Why do people think the NWO is BS - or do they?

[Tesselator]

On this site I get lots of flack for mentioning the New World Order. On every other site I'm on it's accepted as a very real and partially realized political creature.


Why is it that on this site if someone mentions the New World Order they're branded a "conspiracy theorist" and/or discredited?

Do you think there are disinformation shills here on this site?

Do you think the people taking this position are brainwashed by the media and without a clue?

Do you believe there is no such thing? If so why?


BTW, Just a quick "News" search shows hundreds of official news articles and API releases that mention or are about the New World Order.

http://news.google.com/news?client=safari&rls=en&q=%22new%20world%20order%22&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn

What say you to these questions?

[bamaworks]

Maybe it's your attitude that partially instigates the antagonism toward you. I recommend objectively trying to observe the tone of your posts... You basically just said, "Do you believe like me or are you completely ignorant?".

[.Andy]

Are there disinformation shills here on this site or are the ones here behaving like that just brainwashed by the media and without a clue?

Just a quick "News" search shows hundreds of official news articles and API releases that mention or are about the New World Order.
You just called people "brainwashed by the media" and then immediately tried to use the number of times the "new world order" is mentioned in the media in an attempt to validate your position.

[Tesselator]

Maybe it's your attitude that partially instigates the antagonism toward you. I recommend objectively trying to observe the tone of your posts... You basically just said, "Do you believe like me or are you completely ignorant?".

Yeah, I guess there's some of that in my post here. Of course that might be because I think 30% ~ 40% of the people who regularly post here are indeed ignorant and ill-meaning folks who like nothing more than to put people down and cause a LOT of hate and discontent. I noticed that here from reading threads I've never even participated in so that's not on me. At least I don't see how it could be. I didn't mean for that attitude to show through tho. Sorry if it was too pronounced. Reading it again myself just now I think it's understated. :o

I want to see how others justify ignoring it and what they tell themselves in order to think it doesn't exist.

[leekohler]

Maybe it's your attitude that partially instigates the antagonism toward you. I recommend objectively trying to observe the tone of your posts... You basically just said, "Do you believe like me or are you completely ignorant?".

Yep. You hit the nail on the head.

Yeah, I guess there's some of that in my post here. Of course that might be because I think 30% ~ 40% of the people who regularly post here are indeed ignorant and ill-meaning folks who like nothing more than to put people down and cause a LOT of hate and discontent. I noticed that here from reading threads I've never even participated in so that's not on me. At least I don't see how it could be. I didn't mean for that attitude to show through tho. Sorry if it was too pronounced. Reading it again myself just now I think it's understated. :o

Wow, that certainly didn't help your case- at all.

[bamaworks]

I have no position on the actual question here. It's not a position at all. To me it's like asking if computers exist. Of course they do. I have one even. I just wanted to see how others justify ignoring it and what they tell themselves in order to pretend it doesn't exist.

So you ask if/why we do or do not believe in the NWO, then state that there is no valid differing stance on a subject than the one you hold? It exists, just rather we choose to see it? You're not going to win over many friends with that attitude and you're clearly being hypocritical in your stance toward others. You're just like those you criticize, throwing stones from the other side of the fence. Doesn't matter which side they come from, they still hurt, and don't help in any way.

[Tesselator]

You're just like those you criticize, throwing stones from the other side of the fence. Doesn't matter which side they come from, they still hurt, and don't help in any way.

Yeah, I can see your point. K, I'll think about changing the wording in my post.




EDIT: (changed)

[Chundles]

I think the NWA were an immensely influential rap group. I don't see why anybody else would doubt that?



Oh, NWO... Nup, total nonsense.

[leekohler]

So you ask if/why we do or do not believe in the NWO, then state that there is no valid differing stance on a subject than the one you hold? It exists, just rather we choose to see it? You're not going to win over many friends with that attitude and you're clearly being hypocritical in your stance toward others. You're just like those you criticize, throwing stones from the other side of the fence. Doesn't matter which side they come from, they still hurt, and don't help in any way.

Funny how that works, isn't it?

