches being delivered by politicians that the term New World Order is in reference to post-Cold War balance of power changes, however, the term itself still holds significant meaning within the political paradigm. For prominent American politicians, it often means U.S Hegemony and global dominance, and when used by other nations it is often referring to the European Union, United Nations, or some sort of globalization that is leading the world towards a new political era.

 

As for the significance of Hitler being on TIME magazine's cover, and also twice as "Man of the Year", I personally believe this to hold weight as well. Hitler was a manifestation of this same establishment's desires to lead the world towards a New Order, or New World Order. He was personally obsessed with the idea of this order, and from watching the documentary you can see that he even wrote about it (and obviously attempted to carry it out, if you know history). TIME magazine, prior to WW2, promoted this mans ideas, praised him, and glorified him. These same banking / elitist cartels of today funded him, and elevated him to his prominent status. The relevance of Hitler appearing on TIME magazine should show the viewer that the establishment supports these ideas, and actually invests in promoting and encouraging them.

 

I wasn't sure what they were referring to at first. If they were going to claim "OMGzor, US trying to rule the world after the fall of communism" I was just going to post the Old News Rocks meme. But if then I read that preview up top and am fully prepared for lulz. For going by their own theories, if there was some over-arching controlling power in the world and these guys were exposing it, I'd expect them to be long dead.

 

I believe it is a lot deeper than the U.S trying to rule the world. If we look throughout history, the desire to take over the world has always been in the mind of man to accomplish. It isn't a conspiracy theory to acknowledge this fact. It is more possible today for elitists to attempt to economically control sovereign nations, then it would have been hundreds of years ago. I personally believe that the U.S is, and has been, being used by these forces (no I'm not talking about lizard men, or demons, or magical beings) of political and economic power and influence, in a manipulative manner to build the world that is best suited to be maintained by them and their progeny. Not only the U.S, but all the major super powers and militaristic nations of the world are and have been manipulated by that driving force. The documentary explains very clearly how this takes place, by explaining how the round-table groups were established, and how they operate through secret societies. All of this stuff exists, it is documented fact.

 

Speaking generally here, and not at anyone in particular; simply, at those who find this documentary to be easily dismissive. Are you saying that elitism doesn't exist in this world? Secret societies don't exist, and haven't existed throughout history working behind the scenes to effect political change? Human history is riddled with conspiracy, secrecy, and mysteries that are very well documented and unknown till this day. If you have the idea in your mind that this is ridiculous and couldn't very well be possible, I find that to be a bit ignorant.

[russell jones]

I don't even know where to start here Zig. I have seen no evidence that Time Magazine supported Hitler, only that they recognized he was the most important political figure 1938. The Ayatollah Khomeini was Man of the Year in 1979. Was he part of the NWO somehow?

 

To your first point, the film seems to be making the argument that the purpose of the New World Order is collectivism. I don't see how that is the case, or even how that would be beneficial to powerful business and political leaders.

 

If anything, the New World Order promotes capitalism by putting pressure on the Third World to liberalize their economies, and eliminating trade barriers. Even these movements are only marginally successful. Most of the mechanisms and organizations in the movie seemed to be designed to sell us shit, not to collectivize the populace.

 

As far secret societies being the primary element of political change in the world, I think you are placing too much faith in the ability of small groups to control huge mechanisms that cannot be influenced but not controlled. Is it possible that small groups could have the kind of influence implied in the film? Sure, I would just have to throw out the idea that conflict has been a huge force in history. I don't think I can do that.

[christo-f]

You would be wrong.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/10/AR2009111015034.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

 

Casek, sometimes I think you don't even read the articles you link us too.

 

This one was totally mocking the theory of the UN being this new order.

 

Secondly COPENHAGEN WAS A TOTAL FAILURE, no new over arching government was formed. This meeting and the coming meeting in Mexico is all but proof that the one government either doesn't exist or is a total failure.

 

Copenhagen failed because the powerful countries (most notably the US and China) refused to play along. The nation state proves again to be the most powerful entity when compared to multilateral regimes.

 

And you really think the UN itself has ANY power at all? Seriously, didn't the invasion of Iraq, the failure to get sanctions on Iran and Israel flaunting UN sanctions show that the UN is at the mercy of the nation state??!!

