• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

The New World Order?

harlequin said:
Cujo brings up a very good point. In many respects the mass media has mangaged to get an consesus by which radical or independent thought is something to be feared and supressed. 8¬)

Fair point, but who, or what, is to blame? Mass media becomes mass media by being popular. On a base level, the tabloid press has to appeal to people. Alternatives are out there if people are bothered (The Guardian, Independant, etc,) but relatively few people buy them. (I'm a Guardian Reader myself, though I still find some of the views expressed within it disagree with my own beliefs. Though perhaps that is the point.)

In a democracy, it is very difficult to exert a lot of control over the press. That means that within fairly broad bounds, most things can be published. Unless we advocate state funding of newspapers, there will necessarily be a tendency for populist newspapers to provide views and opinions that a large proportion of the country supports.

Perhaps, as a country, we get the media we deserve...
 
Mass media panders to the herd instincts of our species. If you use the right words (preferably simple ones) and pad it out with tits and royalty, the herd will believe. To paraphrase a favorite author of mine, where there are sheep you find wolves, or in the case of a lot of mass media, the equivalent of things which infest the intestinal tracts of aforementioned sheep. Media is not a predator, simply a parasite certainly in the bulk of popularist media cases. They affirm the fears of the worst of the of the herd simply to feed. I see very little integrity and a lot of posturing. The infamous name and shame campaigns of 1999 and 2000, where the press got prurient sales while wrapping themselves in the cloth of rightousness was nauseating, and pretty typical of the breed. All the base instincts of our species to the fore; prurient interest, fear,loathing and a sense of self worth.Remember the torch light parades?....My quarrel was not with the target of that particular 'crusade', more who would be next. In the light of recent events and subsequent reporting I think I may have an inkling...

In many respects Fortis is right, we get the media we deserve. Perhaps it's a symptom of the much vaunted 'end times'. After all, the big rock with 'Extinction' written on it is overdue now, and as Gore Vidal points out, there really are no barbarians at the gate for this last great empire of the West. Decadence and decay are all that we can bequeath...

And so, on that cheering note, I'm off to bed

8¬)

Please Note: It's being so cheerful as keeps me going and I think Swift was way too liberal about who the poor should feed their babies to :D
 
Has the circle of popular socialism ever been squared?
Possibly the pre-Maxwell Daily Mirror came close. It
wasn't exactly thought respectable at the time but
compared to today's tabloids, it looks brilliant.

Why does populism have to be reactionary?

I suppose Who Wants to be a Millionaire is always
going to appeal to greater numbers than "Who Wants to
Control the Means of Production?" :(
 
Notice the repeated use of the phrase "New World Order" this evening on the TV news after TB's big speech?

-J
 
Hasn't it always been the case of 'He who has the gold makes the rules'?
 
What about if the gold is buried under the remains of several large buildings?
 
What do we fear about New World Order?

I thought long and hard about posting this thread but I am curious to know what it is we all fear about a possible New World Order.

Would a single World government really be a bad idea?

Would it reduce war, poverty and Third World starvation?

Would it make us a better race?

Or is it all just a plot to make the rich richer and the powerful more powerful?

When will it happen (the switching of Poles, soon, distant future)?

Let's open the floor and hear views on what a future would be like if such an event were to happen. Good or bad.
 
Are you from the NWO public relations department, doing market research? :D
 
:cool:

Nope, I started reading about it a couple of years ago with mixed feelings;

a) it's a crock. Just another bunch of crazy conspiracy theories

b) it's a scary reality

c) it would create a better way of life.

I have read many articles on the subject and I was curious to know what everyone else thought based on what they have read.

Me, part of the NWO? Nah, my only involvement is that I'm probably somewhere on the Red detainee list :D
 
a world wide govenment would not work because:

A) Everyone would want a person from their country to be 'earth president/dictator'.

B) The ego of certain idiviules would mean the system would never work properly. can you imagine the squables if Blair and Shiac were compeating for the same position for example.

C) political ideals. if you take a capitalist model of world government the world would be a corupt sysetem run by already large multinational companys. People in 'less developed countrys' would not get a look in... and 'less developed countrys' contain the bulk of the worlds population... I think I can see a problem there. simerly if there were a fairer redistribution of money and power would the multi national companys sit back and take it? seeing as the cocacola company alone has larger profits than some western european contrys can make out of taxes I'd be willing to guess no.