[skunk]

On this site I get lots of flack for mentioning the New World Order. On every other site I'm on it's accepted as a very real and partially realized political creature.I believe this says more about "every other site" you're on than about the posters on this one.

[Tesselator]

Yeah leekohler,

Like the child who is being chewed out and yelled at for being a rude, thoughtless, insensitive, twerp calling the authority figure rude for chewing him out.

That's how. ;)

I believe this says more about "every other site" you're on than about the posters on this one.

Not possible, not logical. It says something about both.

[Thomas Veil]

Okay, here's a good example. You said:

BTW, Just a quick "News" search shows hundreds of official news articles and API releases that mention or are about the New World Order.

http://news.google.com/news?client=safari&rls=en&q=%22new%20world%20order%22&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wnNow, I clicked on your link. It's a Google search summary. Just from the summations, many of them appeared to me to be referring to a "new world order" in a colloquial, non-conspiratorial way. You know, like, "In the flat-screen TV world, LED is the new world order."

And sure enough, the first one I click on (http://blogs.marketwatch.com/retirement/2009/10/26/big-firms-are-changing-their-retirement-income-strategy/) (the seventh one down) says this:

It’s a brave new world. Some of the largest financial-services firms are rolling out products and services that address the new world order – an order that finally admits that saving and investing for retirement are very different than producing income in retirement.Similarly, Ward's Auto mentions that the recession has left the auto industry facing a new world order. And so on.

Note the lower-case letters. Most of the legitimate, responsible websites seem to be talking about that kind of "new world order".

Here's somebody that mentions the (capitalized, conspiratorial) "New World Order" you're talking about:

Patiently they have used wars and debt to take control of the US economy and now are positioned to bankrupt the American economy at any moment. It is all part of the plan conceived long ago by the (Rothschild) family and their secret investment strategy to eliminate all governments of the world and have a single source for money under a New World Order....and it's accompanied by this picture:

http://www.bignews.biz/primages/World8a.jpg

And what website refers to this kind of New World Order? www.bignews.biz.

Who??

Exactly.

And that's why nobody believes it. The small-letter new world order is just a figure of speech. The capital-letter New World Order is the hobgoblin of paranoiacs, and tends to be found in Alex Jones-type websites, not in responsible news organizations.

But I'm probably wasting my time explaining this to you, since I'm apparently on your ignore list. I just think you deserve...no, need...a straight, realistic answer.

[Ugg]

Do you spend a lot of time on conspiracy theory websites? Maybe you could let us know what you're reading, it might help everyone understand you.

[Eraserhead]

What the hell is the "New World Order" supposed to be? That the US isn't the only big boy in the playground anymore?

[Macky-Mac]

What the hell is the "New World Order" supposed to be? That the US isn't the only big boy in the playground anymore?

:D every thread needs a wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory)) reference;

In conspiracy theory, the term “New World Order” or “NWO” refers to the emergence of a bureaucratic collectivist one-world government.

The common theme in conspiracy theories about a New World Order is that a powerful and secretive elite of globalists is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an autonomous world government, which would replace sovereign nation-states and other checks and balances in international power struggles. Significant occurrences in politics and finance are speculated to be caused by an extremely influential cabal operating through many front organizations. Numerous historical and current events are seen as steps in an on-going plot to achieve world domination through secret political gatherings and decision-making processes....

[Dane D.]

Can you send me what you're smoking? Might be better than this hydro I'm smoking :D Seriously a NWO, yeah right, never happen.

[Prof.]

NWO is just a conspiracy. It's just another excuse for ppl to hate the US Gov/the current presidential administration. A bunch of my friends are joining the facebook group "I'm against the NWO" or whatever it's called. I want to punch them in the face.

[Thomas Veil]

You know, a better question might be: what causes people to accept conspiracy theories, no matter how implausible? Is it gullibility alone? Is it ego -- the need to feel you're in on some big secret that no one else believes? Is it paranoia, the delusion that "they" are out to get us? Or something else?

[Blue Velvet]

Is it ego -- the need to feel you're in on some big secret that no one else believes?

