Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (54233)	9/3/1999 5:07:00 AM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Please post the relevant treaties or stop the bull.

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (54233)	9/3/1999 2:58:00 PM
From: jbe	Respond to of 108807

Sidney, what you are outlining here sounds like a conspiracy theory. Now, lest I be accused of using an "ad hominem" argument, let me say that I am not saying your theory is therefore wrong. But you really need to back it up so as to distinguish it from the typical conspiracy theories, which share many points in common. For example, conspiracy theories tend to maintain that the world is being manipulated, behind the scenes, by a single powerful and conspiratorial group of (generally malevolent) Big Brains. Their Brains are so Big that they never do anything stupid; they can foresee the future with incredible accuracy; and when they want something done, they just push the appropriate button, and things go "their way." In fact, they are Supermen. Everything that happens is "rational"; that is, it happens because it is in The Group's interests (cui bono?) to make it happen. No allowance is made for human stupidity, incompetence, irrationality, or disorganization; no allowance is made for the existence of powerful rivals with very different "plans"; etc., etc. Now, to your theory. A couple of points. I am sure that the folks at the Council for Foreign Relations are tickled pink at being considered the key movers & shakers, considering how much time many of them (mostly discarded government officials) spend complaining that nobody listens to them any more. So far as I know, the Council does not include the "establishment of world government" as its goal, but even if it did, so what? The world is full of various groups with various goals. I see no evidence that any one such group is dominant in this country or in the world at large, still less that any one of them is in a position to implement its goals as it sees fit. And as I tried to point out, imposing international controls on something or other can actually enhance national sovereignty, rather than diminish it. A case in point would be imposing controls on currency speculation. I am not familiar with the case you cite, about the establishment of an "International Biosphere Reserve" in The Great Smoky Mountain National Park. But even if it is as you say, I do not see this as an issue of personal freedom. Unfortunately, the environment cannot be divvied up into national sectors. The whole world, not just Brazil, is affected by the destruction of Brazilian rain forests. Less freedom for you to drive your car in that park today may mean that the park will be around for your descendants to be free to enjoy 100 years from now. But I repeat, I am not familiar with the case. Joan