# Start Here > Guest Forum >  Are these people Libertarians?

## Unregistered

I don't know a lot about politics, but a friend of mine has told me that the following political groups are trying to basically take over the world in order to prevent any more wars.

1. The Club of Rome
2. The Council on Foreign relations
3. The Bilderberg Group
4. The Committee of Three Hundred
5. The Trilateral Commission

I know all these groups actually exist because I have looked them up on Google.

I also know that Libertarians champion individual rights, which would obviously be destroyed in the event of a war situation. So I'm wondering if these groups have Libertarian ideas on this matter.

And if they don't have Libertarian ideas, what ideas do they have to prevents wars?

Thanks everyone.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Yes

----------


## Unregistered

> Yes


OK. Thanks.

----------


## Swordsmyth

Absolutely not, those groups want to micromanage your life and they are more than happy to cause wars to get what they want.

----------


## AZJoe

Real vegetarians devour vegetables.
Real pescetarians devour fish.
So it follows that real libertarians must devour liberals.

----------


## Steve Grisham

> Absolutely not, those groups want to micromanage your life and they are more than happy to cause wars to get what they want.


Yes, apparently they are what's known as 'Globalists'.

But I don't know if they have any real power to actually do anything.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Yes, apparently they are what's known as 'Globalists'.
> 
> But I don't know if they have any real power to actually do anything.


Their members have power and they get things done.

----------


## Anti Federalist

You know, he may be asking a serious question...would be nice if one of us gave him an in depth serious answer.

Swordsymth at least tried.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> ...the following political groups are trying to basically take over the world in order to prevent any more wars.



Oh no;  don't tell me they are doing another remake.







Nothing beats an original:

----------


## heavenlyboy34

tl;dr-none of those are libertarian groups.

----------


## Steve Grisham

> You know, he may be asking a serious question...would be nice if one of us gave him an in depth serious answer.


I agree. 

It would be good to see a genuine Libertarian analysis of what these so called 'Globalist' groups actually do, instead of the contradictory stuff you can find on the internet.

If I had the knowledge I would attempt it myself. But unfortunately I don't.

----------


## pcosmar

> I don't know a lot about politics, but a friend of mine has told me that the following political groups are trying to basically take over the world in order to prevent any more wars.
> 
> 1. The Club of Rome
> 2. The Council on Foreign relations
> 3. The Bilderberg Group
> 4. The Committee of Three Hundred
> 5. The Trilateral Commission
> 
> I know all these groups actually exist because I have looked them up on Google.
> ...


Woah dude,, they do not prevent wars,, they cause and feed off the misery..

Your initial premise is incorrect..

----------


## Working Poor

The groups that you mention actually are the worlds power if they want to play war they will play war if they want to play peace they will play peace but, either way probably a lot of people will die.

----------


## Republicanguy

> I don't know a lot about politics, but a friend of mine has told me that the following political groups are trying to basically take over the world in order to prevent any more wars.
> 
> 1. The Club of Rome
> 2. The Council on Foreign relations
> 3. The Bilderberg Group
> 4. The Committee of Three Hundred
> 5. The Trilateral Commission
> 
> I know all these groups actually exist because I have looked them up on Google.
> ...


America seeks to dominate the world to maintain a 25% energy use for 5% of the world's population.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> America seeks to dominate the world to maintain a 25% energy use for 5% of the world's population.

----------


## acptulsa

> America seeks to dominate the world to maintain a 25% energy use for 5% of the world's population.


How else are we going to feed your lazy ass?

----------


## Shortround

All of them espouse a classic liberalism, so Libertarian is befitting them as any here.

----------


## oyarde

> I don't know a lot about politics, but a friend of mine has told me that the following political groups are trying to basically take over the world in order to prevent any more wars.
> 
> 1. The Club of Rome
> 2. The Council on Foreign relations
> 3. The Bilderberg Group
> 4. The Committee of Three Hundred
> 5. The Trilateral Commission
> 
> I know all these groups actually exist because I have looked them up on Google.
> ...


I am unaware of any Liberty principles  practiced by these organizations .

----------


## shakey1

They are the antithesis of liberty.

