But it still doesn’t make sense why 192 heads of state need to be in one place for the Illuminati to be involved. I don’t understand why a vast majority of leaders in one place (let’s say 184 of them) isn’t worth the Illuminati attention, but 192 is very very important.
That makes no sense. Gathering everything within a set (192 countries, 100 senators, 99 red balloons) is the opposite of dividing. It is unifying.
It’s not that 192 heads of state need to be in one place for the Illuminati to be involved - it’s that all heads of state need to be in one place for the Illuminati to be involved.
Until the Pope resigns, 192 is all the heads of state. After the Pope resigns (and until the a new Pope is elected) 191 is all the heads of state. Understand, it does not matter what number it is, 191, 192 – all that matters is that it indicates all, that it is everything within a set as 192 is this month and 191 is next month.
Divide and conquer. Unify and _______. Fill in the blank.
What did I tell you about “hinting?” Let me remind you - DON’T DO IT. Because you really, really suck at it.
Kozmik- do you understand why we disagree with you? Basically, you seem to be making a series of assumptions (like all 192 world leaders are equal, and a meetnig of all the world leaders would need to be presided over by someone with greater power/status), and we think all of your assumptions are incorrect (and not only incorrect, but ludicrous and nonsensical).
Ravenman will be able to get the hint. (I wasn’t directing my post at you. But I know, you just can’t help yourself.) He asked why having all heads of state was very, very important. hint: All of something is represented. answer: All power is represented.
Yes, except I do not understand why you are speaking on behalf of others. I do not assume that all 192 world leaders are equal. I am only pointing out that all 192 world leaders have the same status as world leaders.
I literally never would have guessed that. I truly don’t understand the way you think about these things, which is why I ask you questions. Because I don’t understand, there’s no way I can extrapolate your thinking into the conclusions you assume. I agree, you shouldn’t hint at things. Just say them.
You’re getting way too literal here and not answering the actual question. I will rephrase. Why are Illuminati so interested in getting all leaders together, but not interested if all but one, two, or a handful of leaders get together? Why wouldn’t the Illuminati preside over a meeting of 98% of the world’s leaders, but would be compelled to preside over a meeting of 100% of the worlds leaders?
I can’t fill in the blank, because I have no clue what you’re driving at. Again, clarity is your friend. Unify and… Surrender?
I hope others will correct me if I’m wrong about them.
Your second point is tautology. So what if they’re world leaders? Most of them don’t have supreme power in their countries- and the democratically elected ones must answer to the people. And many countries don’t even have a clear leader- who is the “world leader” in Iran or Thailand, for example?
Your assumption that your G-192 meeting happens is evidence-free (and ridiculous on its face). Your assumption that were such a meeting to happen, that it would have to include a higher authority is false- meetings happen all the time between “equals” with no higher authority. The way you try to connect two seemingly unrelated assertions (like the existence of “world leaders” with the G-192 and/or the Illuminati) is nonsenical.
I’ve asked you before- but please give me an example of a world event that CANNOT be explained without the Illuminati- and please tell me why the Illuminati must be invoked. I believe that for any example you choose, I or someone else can explain it without invoking the Illuminati or any other global conspiracy.
But all power would NOT be represented- very few world leaders actually have supreme power in their countries. Hell, there’s plenty of people (like Bill and Hillary Clinton, for example, or Mayor Bloomberg) who have plenty more actual influence and power then dozens of “world leaders”.
As far as I can tell, Kozmik first developed the idea of the G-192 conference about eight months ago, in a now-closed thread in the Pit. I find it sad that this idea he pulled out of thin air seems to now be a central tenet of his belief system.
It has made no impression at all to point out that international meetings do not work that way, never had worked that way, and there is no conceivable mechanism or reason for them to start working that way in the future.
Because unless there is a meeting of 100% of the world leaders then all power will not be represented.
Yes!
Ali Khamenei and Bhumibol Adulyadej.
That is not false.
This is false.
Not all countries are constituted with a single chief executive or “Head of State.”
Some of the countries which do have such an executive have him (or her) as a purely titular leader.
Very few countries have a ruler rather than an executive.
The leaders of the most powerful countries have the most limitations on their powers from other branches of their governments.
The CEOs and Boards of Directors of the top fifty corporations in the world have more power and influence than the executives and legislatures of the bottom fifty countries in the world.
Yes it is.
No it’s not.
You get no credit for your answers unless you show your work.
The same applies to you:
Why is it important that 100% of “power” be represented??? Why isn’t 98% sufficient? Or 62%? How many times can I ask you to explain that?
Huh? Are you saying that the G-192 would all come together and surrender to the Illuminati? I thought the whole idea of the Illuminati is that they already run everything. Are the Illuminati omnipotent or impotent?
(Please feel free to use full sentences to explain your responses, as hints and one word answers don’t effectively convey your thoughts.)
Certainly.
The combined GNP of the lowest 50 countries on the list does not approach the gross revenue of the first corporation listed.
Why would the president (or whatever the leader of Burundi is called) get a seat at your power conference while the CEO of Walmart had to sit outside? You need to rethink your concept of “power,” perhaps through a course in global economics?
For the same reason that it is important that the President of the United States represents 100% of the people. As iiandyiiii points out:
Even the ones who do not have to answer to the people still represent the people, if only nominally. All world leaders individually represent the people; however, all world leaders collectively represent the Illuminati. That is why it is important that 100% of power is represented.
Yes, the world leaders would surrender their collective power to the Illuminati.
Omnipotent.
Because the CEO of Walmart is represented by the President of the United States.
There’s no reason to believe this, it’s just nonsense.
Are they powerful enough to conjure up a world without the Illuminati?
It’s not nonsense.
This question is nonsense.