[Zig]

russell, I believe you have a very one dimensional view of this particular documentary and the term New World Order. I keep very up to date on this topic, and I know from the way you are speaking about it that you aren't as savvy to it. All I can really say to you is that you should objectively, with an open mind, put more of an effort into listening to the information and seeing where it leads you. You are probably even more capable of comprehending it than I am, and you can come to your own conclusions. I don't ever attempt to persuade anyone that this is real. I simply state my own personal views on it through life experiences with the system, and through my own research that is unique to me. I disagree with you that small groups can not control or maintain the huge mechanisms and institutions that govern our society. To me, this is something that has occurred throughout history and is not impossible. Zbigniew Brzezinski himself acknowledges and admits to insidious influence in politics in the very documentary we are discussing here.

 

As for Copenhagen, it did fail miserably but it doesn't mean that a) the concept of global governance was pushed and advocated by this current establishment, and b) that it will die with Copenhagen. I believe I read somewhere that Copenhagen wasn't a complete failure, and certain other kinds of agreements were made that our current administration plans on continuing to pursue. I have no idea of the specifics of those agreements, or what they entail because I simply didn't research it.

 

The Kevin Smith quote was taken completely out of context and made it seem like he took Loose Change seriously, which of course he didn't. Doesn't bode well for the rest of the flick.

 

Also, I'd like to address your comment here about the Kevin Smith scene in the documentary. You make the claim that the quote concerning Loose Change, the documentary Bermas previously collaborated on, was taken out of context and made to "seem like he took Loose Change seriously". Well, the context of that direct quote was from a podcast Kevin Smith regularly ran on the internet called a "Smodcast", and that particular cast was initially speaking about a documentary concerning UFO's. Kevin Smith called this particular documentary about UFO's, the "Loose Change" of UFO documentaries, and then proceeded to make the quote included within Invisible Empire. The context then continues on to discuss UFO's, in a somewhat legitimate yet hilarious conversation about the possibilities of there actually being UFO's, and aliens, and alien technology. So, I don't really see how the context of this conversation is negative, or unsupportive of the documentary Loose Change. He doesn't outright say that he believes anything in Loose Change, but he does say it is very convincing and continues to have a conversation about a UFO documentary which implies that he has an interest in this kind of alternative information. You can listen to the actual podcast yourself here:

 

http://www.asitecalledfred.com/2007/06/04/smodcast-14/

 

and here is the actual quote:

 

Kevin Smith: If you've ever seen Loose Change the documentary about September 11th's conspiracy theorist documentary. It is f****** riveting. Like you watch it and by the end -- not even the end -- ten minutes in you're like --

 

Walter Flanagan: You've got your car packed.

 

Kevin Smith: You're just like, "Oh, my God, it's all true. I never even -- How do you get this information?" And it's not even like it's James Earl Jones narrating it --

 

Walter Flanagan: No, it was like this whiny f****** mousy little kid. It it had James Earl Jones, it would have blown your head off your shoulders.

 

Kevin Smith: It's like listening to the dude who sat next to you in Geometry tell you about the conspiracy theory of September 11th. And you wouldn't think that you'd buy it. You're like, "Shut the f*** up." But the information comes at you so fast, so furious, with f***** like -- like you can't dispute the facts, but you easily could, but the way it's positioned and the way the story's told, you sit there going like, "It's got to be true". Like, "Yes, if a jet engine is flying into the Pentagon, cars on the road would be blown off the road because like, you know, a car in the wake of a jet engine gets blown off the road. Why weren't any cars blown off the f***** highway near the Pentagon?" Like, "This guy's got a point. I never thought about it before." You start feeling like you're Charlie Sheen, where you're like "I think the government brought the buildings down themselves", or whatever it is he believes.

 

The point of that scene in the documentary Invisible Empire, from my understanding, was to show how such a small documentary had impacted and changed or possibly even influenced the perspectives of people world wide including prominent people in America like Kevin Smith. Saying it was completely taken out of context is deceptive, you make it seem like Kevin Smith was in fact ridiculing or making fun of the documentary when that wasn't the case.

[lord_casek]

Russell: Ban Kai Moon wasn't making fun of the New World Order. He was presenting it

in the open.

 

Seems I posted the wrong article. Forgive me. I was in a rush earlier.