----------


## opal

ya missed one

the UN

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't know a lot about politics, but a friend of mine has told me that the following political groups are trying to basically take over the world in order to prevent any more wars.
> 
> 1. The Club of Rome
> 2. The Council on Foreign relations
> 3. The Bilderberg Group
> 4. The Committee of Three Hundred
> 5. The Trilateral Commission
> 
> I know all these groups actually exist because I have looked them up on Google.
> ...


In their own way Darth Vader and Emperor Palpatine were trying to end war by killing anyone that opposed them.  And Thanos just wanted to cure universal hunger by killing half of the universe.  Just having stated aims of world peace does not make you libertarian.

----------


## doctorallen

Hello all, 

While here we are trying to argue if the aforementioned people are Libertarians or not, on the other side _trillions of your dollars are being wasted on wars!_

Did you guys know that every year the world is spending more than _2 trillion dollars on maintaining armed forces?


_ Only 20% of that money could have gone into *easily finding a cure* *to** cancer!!*

Don't believe it?? Read what this *latest research has to say .**..*

( Are these facts really true??)


I know a lot of you will find this statement controversial, _but I personally feel cancer cure> wars__.._

Do let me know your thoughts...

Cheerios!

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Hello all, 
> 
> While here we are trying to argue if the aforementioned people are Libertarians or not, on the other side _trillions of your dollars are being wasted on wars!_
> 
> Did you guys know that every year the world is spending more than _2 trillion dollars on maintaining armed forces?
> 
> 
> _ Only 20% of that money could have gone into *easily finding a cure* *to** cancer!!*
> 
> ...




We had no idea.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Hello all, 
> 
> While here we are trying to argue if the aforementioned people are Libertarians or not, on the other side _trillions of your dollars are being wasted on wars!_
> 
> Did you guys know that every year the world is spending more than _2 trillion dollars on maintaining armed forces?
> 
> 
> _ Only 20% of that money could have gone into *easily finding a cure* *to** cancer!!*
> 
> ...


If government spent the money no cure would be found.

----------


## idiom

Both the Fascists and Communists of the 20th century had a goal of freedom and liberation for humanity. However they followed a European idea of liberty propagated by Georg Hegel. What was important was not the freedom of the individual. That seemed meaningless. They instead aimed for the freedom of the 'nation' through the state.

Morality and freedom for the individual came from being aligned with the family and aligned with the state. Freedom for humanity would come from a triumphant Germany run by the workers spreading freedom.

In setting up such a state, anything that helps it to be secure and strong is permissible, including oppression, genocides, wars of aggression, etc. Individuals don't matter per se. Once the State is set up to be healthy and free then all the people within it will also be free by definition.



One can believe in liberty, but there are worlds of difference in what that means, and in the means allowable in achieving it.

----------


## pcosmar

> Hello all, 
> 
> While here we are trying to argue if the aforementioned people are Libertarians or not, on the other side _trillions of your dollars are being wasted on wars!_


And you want to give the same people more money in the hope they will suddenly do right with it?

besides,, the Cure for cancer IS ALREADY KNOWN.

Cannabis

The cure for government is more elusive.

----------


## CaptUSA

> The cure for government is more elusive.


Nah...  According to many in here, the cure for government is more government.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Hello all, 
> 
> While here we are trying to argue if the aforementioned people are Libertarians or not, on the other side _trillions of your dollars are being wasted on wars!_
> 
> Did you guys know that every year the world is spending more than _2 trillion dollars on maintaining armed forces?
> 
> 
> _ Only 20% of that money could have gone into *easily finding a cure* *to** cancer!!*
> 
> ...


Curing cancer would cost a lot of people their jobs.

Quit being a communist.

----------


## Unregistered

This ****** was a libtardian also:

----------


## doctorallen

> If government spent the money no cure would be found.



A lot of experts believe that cancer is a "man-made"disease or a "modern man's disease". This is so because our so-called modern lifestyle has introduced a number of toxins into our systems which are cancer-causing in nature.


Our meats are laced with nitrites - water is brimming with lead - air has all types of heavy metals- and food is artificially flavored with toxic compounds. 

Do you think the government has NO role in regulating these??

