FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
G8 Aims for a G20 New World Order
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Posts: 56

PostPosted: Mon Dec 01, 2008 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If I could sum up the broader dynamics at play it would be "big things breaking into small things". This is good. The forces of consolidation are swimming up an ever more rushing stream. Some once-thought immovable objects, such as Big Church, Big Media and Big Energy, have begun to break into smaller and more agile pieces. Big Pharma and Big Industrial Food are still on the grow, but the small forces constituting their demise have already begun to dampen their power and will eventually consume them (never completely, as the human capacity for ignorance and suicide-by-chemicals knows no bounds).

What remains still are the big duo of centralized money and centralized authority (Big Gov with Big Guns),- husband and wife of an aging dysfunctional family. Unfortunately, they still have some Mo' on their side, but lack the support of the subtle supernatural forces driving the whole shebang.

I haven't anything more to add except to say that it's discouraging to see Lula (Brazil), the once-poor northeastern man-of-the-people sucking up to the other G19 in that photo shoot. Disgusting. Brazilians were, and are still (to a slightly lesser degree) so deceived by that clown. He hasn't done shit for the people here and many believe that he has. A guy like him probably sold his soul for an ipod and a 40" plasma screen TV.

"There is only one admirable form of the imagination: the imagination that is so intense that it creates a new reality, that it makes things happen." - Sean O'Faolain
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 3861

PostPosted: Sat Dec 06, 2008 8:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Forty minutes in. Sorry, Fintan.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 17 Dec 2008
Posts: 4
Location: Thailand

PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:54 am    Post subject: 9.11 Reply with quote

I am new here this is my first post I read at the bottom I could not post any reason thank you
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger

Joined: 17 Dec 2008
Posts: 4
Location: Thailand

PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 6:24 am    Post subject: MLK Reply with quote

I am reading your post about MLK and if I am reading it correctly
you are saying he was one of there pawns. if so why did they kill him ?
as a new member I am reading some wild off the wall crap
we all know they have been trying to get a NWO for some time
I doubt very much if you get all those countries to sign on
yes it will be a struggle for power that why in my opinion
it will fail. do you honestly think Russia will let the USA be boss or visa versa
I think some of you better stop sampling the LSD. Evelyn post was pretty close to the mark she said people depend on government to help them
which is true we put our faith & trust as well as our money for a better
future. it when our government sells out to the multi national corporations
that cause problems like we are having to day in our global market
Merry Christmas & happy New Year to all of you as well as Happy Hanukah
to the Jewish people may God Bless us all
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger

Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 3861

PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2008 7:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote


welcome to our forum. You can say anything here. And you have.

ณะห ฟสส เนืำ ธ้ฟร

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8439

PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote


He's writing in the International Herald Tribune last week.

Think of it as a progress report:

The chance for a new world order

By Henry A. Kissinger - January 12, 2009

As the new U.S. administration prepares to take office amid
grave financial and international crises, it may seem counterintuitive
to argue that the very unsettled nature of the international system
generates a unique opportunity for creative diplomacy.

That opportunity involves a seeming contradiction. On one level, the
financial collapse represents a major blow to the standing of the United
States. While American political judgments have often proved
controversial, the American prescription for a world financial order has
generally been unchallenged. Now disillusionment with the United States'
management of it is widespread.

At the same time, the magnitude of the debacle makes it impossible for
the rest of the world to shelter any longer behind American predominance
or American failings.

Every country will have to reassess its own contribution to the prevailing
crisis. Each will seek to make itself independent, to the greatest possible
degree, of the conditions that produced the collapse; at the same time,
each will be obliged to face the reality that its dilemmas can be mastered
only by common action.

Even the most affluent countries will confront shrinking resources. Each
will have to redefine its national priorities. An international order will
emerge if a system of compatible priorities comes into being.
It will
fragment disastrously if the various priorities cannot be reconciled.

The nadir of the existing international financial system coincides with
simultaneous political crises around the globe. Never have so many
transformations occurred at the same time in so many different parts of
the world and been made globally accessible via instantaneous
communication. The alternative to a new international order is chaos.

The financial and political crises are, in fact, closely related partly
because, during the period of economic exuberance, a gap had opened up
between the economic and the political organization of the world.

The economic world has been globalized. Its institutions have a global
reach and have operated by maxims that assumed a self-regulating global

The financial collapse exposed the mirage. It made evident the absence of
global institutions to cushion the shock and to reverse the trend.
Inevitably, when the affected publics turned to their national political
institutions, these were driven principally by domestic politics, not
considerations of world order.