 

Here is the article I meant to post

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/opinion/26iht-edban.html?_r=1

 

Another in which he is just as clear:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-climate-ban16-2009dec16,0,1781040.story

 

"we will establish a global governance structure to monitor and manage the implementation of this"

 

 

 

 

 

 

Copehhagen was a failure because developing nations got wind of the plan to fuck them over and protested this.

 

Collectivism is the stated goal.

 

 

 

 

[lord_casek]

Christo:

 

http://www.2shared.com/file/12668343/69418777/InvisibleEmpire.html

[lord_casek]

Now we know the truth. The financial meltdown wasn't a mistake – it was a con

 

Hiding behind the complexities of our financial system, banks and other institutions are being accused of fraud and deception, with Goldman Sachs just the latest in the spotlight. This has become the most pressing election issue of all

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/18/goldman-sachs-regulators-civil-charges

[Fist 666]

about something i already believe in? hahaha. don't be silly chilly Willy 666.

 

speechless.

you see the problem with what you're saying, correct?

[christo-f]

You're equating this to a new world order?!

 

Dude, this is the effort to make a multilateral agreement to reign in the amount of pollutants put in to the atmosphere. There will be no actual government in this, they will have no police force and as like the UN or any other multilateral structure it will take the vast majority of other nations to act in concert to make the idea work.

 

When has that ever happened in history?

 

And you are totally misguided in thinking that Copenhagen didn't work because the developing nations thought they were getting fucked over. It was a competition between the US and China. The US wants the domestic kudos for an environmental win, China wants the US to send them green tech. The US says no because they know the Chinese will just reverse engineer and then dominate the green tech industry (massive growth industry) and the Chinese say that they will not reign in their massive growth (based on burning coal) and not get anything out of it.

 

It is not a developing world Vs. the rest thing at all. It is simple commercial interest Vs. commercial. Which I might add is the way all things are and always have been; a competition between nations. The developing world doesn't want to stop polluting the world because they are getting rich, the US wants a domestic win and to be the green tech leader. That's it in a nut shell.

 

I really don't see how creating an agreement to try and limit the amount of damage we are collectively doing equates to a new world order (like it's being made out) or how it is even a bad thing?!

 

 

 

We Can Do It

 

 

By BAN KI-MOON

Published: October 25, 2009

Every day, the critical December summit in Copenhagen grows closer. All agree that climate change is an existential threat to humankind. Yet agreement on what to do still eludes us.

 

How can this be? The issues are complex, affecting everything from national economies to individual lifestyles. They involve political trade-offs and commitments of resources no leader can undertake lightly. We could see all that at recent climate negotiations in Bangkok. Where we needed progress, we saw gridlock.

 

Yet the elements of a deal are on the table. All we require to put them in place is political will. We need to step back from narrow national interest and engage in frank and constructive discussion in a spirit of global common cause.

 

In this, we can be optimistic. Meeting in London earlier this week, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown told the leaders of 17 major economies (responsible for some 80 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions) that success in Copenhagen is within reach—if they themselves engage, and especially if they themselves go to Copenhagen to push an agenda for change.

 

U.S. leadership is crucial. That is why I am encouraged by the spirit of compromise shown in the bipartisan initiative announced last week by John Kerry and Lindsey Graham. Here was a pair of U.S. senators — one Republican, the other Democratic — coming together to bridge their parties’ differences to address climate change in a spirit of genuine give-and-take.

 

We cannot afford another period where the United States stands on the sidelines. An engaged United States can lead the world to seal a deal to combat climate change in Copenhagen. An indecisive or insufficiently engaged United States will cause unnecessary — and ultimately unaffordable — delay in concrete strategies and policies to beat this looming challenge.

 

Leaders across the globe are increasingly showing the engagement and leadership we need. Last month, President Barack Obama joined more than 100 others at a climate change summit at U.N. headquarters in New York — sending a clear message of solidarity and commitment. So did the leaders of China, Japan and South Korea, all of whom pledged to promote the development of clean energy technologies and ensure that Copenhagen is a success.

 

Japan’s prime minister promised a 25 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2020, laying down a marker for other industrialized nations. The European Union, too, has pledged to make a 30 percent reduction as part of a global agreement. Norway has announced its readiness for a 40 percent cut in emissions. Brazil has unveiled plans to substantially cut emissions from deforestation. India and China are implanting programs to curb emissions as well.