D) Religen. Even if the world agreed on one religen or even aithisam every one would still argue about the best way to practice it:rolleyes: .

E) Hate thy neighbour. Some people have such a haterid for other cultures or races that they carry out things like the masacres in the Ruwandan civil war for reasons as frivilous as some farmer stealing another farmers sheep 800 years ago.

So how would the NWO resolve those problems? answer: they would only make things worse. Thats why if indeed the NWO dose exist It could never hope to suceed.
 
Everyone would want a person from their country to be 'earth president/dictator'.


True and we know which country feels the strongest about this.

The ego of certain idiviules would mean the system would never work properly. can you imagine the squables if Blair and Shiac were compeating for the same position for example.

I would see problems with who would be in charge. But isn't the UN already a step in this direction? With the UN, you have representatives from certain countries making up the group to make decisions. Granted they can be over-ruled (the recent war an example) but wouldn't this work if a representative from each country made up a global government?

I think I can see a problem there. simerly if there were a fairer redistribution of money and power would the multi national companys sit back and take it? seeing as the cocacola company alone has larger profits than some western european contrys can make out of taxes I'd be willing to guess no.


Again I agree and if this is the case then this is way the NWO is seen as a problem. If money was distributed fairly, and poorer countries were no longer poor, would this not mean more profits for the larger corporates? This would surely benefit them. What would they have to lose?


Religen. Even if the world agreed on one religen or even aithisam every one would still argue about the best way to practice it


This has always been an issue for me. I cannot help but believe that a world without religion would be a better place. More deaths in the world have been in the name of gods then for any other reason.

However, this isn't likely to happen. Whose to say that religion would be a part of the change? Is because that the planning of the NWO is through Numerology and Astrology?

Hate thy neighbour. Some people have such a haterid for other cultures or races that they carry out things like the masacres in the Ruwandan civil war for reasons as frivilous as some farmer stealing another farmers sheep 800 years ago.


This I don't agree with. Laws would exist as with all governments and those laws would be policed. Unfortunately, there will always be hatred for other races and that's a sad thought. Many people are waking up to accept a mixed race society but unfortunately, many of us are still in the Stone Age when it comes to racial opinions.
 
The NWO in itself is a myth. As it stands as a concept, it's nothing more than a projection of US foreign policy, dolled up as some sort of drive to make the world a safer place. The only problem is, this safety is only at the behest of the US administration and the various power blocs behind that. Other countries (like the UK) have bought into parts of it. It doesn't have anything to do with a one world governement, etc..

The phrase itself was coined as a soundbite by President Bush the First, after the first Gulf War. It was quite clear from what he said around this phrase that there was new move to project the ideology of certain Western countries in a post-Cold War world.
 
I have to pick on a few points there I'm afraid:
Again I agree and if this is the case then this is way the NWO is seen as a problem. If money was distributed fairly, and poorer countries were no longer poor, would this not mean more profits for the larger corporates? This would surely benefit them. What would they have to lose?

The only ways money could be distributed fairly would be to get rid of it or to give everyone the same amount of money in a world where everything costs the same under a vast single curency.

Neither system would have big muntinational companys very happy as their cash would either be taken away full stop or their cash would be redistributed leaving the no doubt nefarios former billionaire owners and senior executives having their houses taken off them and all their money and expensive cars gonesave for the same amount of money everyone else has (which with however many billion people there are in the world would not amount to a paticully large hill of beans). and presumably the money and property of each individule would have to be kept fairly constant after such a redistribution, so the companys could never hope to suck the money back. in fact the only boom industry would be accountants.

This has always been an issue for me. I cannot help but believe that a world without religion would be a better place. More deaths in the world have been in the name of gods then for any other reason.

that is quite a popular misconception actully. Even if the word were aithist there would still be just as many arguments deaths and hatrid. remember world war 1 and 2 ? Now I was under the impression that more people died in those wars than in all the wars of the previous 500 years:eek!!!!: (which includes the empire building activities of the european powers (which was about makeing money, religion was only used to keap the peace after the fighting). The reasons for WW1 are numerous but too my knolage not one of them is a religous reason and WW2 was caused by the ambitions of leaders such as hitlar and as a result or the economic depression in europe after ww1. The cold war could have easily blown up the whole planet and that was caused by 2 big countrys not likeing or trusting each other.