Every major country has attempted to solve its immediate problems
essentially on its own and to defer common action to a later, less crisis-
driven point. So-called rescue packages have emerged on a piecemeal
national basis, generally by substituting seemingly unlimited governmental
credit for the domestic credit that produced the debacle in the first place -
so far without more than stemming incipient panic.

International order will not come about either in the political or economic
field until there emerge general rules toward which countries can orient

In the end, the political and economic systems can be harmonized in only
one of two ways: by creating an international political regulatory
system with the same reach as that of the economic world;
or by
shrinking the economic units to a size manageable by existing political
structures, which is likely to lead to a new mercantilism, perhaps of
regional units.

A new Bretton Woods-kind of global agreement is by far the
preferable outcome.
America's role in this enterprise will be decisive.
Paradoxically, American influence will be great in proportion to the
modesty in our conduct; we need to modify the righteousness that has
characterized too many American attitudes, especially since the collapse
of the Soviet Union.

That seminal event and the subsequent period of nearly uninterrupted
global growth induced too many to equate world order with the acceptance
of American designs, including our domestic preferences.

The result was a certain inherent unilateralism - the standard complaint of
European critics - or else an insistent kind of consultation by which nations
were invited to prove their fitness to enter the international system by
conforming to American prescriptions.

Not since the inauguration of President John F. Kennedy half a century ago
has a new administration come into office with such a reservoir of
expectations. It is unprecedented that all the principal actors on the
world stage are avowing their desire to undertake the transformations
imposed on them by the world crisis in collaboration with the United

The extraordinary impact of the president-elect on the imagination of
humanity is an important element in shaping a new world order.
But it
defines an opportunity, not a policy.

The ultimate challenge is to shape the common concern of most
countries and all major ones regarding the economic crisis, together
with a common fear of jihadist terrorism, into a common strategy

reinforced by the realization that the new issues like proliferation, energy
and climate change permit no national or regional solution.

The new administration could make no worse mistake than to rest on its
initial popularity. The cooperative mood of the moment needs to be
channeled into a grand strategy going beyond the controversies of the
recent past.

The charge of American unilateralism has some basis in fact; it also has
become an alibi for a key European difference with America: that the
United States still conducts itself as a national state capable of asking its
people for sacrifices for the sake of the future, while Europe, suspended
between abandoning its national framework and a yet-to-be-reached
political substitute, finds it much harder to defer present benefits.

Hence its concentration on soft power. Most Atlantic controversies have
been substantive and only marginally procedural; there would have been
conflict no matter how intense the consultation. The Atlantic partnership
will depend much more on common policies than agreed procedures.

The role of China in a new world order is equally crucial. A relationship
that started on both sides as essentially a strategic design to constrain a
common adversary has evolved over the decades into a pillar of the
international system.

China made possible the American consumption splurge by buying
American debt; America helped the modernization and reform of the
Chinese economy by opening its markets to Chinese goods.

Both sides overestimated the durability of this arrangement. But while it
lasted, it sustained unprecedented global growth. It mitigated as well the
concerns over China's role once China emerged in full force as a fellow
superpower. A consensus had developed according to which adversarial
relations between these pillars of the international system would destroy
much that had been achieved and benefit no one. That conviction needs to
be preserved and reinforced.

Each side of the Pacific needs the cooperation of the other in addressing
the consequences of the financial crisis. Now that the global financial
collapse has devastated Chinese export markets, China is emphasizing
infrastructure development and domestic consumption.

It will not be easy to shift gears rapidly, and the Chinese growth rate may
fall temporarily below the 7.5 percent that Chinese experts have always
defined as the line that challenges political stability. America needs
Chinese cooperation to address its current account imbalance and to
prevent its exploding deficits from sparking a devastating inflation.

What kind of global economic order arises will depend importantly on how
China and America deal with each other over the next few years. A
frustrated China may take another look at an exclusive regional Asian
structure, for which the nucleus already exists in the Asean-plus-three

At the same time, if protectionism grows in America or if China comes to
be seen as a long-term adversary, a self-fulfilling prophecy may blight the
prospects of global order.

Such a return to mercantilism and 19th-century diplomacy would divide
the world into competing regional units with dangerous long-term

The Sino-American relationship needs to be taken to a new level.
The current crisis can be overcome only by developing a sense of
common purpose. Such issues as proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction, energy and the environment demand strengthened political
ties between China and the United States.

This generation of leaders has the opportunity to shape trans-Pacific
relations into a design for a common destiny, much as was done with
trans-Atlantic relations in the immediate postwar period - except that the
challenges now are more political and economic than military.

Such a vision must embrace as well such countries as Japan, Korea, India,
Indonesia, Australia and New Zealand, whether as part of trans-Pacific
structures or, in regional arrangements, dealing with special subjects as
energy, proliferation and the environment.