 

Looking forward to Copenhagen, I have four benchmarks for success:

 

Every country must do its utmost to reduce emissions from all major sources, including from deforestation and emissions from shipping and aviation. Developed countries must strengthen their mid-term mitigation targets, which are currently nowhere close to the cuts that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says are needed. Developing countries must slow the rise in their emissions and accelerate green growth as part of their strategies to reduce poverty.

 

A successful deal must strengthen the world’s ability to cope with an already changing climate. In particular, it must provide comprehensive support to those who bear the heaviest climate impacts. Support for adaptation is not only an ethical imperative; it is a smart investment in a more stable, secure world.

 

A deal needs to be backed by money and the means to deliver it. Developing countries need funding and technology so they can move more quickly toward green growth. The solutions we discuss cannot be realized without substantial additional financing, including through carbon markets and private investment.

 

A deal must include an equitable global governance structure. All countries must have a voice in how resources are deployed and managed. That is how trust will be built.

 

Can we seal a comprehensive, equitable and ambitious deal in Copenhagen that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit global temperature rise to a scientifically safe level? Can we catalyze clean energy growth? Can we help to protect the most vulnerable nations from the effects of climate change? Can we expect the United States to play a leading role?

 

The best answer to all these questions was given last week by Senators Kerry and Graham: “Yes, we can.”

 

Ban Ki-moon is secretary general of the United Nations.

[lord_casek]

Has Anyone Read the Copenhagen Agreement?

 

U.N. plans for a new 'government' are scary.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703574604574500580285679074.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#printMode

 

 

Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text

 

U.N. chief weighs in on climate talk expectations

 

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says he expects a final treaty to be signed by mid-2010. He also defends the U.N.'s role as the overseer of funding from developed to developing nations.

 

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-climate-ban16-2009dec16,0,1781040.story

 

 

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/gaef3260.doc.htm

[Removed]

The argument presented in this film is so far distorted that it doesn't deserve the time it would take for me to write a reply. I can say this after watching 13 minutes.

 

If anyone who is even vaguely politically informed believes this ridiculous stuff then good luck to them.. haha

 

I mean I don't really want to get started here but even the short soundbytes that are presented to sound like they support loose change, or are talking about the 'new world order' are obviously speaking about entirely different things. Tony Blair. for example, held a belief in a particular kind of cosmopolitanism. Look it up! When Fukuyama talked about the end of history, he was suggesting that liberal democracy has become the dominant paradigm, not hinting towards the final stages of completion for a global conspiracy.

I could go on but I would really be wasting my time. I highly suggest to anyone who has a legitimate interest in politics or history to actually read about it themselves rather than build a shallow and simplistic view based on internet released films, wiki pages and Alex Jones blogs.

[christo-f]

Forget the Agreement for a minute, did you read the articles that you posted?

 

 

 

The WSJ Janet Albrechston Article Says:

The aim is to give a new as yet unnamed U.N. body the power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty.

 

The position of this article is that the UN will take control of this issue and force governments to pay money to developing countries and the US will form a new "world government" to do this. Basically saying that this new government will have unprecedented controls over all signatories to the convention.

 

 

However the Guardian article you posted says the opposite:

 

world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.

 

and that it will

 

Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance

 

 

And the interview with Ban Ki Moon is the exact same one you posted earlier.

 

Both articles directly contradict each other, so which one is it? Should we be more afraid of a global Un govt or that the US is controlling things through the WB as usual?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And let's take a look at Monckton's claims as well. He says that all signatories will have to pay, as an example listed, 2% of int. financial transactions and that the UN will have "the power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty".

 

Um, how?

 

 

Casek, before you post any more links up, because that's what you resort to when you cannot give a straight answer to a question, I want you to answer me this:

 

 

How can the UN force a nation, any nation to do something?

 

 

Take for example, the US said "fuck you UN, I'm not paying my 2%".

 

What would the UN do, under this new agreement and government?

 

 

 

You have to answer this before we can move on because your claims are of a new world order and this is evidence of it. For this single point that you have made here to be taken seriously, you have to explain how the UN can and would enforce itself on the US.

[Pet]

thats called blind ignorance.

 

"rather not learn something, because of another persons voice"

 

Movie was done VERY well. Because everyime one of these comes out, there's always someone making excuses as to why it's false, this movie leaves no room for the haters to squirm around.