Also if the world was entirly aithiest you would have some beliveing that it is our reponcibility to help each other as it leads to a more balenced and fairer sociaty and others beliveing that they can take advantage and steping on everyone else to get to the top of the pile as they would feal that they mattered a lot more than anyone else. there would of corse be those between those extrames but thouse would be the poler veiwpoints, and that is you have to admit evry bit as bad as religios intolerance.


Which neatly leads into the crux of the argument against the NWO, the world is full of individules with vastly differeng veiwpoints and interests, so many that they could never be satisfyed by a one size fits all government, it would end up (even if it didn't start that way) as the strong subjigateing the week. And you can only push a person so far before they bite back.
 
I resent being ruled by anyone who lives outside my own city, actual foreigners can bugger right off.
 
Personally I preferred them when they were Joy Division. Though Blue Monday was pretty good... ;)
 
The reasons for WW1 are numerous but too my knolage not one of them is a religous reason and WW2 was caused by the ambitions of leaders such as hitlar


I never mentioned that WWI or II was the result of religion. I stated that more people have been killed for religious purpose than for any other reason.

At this risk of turning this into a religious debate, some example religious deaths:

The entire population of the Earth at the time of Noah, by drowning, except for eight survivors (Genesis 7:23).

Everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah, burnt or asphyxiated (Genesis 19:24,25).

Amalek and his people (Exodus 17:8-16).

3,000 Israelite men, put to the sword (Exodus 32:27,28).

14,700 Jews, of the plague (Numbers 16:44-49).

The people of Og, killed by Moses' army (Numbers 21:33-35).

24,000 people, of the plague (Numbers 25:4-9).

All Midianite males, in war, "as the Lord commanded" (Numbers 31:6-12).

The Ammonites and the Horims (Deuteronomy 2:19-22).

The Amorites, "utterly destroyed the men and the women and the little ones" (Deuteronomy 2:33-35).

The Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites (Deuteronomy 7:1-5).

Everyone in Jericho except one family, "utterly destroyed, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword". (Joshua 6:20-25).

12,000 people of Ai (Joshua 8:19-29). o All the people of Makkedah, of Libnah, of Gezer, of Eglon, and of Hebron, (Joshua 10:28-37).

All the inhabitants of Goshen, "neither left they any to breathe" (Joshua 11:12-16).

The inhabitants of Hormah, Gaza, Askelon, Ekron (Judges 1:17-19).

10,000 Moabites (Judges 3:29).

600 Philistines, with a sharp stick used for driving oxen. (Judges 3:31).

All the army of Sisera (Judges 4:16).

120,000 Midianites (Judges 8:10).

1,000 Philistines, killed by Samson with "the jawbone of an ass"(Judges 15:15).

25,100 Benjaminites, killed by Israelites after "the Lord smote Benjamin" in front of them. (Judges 20:35).

50,070 people from Bethshemesh, "because they had looked into the ark of the Lord" (1 Samuel 6:19).

All the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15:3-7).

200 Philistine men, so that their foreskins could be the dowry given to King Saul so that his daughter could marry David. (1 Samuel 18:27).

22,000 Syrians, killed by David (2 Samuel 8:2-5).

40,000 Syrians, killed by David (2 Samuel 10:18).

The Ammonites of Rabbah, tortured to death by King David (2 Samuel 12:29-31).

Every man in Edom (1 Kings 11:15).

All the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:40).

100,000 Syrians (1 Kings 20:28,29).

Moabite captains, burnt to death (2 Kings 1:9-14).

42 children, mauled by bears (2 Kings 2:23,24).

185,000 Assyrians, killed in the night by "the angel of the Lord" (2 Kings 19:35).

500,000 men of Israel, "with a great slaughter" (2 Chronicles 13:16-20).

20,000 Edomites, half of whom were thrown from the top of a cliff "that they were all broken in pieces" (2 Chronicles 25:11,12).

120,000 Judeans (2 Chronicles 28:5,6).

75,000 people (Esther 9:15,16).

The Crusades

Spanish Inquisition

IRA

Religious conflicts in Ireland

9/11

Etc, etc.
 
