: : The UN report is just another good example of the New World Order propoganda machine, reaching out to the have-nots in an attempt to conjure up emotional responses which will hopefully (in the UN's mind) lead to sweeping changes worldwide, and create fertile ground for the planting of socialism.: Whoa there! What makes you think the New World Order propaganda machine is interested in reaching out to the have-nots? Links like this one would seem to indicate otherwise, that the media are cozying up to the clubs of the elite rather than, for instance, slave labor in China. Have you EVIDENCE (if you believe in such a thing) to the contrary?
I have no prima facia evidence of the media cozying up to anyone. However, I fail to see what the personal finances of the super wealthy have to do with hunger and lack of education in any country. I can only assume the intent of the statement in the HDR, 1996 was to illustrate the vast gap between the richest and the poorest of the world. To what end would this statement lead? If you are one of the poorest (I will try to place myself in that position for the sake of this argument), what would you think about that statement? That if only the richest 7 people would liquidate, you would be on easy street? Or that the richest 7 people got that way by taking it from you? What was implied by the statement?
I don't dispute the fact, but disagree with the inclusion of that statement, and others like it, in that type of report. A more appropriate place for that tidbit of info would be "Ripleys Believe It Or Not".
Quoting from your link:
"Critics of the Bilderberg say that the secret group:
òperceives itself as being supra-governmental;
òmanipulates global finances and establishes rigid and binding monetary rates around the world;
òselects political figures whom the Bilderberg decrees should become rulers, and targets those whom it wants removed from power;
òdecides which countries shall wage war on others."
The same statements could be made about the UN, especially the permanent members of the Security Council.
Also, in any given circumstance, whichever side you are on, any form of public communication which supports your belief is considered evidence, and any communication which contradicts your position is propoganda or just plain wrong.
I try to keep my "depolarizing filters" on when listening to any report, from any source. In other words, I try to keep an open mind.