 

 

Slightly related...

[lord_casek]

Forget the Agreement for a minute, did you read the articles that you posted?

 

 

 

The WSJ Janet Albrechston Article Says:

The aim is to give a new as yet unnamed U.N. body the power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty.

 

The position of this article is that the UN will take control of this issue and force governments to pay money to developing countries and the US will form a new "world government" to do this. Basically saying that this new government will have unprecedented controls over all signatories to the convention.

 

 

However the Guardian article you posted says the opposite:

 

world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN's role in all future climate change negotiations.

 

and that it will

 

Weaken the UN's role in handling climate finance

 

 

And the interview with Ban Ki Moon is the exact same one you posted earlier.

 

Both articles directly contradict each other, so which one is it? Should we be more afraid of a global Un govt or that the US is controlling things through the WB as usual?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And let's take a look at Monckton's claims as well. He says that all signatories will have to pay, as an example listed, 2% of int. financial transactions and that the UN will have "the power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty".

 

Um, how?

 

 

Casek, before you post any more links up, because that's what you resort to when you cannot give a straight answer to a question, I want you to answer me this:

 

 

How can the UN force a nation, any nation to do something?

 

 

Take for example, the US said "fuck you UN, I'm not paying my 2%".

 

What would the UN do, under this new agreement and government?

 

 

 

You have to answer this before we can move on because your claims are of a new world order and this is evidence of it. For this single point that you have made here to be taken seriously, you have to explain how the UN can and would enforce itself on the US.

 

 

Haven't they already imposed their shit on us? don't we have UN parks in our country now?

International Biosphere Reserves? How'd they do that? I don't remember voting on that?

[christo-f]

No, answer my question, don't ask another question in place of an answer.

 

You're the one making the claim, tell me how it will work.

[twonpoo]

 

Slightly related...

 

thats pretty fuckin good find right there. I emjoyed that, and I can't speak for most people but for myself, I have my own feelings on the subject at hand, but that doesn't mean I'm not interested in reading these debates. On the contrary I enjoy coming here multiple times a day to read the back and forth. So I don't really think I fall into the closed mind claiming everyone else is close minded group, although I see them all the time for sure. just cool to see it broken down in this animated video, with some funny humor int here as well.

 

anyways, that was god, back to the debate.

[russell jones]

russell, I believe you have a very one dimensional view of this particular documentary and the term New World Order. I keep very up to date on this topic, and I know from the way you are speaking about it that you aren't as savvy to it. All I can really say to you is that you should objectively, with an open mind, put more of an effort into listening to the information and seeing where it leads you. You are probably even more capable of comprehending it than I am, and you can come to your own conclusions. I don't ever attempt to persuade anyone that this is real. I simply state my own personal views on it through life experiences with the system, and through my own research that is unique to me. I disagree with you that small groups can not control or maintain the huge mechanisms and institutions that govern our society. To me, this is something that has occurred throughout history and is not impossible. Zbigniew Brzezinski himself acknowledges and admits to insidious influence in politics in the very documentary we are discussing here.

 

As for Copenhagen, it did fail miserably but it doesn't mean that a) the concept of global governance was pushed and advocated by this current establishment, and b) that it will die with Copenhagen. I believe I read somewhere that Copenhagen wasn't a complete failure, and certain other kinds of agreements were made that our current administration plans on continuing to pursue. I have no idea of the specifics of those agreements, or what they entail because I simply didn't research it.

 

 

 

Also, I'd like to address your comment here about the Kevin Smith scene in the documentary. You make the claim that the quote concerning Loose Change, the documentary Bermas previously collaborated on, was taken out of context and made to "seem like he took Loose Change seriously". Well, the context of that direct quote was from a podcast Kevin Smith regularly ran on the internet called a "Smodcast", and that particular cast was initially speaking about a documentary concerning UFO's. Kevin Smith called this particular documentary about UFO's, the "Loose Change" of UFO documentaries, and then proceeded to make the quote included within Invisible Empire. The context then continues on to discuss UFO's, in a somewhat legitimate yet hilarious conversation about the possibilities of there actually being UFO's, and aliens, and alien technology. So, I don't really see how the context of this conversation is negative, or unsupportive of the documentary Loose Change. He doesn't outright say that he believes anything in Loose Change, but he does say it is very convincing and continues to have a conversation about a UFO documentary which implies that he has an interest in this kind of alternative information. You can listen to the actual podcast yourself here:

 

http://www.asitecalledfred.com/2007/06/04/smodcast-14/

 

and here is the actual quote:

 

 

 

The point of that scene in the documentary Invisible Empire, from my understanding, was to show how such a small documentary had impacted and changed or possibly even influenced the perspectives of people world wide including prominent people in America like Kevin Smith. Saying it was completely taken out of context is deceptive, you make it seem like Kevin Smith was in fact ridiculing or making fun of the documentary when that wasn't the case.

