: : : 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.
Since you see no evidence of the media cozying up to anyone, please explain how you come to see it, that, in YOUR WORDS, "The UN report is just another good example of the New World Order propoganda machine, reaching out to the have-nots" that is planning "sweeping changes worldwide". Otherwise I am likely to discard this statement as something on the order of "the Moon is made of green cheese."
If the UN is really planning sweeping changes worldwide, how could they have missed the possibility of using mass media? If the UN is REALLY (?) part of the "New World Order," how did they decide to "reach out to the have-nots" WITHOUT using the mass media? The rest of the New World Order (the Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bohemian Club etc.) which is comprised of secret organizations, with the mass media under their full control, and which serve the rich, use the mass media to spread THEIR New World Order propaganda EVERY DAY, and the only "socialism" they promote is a socialism of the super-rich only.
As for your failing to see "what the personal finances of the super wealthy have to do with hunger and lack of education in any country," let's for instance take my example, the example of slave labor in China. Might the personal finances of the wealthiest Chinese have something to do with the fact that THEY PROFIT OFF OF slave labor? Might the super-wealth of Nike's ownership (not to mention the super-wealth of Nike advertisers such as Michael Jordan) have something to do with the conditions of Nike's labor force in countries such as Vietnam, where the women working for Nike are paid $.24 an hour and where they are routinely beaten by the employer if they fail to make quotas? Isn't the valued thing about this labor force that it is CHEAP and COMPLIANT and therefore EXPLOITABLE for HUGE PROFITS? What distinguishes the activities of the super-rich if it ISN'T the making of huge profits?
Does world hunger have anything to do with this idea that maybe the rich are PROFITING off the poor, that maybe the activities of the rich and the activities of the poor have SOMETHING TO DO WITH each other? Now here's another big leap. If you were one of the 800 million suffering from chronic malnutrition, would you rather work in a factory for practically nothing, or would you rather starve to death? Or to put it another way, can the multinationals impose slave labor conditions upon the world BECAUSE OF this alternative threat of dying from hunger-related conditions?
: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".
So you don't like others talking about facts because of some unsubstantiated speculation of yours as regards what people might DO with these facts. Your "trying to place yourself in the position of one of the poorest" is unconvincing. What do you know about the very poor of this world? Do you know that their BRAINS get enough PROTEIN to DO ANYTHING AT ALL with some abstract UN fact about wealth? And even if they were free from hunger, are the very poor in a SOCIAL POSITION to do anything with abstract data about wealth? The answer, of course, is NOTHING.
: Quoting from your link:
: "Critics of the Bilderberg say that the secret group:
: *perceives itself as being supra-governmental;
: *manipulates global finances and establishes rigid and binding monetary rates around the world;
: *selects political figures whom the Bilderberg decrees should become rulers, and targets those whom it wants removed from power;
: *decides which countries shall wage war on others."
:
: The same statements could be made about the UN, especially the permanent members of the Security Council.
But there are three major differences between the UN and Bilderberg. The UN is a STATIST organization, claiming to represent only NATIONS. The UN is PUBLIC, open to the media. The UN is MULTILATERAL, claiming to represent different and (often) disagreeing parties. The Bilderberg is a CLUB of the OVERALL ELITE, comprised of corporate, government, and academic bigshots. Bilderberg is a SECRET world government. Bilderberg conspires UNILATERALLY.
So would you rather have your world government as a multilateral and public organization, or as a unilateral secret organization?
: 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.
So would my belief that the Moon is made of green cheese be justified if I dismissed the Apollo missions as "propoganda" or "just plain wrong"?
Is there something to this activity that is commonly called the WEIGHING of EVIDENCE, to DETERMINE whether it is true? Or is it best to just pick out a cute saying with a pleasing sound, and dismiss all evidence to the contrary?
: 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.
I see. And your "open mind" has come to the conclusion, after sifting through ALL THE OTHER POSSIBILITIES, that "The UN report is just another good example of the New World Order propoganda machine" that wants to "create fertile ground for the planting of socialism." Tell us, what are these other possibilities you've rejected, and why? How open IS your mind?
None.