----------


## Swordsmyth

> A lot of experts believe that cancer is a "man-made"disease or a "modern man's disease". This is so because our so-called modern lifestyle has introduced a number of toxins into our systems which are cancer-causing in nature.
> 
> 
> Our meats are laced with nitrites - water is brimming with lead - air has all types of heavy metals- and food is artificially flavored with toxic compounds. 
> 
> Do you think the government has NO role in regulating these??


I think the government is not competent when it comes to medicine and is extremely susceptible to corruption.

Government involvement would guarantee political interference and a motivation to never find a cure in order to keep a reason for the bureaucrats involved to keep their budget.

----------


## Superfluous Man

> I know all these groups actually exist because I have looked them up on Google.


Good idea.

----------


## angelatc

> A lot of experts believe that cancer is a "man-made"disease ......


No expert actually believes that.

----------


## H_H

> No expert actually believes that.


Hey Angela, not taking anyone’s side here, but I had a question that may be thought-provoking for all sides:

these experts, if I were talking to them in 1995, telling them that the newly-created Food Pyramid was bogus and stupid, and that cholesterol was fine, good for you and awesome in fact, would they have listened?  What percentage of these “experts” would I have been able to bring around to my point of view?

Zero?  Or negative zero?

Wiuld I need to use imaginary numbers to express it?

What could I have possibly said back in 1995 that would have convinced even a single one of them?

Food for thought....

----------


## Anti Globalist

Remember guys: We all have dormant cancer in all of us.

----------


## angelatc

> Hey Angela, not taking anyone’s side here, but I had a question that may be thought-provoking for all sides:
> 
> these experts, if I were talking to them in 1995, telling them that the newly-created Food Pyramid was bogus and stupid, and that cholesterol was fine, good for you and awesome in fact, would they have listened?  What percentage of these “experts” would I have been able to bring around to my point of view?
> 
> Zero?  Or negative zero?
> 
> Wiuld I need to use imaginary numbers to express it?
> 
> What could I have possibly said back in 1995 that would have convinced even a single one of them?
> ...


The fact that those same experts modified their positions after new evidence emerged speaks well of the process.  As to the original post, there is evidence of cancer in ancient history.  And an average lifespan of 35 meant a lot of later-in-life diseases never got the chance to manifest in great numbers.

----------


## H_H

> The fact that those same experts modified their positions after new evidence emerged speaks well of the process.


 Umm, new evidence like the revelation that "sugars" and "fats" are actually -- it turns out! -- completely different macronutrients?



Come on, this is retard-tier.  Don't give me that.  I know you're a woman, but you are intelligent and furthermore even have some expertise in this area, at least generally (science, medicine, biology).

I mean, look at the thing.  Putting sugars and fats in the same category -- "bad things we recommend you minimize" -- is too obviously a blatant falsehood to not be intentional and malicious.  It's retard-tier.  And yet people, including 100% of degreed and certified nutritionists in this country, _pretended_ to believe it.

_Why is that?_

Hmm?

----------


## angelatc

> I mean, look at the thing.  Putting sugars and fats in the same category -- "bad things we recommend you minimize" -- is too obviously a blatant falsehood to not be intentional and malicious.  It's retard-tier.  And yet people, including 100% of degreed and certified nutritionists in this country, _pretended_ to believe it.
> 
> 
> ?


The category is titled "Use sparingly."  It contains all fats, and foods with added sugar.  Why does that seem retarded?

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Umm, new evidence like the revelation that "sugars" and "fats" are actually -- it turns out! -- completely different macronutrients?
> 
> 
> 
> Come on, this is retard-tier.  Don't give me that.  I know you're a woman, but you are intelligent and furthermore even have some expertise in this area, at least generally (science, medicine, biology).
> 
> I mean, look at the thing.  Putting sugars and fats in the same category -- "bad things we recommend you minimize" -- is too obviously a blatant falsehood to not be intentional and malicious.  It's retard-tier.  And yet people, including 100% of degreed and certified nutritionists in this country, _pretended_ to believe it.
> 
> _Why is that?_
> ...





> The category is titled "Use sparingly."  It contains all fats, and foods with added sugar.  Why does that seem retarded?


Starches should be in the same category as sugar because they are broken down into sugars.

----------


## H_H

> The category is titled "Use sparingly."  It contains all fats, and foods with added sugar.  Why does that seem retarded?