 

To respond to the first part, about having an open mind. I think I have an open mind to any view that is supported by facts and clear arguments. I see very little in Invisible Empire other than out of context quotes and connections between facts, quotes and historical events that are questionable at best, totally incomprehensible and muddled at worst.

 

As far as the Kevin Smith quote, maybe my sarcasm meter is broken, but even from the quote that you have posted here, it is clear that Smith is mocking it, while acknowledging its power to persuade by overwhelming the viewer.

 

I also have a bullshit meter, so stringing a bunch of unrelated shit together that sounds suspicious does not make a good argument for me.

 

With Zbigniew Brzezinski, I was barely paying attention by the time he appeared in the video, but what he had to say seemed legit. I didn't see how his statements supported the overall thesis of the film, which is that a small group of conspirators want to create a one world government based on a collective society. By the way, Brzezinski endorsed Barack Obama for president.

 

Thanks Christo for responding to the articles Casek posted. Don't really have the time to do so myself.

[russell jones]

Christo, in one of your posts you asked "is this even a bad thing?"

 

Good point, I was thinking the same thing. Multilateral agreements to solve global problems like AGW and energy could be beneficial. They lack authority to punish, but they get governments and businesses moving in some good directions.

[viperface]

I watched 5 minutes.

 

Then dude tries to prove the existance or relevacy of the hardcore version of NWO just because famous people have used the phrase "new world order" in their speech.

The term could mean anything from post-cold war geopolitics to some roswell reptilian banker masons.

 

I think every institution from UN to WWF, IAEA, NATO etc. is subject to bribery or other means of manipulation. No doubt about it, because it makes sense in capitalism and political power, geopolitics etc. I believe in corruption and organized crime. not conspiracies

 

sorry about the lack of effort but these "documentaries" are a fucking grief. Real journalism is dying.

[twonpoo]

to all the nay sayers, It might benefit you to watch more then the dramatic intro, then coming here and just voicing your movie review.

 

"I saw the first 5 minutes of the Lord of the Rings, I donlt believe it's real, so I walked out, and talked about it outside int he parking lot instead"

 

 

smh.

[Zig]

to all the nay sayers, It might benefit you to watch more then the dramatic intro, then coming here and just voicing your movie review.

 

"I saw the first 5 minutes of the Lord of the Rings, I donlt believe it's real, so I walked out, and talked about it outside int he parking lot instead"

 

 

smh.

 

yea, basically.

 

i mean, i would love to have a real debate about this issue but most people here have a hard time even comprehending it because they won't look into the information. if your making claims that things are pulled out of context, and woven together, then back it up with the full context of the quotes you are talking about and lets have a real discussion. otherwise you are just basing your opinion off of your own personal biased slant towards the concept discussed in the film.

 

none of you are mentioning anything about the film besides maybe the first 15 minutes, and hey... if you want to debate the first 15 minutes thats fine too. lets pull out all of those new world order quotes, and discuss the full context of them and why they ARE relevant to one another. id be happy to do that, if any of you have the ability to post more then 2-3 sentence replies that just dismiss the argument entirely because you don't want to get into any real discussion about the issue.

[El Mamerro]

People don't want to get into real discussion about the issue because it's really not worth the time and effort to us. Most of us have traveled that road before and found it pretty unrewarding in the end. You obviously don't agree with that, too bad.

 

If a movie or a documentary doesn't present a compelling case to continue watching beyond the opening 15 minutes, it is fundamentally flawed from a storytelling and educational perspective and probably not worth watching.

 

What IS worth watching, however, is that clip Pet posted.

[twonpoo]

education isnt always as entertaining as a michael bay film.

[El Mamerro]

Engaging, compelling ≠ entertaining