New World Order

[Jim Hardie]

24 minutes ago, Longcol said:

It's 46 minutes long - where does Blair mention "new world order"?

Who said he did?

[Longcol]

2 minutes ago, Jim Hardie said:

Who said he did?

Right - so Blair never said owt about a new world order at the WEF.

[Jim Hardie]

17 minutes ago, Longcol said:

Right - so Blair never said owt about a new world order at the WEF.

Who said he did?

[Anna B]

Ok, I've watched the video, and also a counter culture video where Albert Bourla is asked some very interesting and pertinent questions which need answers which he refuses to give.

I think the fact that we have a 'World Economic Forum' is not a bad idea in a global world, but it worries me that it's leaders /members are unelected elites, each with an underlying agenda to push things to their own advantage. 

 

This is what people are afraid of.

Edited January 21, 2023 by Anna B

[trastrick]

5 hours ago, Anna B said:

Ok, I've watched the video, and also a counter culture video where Albert Bourla is asked some very interesting and pertinent questions which need answers which he refuses to give.

I think the fact that we have a 'World Economic Forum' is not a bad idea in a global world, but it worries me that it's leaders /members are unelected elites, each with an underlying agenda to push things to their own advantage. 

 

This is what people are afraid of.

Nice to know this ultra rich, ultra liberal "select group of human beings" can spare a few moments of their precious time to care for the World.

 

We should be all grateful! 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 21, 2023 by trastrick

[melthebell]

9 hours ago, Longcol said:

Right - so Blair never said owt about a new world order at the WEF.

Hes talking about vaccine mandates, it's been inserted into the video daddy posted as part of the new world order.

I wanted to see it in context, I doubt it does fit in the new world order though

[Anna B]

3 hours ago, trastrick said:

Nice to know this ultra rich, ultra liberal "select group of human beings" can spare a few moments of their precious time to care for the World.

 

We should be all grateful! 

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately, their way of saving the world is to cut the population from 8 Billion to 6 Billion as quickly as possible.

Shame about the 2 Billion....

[trastrick]

1 hour ago, Anna B said:

Unfortunately, their way of saving the world is to cut the population from 8 Billion to 6 Billion as quickly as possible.

Shame about the 2 Billion....

Here's another DAVOS billionaire who has his, but is desperate to stop the rest of the world from getting theirs!

 

UNHINGED: Al Gore flips-out at the World Economic Forum...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlwtQbKLdxk

 

 

 

 

Edited January 21, 2023 by trastrick

[ECCOnoob]

2 hours ago, Anna B said:

Unfortunately, their way of saving the world is to cut the population from 8 Billion to 6 Billion as quickly as possible.

Shame about the 2 Billion....

He's right though.   Its being widely established that population numbers are a major contributor towards climate change and the environmental impact.

 

It is regular talked about, even in jest, how the most sustainable living, cycling, ecomentalist, vegan, self sufficient couple choosing to breed a child can cause more damage to the planet than the most gas guzzling, cow eating, NASCAR loving, 4x4 driving, childless couple.

 

We have all seen around the world how there are poverty stricken nations struggling on meager resources and having to regularly appeal for handouts from other more wealthy provinces but are still breeding like rabbits. Vast numbers of children born every year with nothing and parents and cultures who continue to spawn with no thought for their impact on their own and other dwindling resources.

 

It is far from being the only contributory factor of course.  There is wider aspects of human, corporate and political responsibility playing their part too.    But population cannot simply be dismissed as some throw away soundbite or headline just because some unpopular rich person said it. Doesnt make it wrong.

Edited January 21, 2023 by ECCOnoob

[Anna B]

57 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

He's right though.   Its being widely established that population numbers are a major contributor towards climate change and the environmental impact.

 

It is regular talked about, even in jest, how the most sustainable living, cycling, ecomentalist, vegan, self sufficient couple choosing to breed a child can cause more damage to the planet than the most gas guzzling, cow eating, NASCAR loving, 4x4 driving, childless couple.

 

We have all seen around the world how there are poverty stricken nations struggling on meager resources and having to regularly appeal for handouts from other more wealthy provinces but are still breeding like rabbits. Vast numbers of children born every year with nothing and parents and cultures who continue to spawn with no thought for their impact on their own and other dwindling resources.

 

It is far from being the only contributory factor of course.  There is wider aspects of human, corporate and political responsibility playing their part too.    But population cannot simply be dismissed as some throw away soundbite or headline just because some unpopular rich person said it. Doesnt make it wrong.

I take it you'll be volunteering then, to be one of the 2 BILLION people needing to be dispensed with.

After all, your carbon footprint, as with any Westerner, is 47 times that of some  poverty stricken African, so you'd be a much better candidate for helping save the planet.

Doesn't make it wrong does it?