Let me break it down.  Interpret the graphical doohicks and unlock the mysteries of the symbology.

See the little dots?  There's two slightly different kinds, circles and triangles, but the Swedish woman who invented this intentionally made them both tiny so they are visually almost identical.  Notice how they are scattered throughout the Great Pyramid but smoothly become less and less dense towards the Mighty Base?  This is the fundamental basis for the whole theory.  She's telling you right there, it's just she elegantly jam-packed too much information into one graphic perhaps for the typical person to catch it all.  I didn't know that (it seemed obvious to me), but you missed it, so clearly the vast majority of people will.

Fats and sugars are both bad.  This is the theory.  So you try to focus on scarfing foods with as little of them as possible, meaning, first and foremost, their massive carb group down at the bottom.

The theory is bizarre and baseless and always was, and in a rational world, that fact would have been sufficient.  I could have said to the nutrExpert back in 1995: "Yo, bro, this theory is bizarre and baseless."  He'd be like, "Wat?  Back up."  I'd lay it down: "There's no reason to believe this.  You tell me what data or studies make you believe this and I'll put the smack down on them one by one.  But first and foremost, it makes no rational sense because humans have been eating meat and vegetables all along; why would we not just eat meats and vegetables?"  Any being capable of reflection would then be like, "Yeah, that's true.  What problem is this even fixing?"

And then if he was gonna be debatative (which is cool) he might say, "OK, let's go into it then.  The problem it's fixing is heart attacks and the such.  That one guy [WHO FALSIFIED HIS DATA] in the '50s fed tons of eggs to rabbits and they all got cardiovascular problems and junk.  Whatchoo say 'bout that?"

"Well, rabbits are herbivores, bro.  You think maybe they might not be set up for that?  Like, you wanna do an experiment where we feed a bunch of dogs nothing but chocolate for a year to prove chocolate will kill you?  It's totally invalid, bro.  Plus, even if weren't grossly and obviously invalid, THE GREASY SLIMEBALL FALSIFIED HIS DATA! (but maybe I wouldn't have known that in 1995 -- I don't remember when it came out that he falsified his data.)"

And then IF HE WERE HONEST he'd be like, "OK, you got me, bro."  And then he could move on to another study (except there aren't any) and I could shoot them down one by one, and then he'd say, "Wow. I guess you're right.  There really isn't any reason to believe this."  And then he'd change his opinion to be correct and in line with the truth and reality.

Right?

Ha ha ha ha ha!  

Yes, IF HE WERE HONEST I suppose that's exactly what would happen.  But Angela, IF HE WERE HONEST he would have never had to have me tell him this stuff in the first place.  I mean, this is his career.  Right?  This is his life, his passion, his livelihood.  So why the heck is he believing that cholesterol is a deadly poison?

Why were 10,000 other nutrExperts, or however many there were; it was 100% of the group, I'll tell you that, whatever the exact size of it was -- why were these Experts all totally 100% on board going along with made-up stories IN THEIR FIELD which were obviously, blatantly false?

At least some of these people were intelligent.

At least some of these people were Player Characters with agency, an inner monologue, a soul: the works.

So waddup nigga?  What was going down there all up in that specialty?

You come up with an answer to that question and you will maybe start to be having an answer to some puzzling riddles about this society we find ourselves living in.

----------


## Stratovarious

> Yes, apparently they are what's known as 'Globalists'.
> 
> But I don't know if they have any real power to actually do anything.



See; George Soros, his life is 'funding' agitators (or is it taters ) and organizing caravans' .
That's just o_ne individual_ globalist.

----------


## H_H

> What was going down there all up in that specialty?
> 
> You come up with an answer to that question


And just to be clear, as a reminder, the question is:  

Why did they all _pretend_ to believe it?

Because pretending was definitely what they were doing.  No smart person ever believed in the food pyramid.  Ever.  It would be impossible to take even, say, eight hours of one's mental cycles operating at an IQ level of 110 or higher and with extensive nutritional training and devote them to a rigorous and focused consideration of said pyramid and come out the other end with the conclusion: "Oh yeah, seems legit."

So again:

*Why did they all pretend to believe it? 

*_Hmm?_

----------