If one were to be overly cynical - it could be suggested that virtually all the problems of the world are caused by us having too much freedom.

Just look at Yugoslavia under Tito! No local nationalism or religious bickering then.

They all had a crap life - but has it improved any?
 
Yugoslavia would've done better if it's economy had been allowed to thrive - but, as it was on the fence WRT the situation with NATO and the Warsaw Pact, it didn't have many options.
 
I think another big issue is that every country (and even the various states in the USA) has their own different laws, politics and ways of life. This is probably where part of the fear comes from. People do not want their lives to change, their freedom to be removed or laws to become restrictive.

This fear of change is seen when any country applies new laws or taxation methods into society (Poll Tax riots, etc.). You will always have the anti-group resisting what is changing.

The same with NWO, you would have a number of people, quietly happy to leave under a new regime but I think the majority would resist such a change of events.

But would NWO mean that every person in the World falls under the same laws? Would each country maintain it’s laws?

In the USA, there are supposed documents containing information of RED and BLUE list detainees for when the time comes. Is this true of every country or just the USA? If this evidence is only in the USA then surely this is just a myth. Would there not be evidence of such a plan the World over?

I've gone off track a little, I'm rambling. But I'm interested in other people’s thoughts too.
 
NWO - great track by Ministry, hte last really good single they made I think ;)

Seriously Rince, the NWO is already here, what makes the concept of NWO a frightening one is that in the Neue Ordnung people are secondary to finances and power (as always) and the new international relations forged after the war are being subtly rent asunder by back-biting politicos so that now after 20 years or so of right-wing drift in the states Europe has lost the trust of North Africa and the Middle East, Russia is playing power games with all comers as it has nothing to lose and *everyone* distrusts the US. All very handy for those really in power, the Military-Industrial-Oil complex which actually runs govt - more strife, wars and land grabs give great ops for these guys to make a fortune.

The NWO is about removing freedom, making worker drones (through deliberate miseducation, propaganda and manipulation) who churn out cheap product and are too unimaginative to strike or demand better conditions, or too afraid of their gaurds (eg. the south american coke workers who weer killed for organising a strike!). You only have to look at Rumsfeld to know that he is the spawn of Satan, and will do anything to increase his power, and that of his family.

The US is very much like Rome at the moment (and there's many weird links between the roman empire, fascism and the Shadow Governments if you dig around a little) governed by increasingly distant pseudo aristocratic familes, who hoard wealth at the expense of there country men, and against whom displeasure is starting to rise. GWB is very much like Caligula, an unstable, pampered potentate installed at the will of the 'families" and using money rather than charisma to become popular. The US empire will crumble if things carry on like this, and I think many Americans should really consider whether they allow this to happen through inaction (ie. not voting, not demonstrating, not self educating) or negaitve action. The larger they are the harder they fall - overstretching your military on too many campaign fronts is a bugle call to the visigoth's to storm the Capitol.
 
To a certain extent - whether the NWO already exists or not depends upon our definition of such an organisation or group (or whether, indeed, it is an organisation/group).

That definition is, unfortunately, a chameleon and I think it means many things to many people. In effect it sums up the fears of many people in society - but those fears are different.

Is it political, military, economic? Or what about the full house - all three inter-linked? Is it active or passive?

Many descriptions of NWO do not encompass a single group which "controls" everything in an active way. Rather it is the passive result from powerful people making self-serving decisions (e.g. politicians and financiers).

Does Tony Blair cosy up to GWB because he actively wishes to promote an NWO? Or does he cosy up because it is convenient for his own personal political purposes? The result is the same but the backdrop is totally different.

At the end of the day - how much does that matter? Results are the same.
 
dot23 said:
GWB is very much like Caligula

Has he made his horse a senator yet?


NWO means different things to different people. To some its the US taking over the world, To others its the EU taking over the world. My money is on Australia taking over the world.
 
THEM-Jon Ronson

Did anyone see the Jon Ronson Them episode where he's hanging out with this NWO conspiracy theorist, then it all goes a bit intense and frankly a little perturbing, in Portragul with the Bilderbergers and there security as they shutdown the area. That made me think that it is all a little bit sinister.
As for the episode with the Bush family and the Giant Owl ceramony in the woods-well.... what the????.
P.S how do you do the owl trick (??) with the US dollar, I remember doing it once?
 
