"The New World Order is a controversial new film that goes behind the scenes of the American anti-globalisation movement."
I should add at this point that, unlike what the disinfo Wikipedia articles say, anti-globalisation is not the same as anti-capitalism, nor is it anti-Semitic (what!!!). I am anti-world government, very much pro-capitalism, and don't want either freedom of trade, or national sovereignty, to continue to be destroyed by our corrupt slavemasters. That is all.
Smart Smart...and we were just talking about Alex Jones.
ReplyDeleteThe answer to 1984...is 1776! :)
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIsn't the meaning of that saying lost or different in Britain?
ReplyDelete:D
(Accidentally used my mom's account in deleted comment.)
ReplyDeleteThe meaning of 1776 in Britain? Well, the American Revolution isn't well taught in Britain, so I guess you're right.
ReplyDeleteBut we know 1776 was extremely justified, and the British Empire didn't treat its native citizens much better than others in the colonies abroad. The British establishment may have resented America throughout the 1800s because of this, but the ordinary people always supported the Americans, in particular during the Civil War and getting rid of slavery.
If an American knows what 1984 means, then a Brit with at least some basic historical knowledge will get what 1776 was all about.
Oh, that was you Son? haha stop hacking other peoples' accounts lol
ReplyDeleteWe share a computer, what can I say?
ReplyDeleteLOL!
Okay, that makes sense, thanks for the explanation!
BTW, from one American to another-in-spirit, I side with the Confederates in the War for Southern Independence.
I would have fought tooth 'n' nail to abolish slavery, but I would have to side with states' rights on that one.
It was an insane war that didn't need to happen, but the wrong side won once it started.
That is, I would have to side with states' rights on that war, not slavery.
ReplyDeleteOh yeah, I'm not saying the Civil war was about slavery as the modern storyline goes. I'm just saying that during the Civil War era, there was much working class support in this country for Abraham Lincoln.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read more about the Civil War a while back, I came to pretty much the same opinion as you. Unfortunately nowadays, you've got a crowd of zombies who think states' rights means the right to engage in slavery, and therefore they support power centralisation.
It's another case of history being written by the victors.
ooh and I see your italic pedantry, yes it was a war between two nations, techincally not a civil war. My last point above applies to this as well.
ReplyDeleteOkay, I hate to keep stringing these comments along, but I had to look up what a "pedantry" was.
ReplyDelete(A flower or rule of grammar, I wasn't sure; "I have a pedantry?")
And, while we're seeing eye to eye that it was between two nations, the italic thing was about my lack of proof-reading, because I thought my phraseology might be construed to mean I favored the right of a state to continue slavery.
Oh, how confusing! :)
From dictionary.com
ReplyDelete"Pedantry: slavish attention to rules, details, etc."
I thought you used the italics to emphasise to me that it was a *war*, not a *civil war* as the name goes. This is a detail that others who support the Confederates tend to point out.
I see what you meant now. Of course, for the people who think states' rights means the right to enslave others, there are certain things states cannot do, obviously, among which is to permit slavery.