The complexity of the emerging world requires from America a more
historical approach than the insistence that every problem has a final
solution expressible in programs with specific time limits not infrequently
geared to our political process.

We must learn to operate within the attainable and be prepared to
pursue ultimate ends by the accumulation of nuance

An international order can be permanent only if its participants have a
share not only in building but also in securing it. In this manner, America
and its potential partners have a unique opportunity to transform a
moment of crisis into a vision of hope.

Henry A. Kissinger served as national security adviser and as
secretary of state in the administrations of Presidents Richard Nixon
and Gerald Ford. Distributed by Tribune Media Services.


Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 3861

PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Damn it!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Big Boss

Joined: 04 May 2008
Posts: 828
Location: Outer Heaven

PostPosted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 1:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you.....Mr. Kissinger for the wonderful piece of Globalist rhetoric and propoganda. He basically, and in a nutshell expressed what will take place politically quite soon if not already. You ok Atm lol.....I know, I know.....it just makes you want to yell it all the time, those scumf*cks like Kissinger.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8439

PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2009 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Things not going smoothly for the G20,
with talk of even reducing it to a G13.

Calls grow within G8 to expel Italy as summit plans descend into chaos

While US tries to inject purpose into meeting, Italy is lambasted for poor planning and reneging on overseas aid commitments

guardian.co.uk, Monday 6 July 2009 19.30 BST

Preparations for Wednesday's G8 summit in the Italian mountain town of L'Aquila have been so chaotic there is growing pressure from other member states to have Italy expelled from the group, according to senior western officials.

In the last few weeks before the summit, and in the absence of any substantive initiatives on the agenda, the US has taken control. Washington has organised "sherpa calls" (conference calls among senior officials) in a last-ditch bid to inject purpose into the meeting.

"For another country to organise the sherpa calls is just unprecedented. It's a nuclear option," said one senior G8 member state official. "The Italians have been just awful. There have been no processes and no planning."

"The G8 is a club, and clubs have membership dues. Italy has not been paying them," said a European official involved in the summit preparations.

The behind-the-scenes grumbling has gone as far as suggestions that Italy could be pushed out of the G8 or any successor group. One possibility being floated in European capitals is that Spain, which has higher per capita national income and gives a greater percentage of GDP in aid, would take Italy's place.

The Italian foreign ministry did not reply yesterday to a request to comment on the criticisms.

"The Italian preparations for the summit have been chaotic from start to finish," said Richard Gowan, an analyst at the Centre for International Co-operation at New York University.

"The Italians were saying as long ago as January this year that they did not have a vision of the summit, and if the Obama administration had any ideas they would take instruction from the Americans."

The US-led talks led to agreement on a food security initiative a few days before the L'Aquila meeting, the overall size of which is still being negotiated. Gordon Brown has said Britain would contribute 1.1bn to the scheme, designed to support farmers in developing countries.

However, officials who have seen the rest of the draft joint statement say there is very little new in it. Critics say Italy's Berlusconi government has made up for the lack of substance by increasing the size of the guest list. Estimates of the numbers of heads of state coming to L'Aquila range from 39 to 44.

"This is a gigantic fudge," Gowan said. "The Italians have no ideas and have decided that best thing to do is to spread the agenda extremely thinly to obscure the fact that didn't really have an agenda."

Silvio Berlusconi has come in for harsh criticism for delivering only 3% of development aid promises made four years ago, and for planning cuts of more than 50% in Italy's overseas aid budget.

Meanwhile, media coverage in the run-up to the meeting has been dominated by Berlusconi's parties with young women, and then the wisdom of holding a summit in a region experiencing seismic aftershocks three months after a devastating earthquake as a gesture of solidarity with the local population.

The heavy criticism of Italy comes at a time when the future of the G8 as a forum for addressing the world's problems is very much in question. At the beginning of the year the G20 group, which included emerging economies, was seen as a possible replacement, but the G20 London summit in April convinced US officials it was too unwieldy a vehicle.

The most likely replacement for the G8 is likely to be between 13- and 16-strong, including rising powers such as China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa, which currently attend meetings as the "outreach five" But any transition would be painful as countries jostle for a seat. Italy's removal is seen in a possibility but Spanish membership in its place is unlikely. The US and the emerging economies believe the existing group is too Euro-centric already, and would prefer consolidated EU representation. That is seen as unlikely. No European state wants to give up their place at the table.


Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 25 Sep 2006
Posts: 164
Location: Perth, Australia

PostPosted: Sun Sep 04, 2016 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A nice photo shot at the 2016 G20 Hangzhou summit in China in the weekend.

Deserves it's own Caption Competition.

"Any one who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices." Voltaire
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.