Yes, and saw him talk about it at Uncon 2002. There's definately something in it, and there's 2 particularly disturbing points. 1) When they're waiting to catch people arriving at the Bilderberg conference Ronson spots Peter Mandelsohn on a coach and 2) he interviews Dennis Healey (Chancellor of the Exchequer under Maggie Thatcher) about the Bs and he admits there existence, talks quite freely about there efforts to steer international policies, but when Ronson asks to see photos Healey says he has of meetings, Healey tells Ronson to "F*ck off" even though he's on camera! A bit of an over-reaction? Or is he vehmenently protecting his friends anonymity? Weird.

But not as weird as the Bohemian Grove episode - I have no idea what these powerful men think they're doing dressing up in weird costumes, but I guess it's a skull n bones type thing.. Unfortunately the American people seem to allow this kind of behaviour as somehow normal, otherwise surely the Christian Right would have been up in arms over this blatantly Pagan (if not feintly demonic) stylised ritual murder! Unless of Course the Xian Right is as embroiled in all this plots and counterplots as well :eek!!!!:
 
dot23 said:
Yes, and saw him talk about it at Uncon 2002. There's definately something in it, and there's 2 particularly disturbing points. 1) When they're waiting to catch people arriving at the Bilderberg conference Ronson spots Peter Mandelsohn on a coach and 2) he interviews Dennis Healey (Chancellor of the Exchequer under Maggie Thatcher) about the Bs and he admits there existence, talks quite freely about there efforts to steer international policies, but when Ronson asks to see photos Healey says he has of meetings, Healey tells Ronson to "F*ck off" even though he's on camera! A bit of an over-reaction? Or is he vehmenently protecting his friends anonymity? Weird.

But not as weird as the Bohemian Grove episode - I have no idea what these powerful men think they're doing dressing up in weird costumes, but I guess it's a skull n bones type thing.. Unfortunately the American people seem to allow this kind of behaviour as somehow normal, otherwise surely the Christian Right would have been up in arms over this blatantly Pagan (if not feintly demonic) stylised ritual murder! Unless of Course the Xian Right is as embroiled in all this plots and counterplots as well :eek!!!!:

Loved the Jon Ronson series, the book and the Uncon 2002 talk.

As far as the Bilderbergers are concerned I would make the following observations:

1. The security thing is not really that shocking. There is going to be a meeting of some of the world's most important and powerful people in the area. Security is going to be high and anyone acting suspiciously in the area will be under observation. Especially anyone hanging around with "Big" Jim Tucker.

2. Healey has always sworn like a trouper. I think it was just his normal reaction to a rather cheeky question (and it was meant to be a bit toungue-in-cheek).

The Grove stuff is just a load of stupid men who should know better. The "burning of care" has no worrying side to it (e.g. sacrificing babies as the DJ and his strange side-kick seemed to constantly protest) apart from the bizarre immaturity of the event.

For me, the Jon Ronson series, book and lecture all emphasised the lack of any real single power behind an NWO. Healey gets it perfect when he says "that is just the way things are done, the way they have always been done." I found the people tracking and theorising on the nature of these organisations more disturbing than the organisations themselves.

If our route to the truth is via that DJ and his side-kick, I fear we are further from it than ever.
 
true the people he "teamed up with" had questionable backgrounds and motivations, at best. The problem I have with Bilderbergers (btw BB, odd you use their name but seem dismissive of any darker motivations etc within them, is it just because you think the name's cool, or you're just interested in them?), Skull n bones, Freemasons, Opus Dei and a raft of other "illuminati" is that they're not accountable to anyone. If a society wants to remain anonymous fair enough, but it depends what these groups are involved with. What if bilderberg meetings actually decide foreign policy and not just who's got a good handicap at golf?; what if freemasonry is used as a method of money laundering (not to mention political and judicial appointments)? etc. These people make decisions that effect possibly thousands if not millions of people's lives, yet constantly complain that their 'personal space' is being invaded. I don't give a damn if famous people go to BB meetings, I care what's decided there and what the consequences of those meetings are. Security should be tough, but not to the point of intimidating a perfectly reasonable investigation by an investigative reporter, what have they got to hide. If you chose public office, or even privately achieve 'acptain of industry status', you are accountable for actions that effect others - no ammount of excuses can account for major decision being made out of the public eye, with public or shareholder funds (don't tell me those guys pay for their own rooms), and I for one think that these gruops should be investigated fully and with as much rigour as any other story.

Weird isn't it how even though people admit these groups exist newspapers won't touch them, even though they may have massive ramifications for their readers? Could it be because all of the owners of major corporate media are member's of at least one of these groups? Ronson was made to feel like a loony for even wanting to talk about these issues, and that's what worries me about the NWO - no democracy, no freedom of speech, no accountability by those in power. These people want to install a defacto police state, yet they amusingly play "democracy" games in the public eye. Luckily some of us aren't stupid.

Here's a quote from the great ani defranco on "self evident" her ode to the WTC attacks:

and we hold these truths to be self evident:
#1 george w. bush is not president
#2 america is not a true democracy
#3 the media is not fooling me
 
Originally posted by dot23
Here's a quote from the great ani defranco on "self evident" her ode to the WTC attacks:
and we hold these truths to be self evident:
#1 george w. bush is not president
#2 america is not a true democracy
#3 the media is not fooling me


Idle Responses.
1. He is. Even if he shouldn't be.
2. Of course it isn't, no country is. Even the Greek City-States didn't manage that.
3. Is that to say they're not trying or they're trying but failing? Very different propositions.

Who is this woman? Ani defranco? Rings no bells. :)
 
it's a poem silly, it's trying to convey meaning not facts :) Plus she does say they're self-evident, esp. 2). and 1) he didn't win, the Electoral college announced he had won, despite the count of votes (it would have made no difference had Gore got his recount, as the collegiates don't have to vote with their areas - thus 2). The media does it's best to fool everyone into thinking they're reporting 'facts' rather than subjective, politicised accounts of events devised, usually, to prevent you noticing what's happening at the end of your street.

Ani is the best female songwriter I've heard, is only available on her own record label ("Righteous Babe" ;)), and is dead cute to boot (don't tell her i said that, she'll kick my ass :D).
 
Fair question - to be honest I'm not sure. I very much doubt that it is "cool." I think it was just that I had been watching the Jon Ronson series at the time when I joined the board. The idea of "secret" rulers of the world amused me and I thought the name had a certain humour to it. I am stuck with it now!

As far as security goes, and the possible over-reaction to Ronson and Big Jim Tucker's activities were concerned - lets not forget - Tucker was planning on breaking into the meeting. Now, we know that he was not planning on assasinating anyone - but could the security people have been so sure?

I do agree though - the phonecall that Ronson had was most disturbing. The BBs obviously had more power than the British consulate but then, perhaps, any major CIA/MI6 operation is outside of the normal rules?

I also agree that the purpose of these meetings is not to compare golf-handicaps - it is where powerful people meet to decide upon important decisions that effect all of us. However, these decisions are always going to be made - the exact forum of that meeting is not a concern. This one just happens to be less formal than, say, meetings of G7 (or is that now 8?). But, then again, most of the decisions of such are a group would be made in the bars and locker-rooms anyway. If Blair wants to talk to Schroeder - he will - whether Bilderberg exists or not. As Healey says "it is just the way things are done." That is the price to pay for "representative democracy" - which is what most of the western world have. We divulge our power, as people, to others.

What worries me about NWO - is that the world gets no favours from the majority that investigate it. Once Jim Tucker is revealed as a neo-nazi, his credibility is shot. The more he shouts about Bilderberg, the more such thoughts are dismissed as lunacy. This, I believe, was the success of Ronson's series - he looked at it through a child's eyes - and found virtually no proof of any single group running the NWO. Along the way, he encountered characters more disturbing than those they were tracking!

There are so many organisations that are accused of "secretly ruling the world" that they can't all be doing it. Yet, the exponents of these theories seem to interchange the names without any problem..e.g. Bilderberg, Illumaniti, Freemasons, Gnomes of Zurich, Military-Industrial groups, the Bohemian Grove boys. If there is a "secret" ruler of the world - it is probably that - secret. The other groups are all distinct and unless we are prepared to believe that they are all really exactly the same - or that they are involved in some kind of power sharing, we are left with little more than we started with.
 
Back
Top