I think that's part of a broader pattern:

This concern combines with a profound sense of collective identity. In our conversations, it was striking how these voters constantly characterized themselves as part of a group of individuals who share a set of beliefs, a unique knowledge, and a commitment of opposition to Obama that sets them apart from the majority of the country. They readily identify themselves as a minority in this country — a minority whose values are mocked and attacked by a liberal media and class of elites. They also believe they possess a level of knowledge and understanding when it comes to politics and current events, one gained from a rejection of the mainstream media and an embrace of conservative media and pundits such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, which sets them apart even more.

Further, they believe this position leaves them with a responsibility to spread the word, to educate those who do not share their insights, and to take back the country that they love. Their faith in this country and its ideals leave them confident that their numbers will grow, and that they will ultimately defeat Barack Obama and the shadowy forces driving his hidden agenda.

http://gqrr.com/articles/2398/5488_TheVerySeparateWorldofConservativeRepublicans101609.pdf


The paranoid style is not confined to our own country and time; it is an international phenomenon. Studying the millennial sects of Europe from the eleventh to the sixteenth century, Norman Cohn believed he found a persistent psychic complex that corresponds broadly with what I have been considering—a style made up of certain preoccupations and fantasies: “the megalomaniac view of oneself as the Elect, wholly good, abominably persecuted, yet assured of ultimate triumph; the attribution of gigantic and demonic powers to the adversary; the refusal to accept the ineluctable limitations and imperfections of human existence, such as transience, dissention, conflict, fallibility whether intellectual or moral; the obsession with inerrable prophecies…systematized misinterpretations, always gross and often grotesque.”

This glimpse across a long span of time emboldens me to make the conjecture—it is no more than that—that a mentality disposed to see the world in this way may be a persistent psychic phenomenon, more or less constantly affecting a modest minority of the population. But certain religious traditions, certain social structures and national inheritances, certain historical catastrophes or frustrations may be conducive to the release of such psychic energies, and to situations in which they can more readily be built into mass movements or political parties. In American experience ethnic and religious conflict have plainly been a major focus for militant and suspicious minds of this sort, but class conflicts also can mobilize such energies.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid_style.html

[Thomas Veil]

Both very interesting links, thank you...especially the latter, which looks at the back history of conspiracy theories. It's getting late, but I'll have to read those in full tomorrow.

The interesting thing about CTs (as I'll abbreviate conspiracy theories from now on) is that they are self-justifying. The more you point out the implausibility of any particular theory, the more that "proves" to the believer how cunning his "enemies" truly are. "Of course it all sounds totally unbelievable -- don't you see, that's the genius of it!"

I had this experience with the very first (and only) CT believer I ever spent a lot of time arguing with. She was an avid devotee of the moon-landing-faked-in-a-TV-studio theory. The more I pointed out how impossible that was, the firmer she dug in. Hundreds or thousands of people would have to be in on it? She was sure they'd been bought off or murdered. And so on.

It took me only that one lesson to learn not to try to reason with such people, because there is no reasoning with them. The belief is not scientific or analytical, it's religious.

Incidentally, I did skim the articles, and I saw they mentioned the usual suspects: Masons, the Catholic Church, Communists and others -- but where were the UFOs? :D

[Iscariot]

Ideas about (effective) NWOs are just as ridiculous as concepts about 9/11 being an inside job. They are also necessarily self-reinforcing; the absence of proof becomes proof of conspiracy. The goal posts are ever changing. Here's the big problem with far-reaching conspiracy theories:

Everyone is too incompetent or complacent to notice a vast global conspiracy, meanwhile;
There is a vast global conspiracy full of impossibly competent individuals.


Which are essentially mutually exclusive. If humans are so blind, incompetent, foolish and stupid to be unable to detect an unbelievably massive global conspiracy with an ever-changing cast of players that are practically innumerable, then human beings aren't capable enough to orchestrate and infallible unbelievably massive global conspiracy with an every-changing and innumerable cast. Meanwhile, the key players in the NWO shift with the winds and include incredibly incompetent individuals who can't handle basic interviews with reporters (Bush, Palin), or are mildly competent but somehow can't even control a majority senate (Obama).

The idea is only appealing because it lets people feel smart, like they're in on a big secret that nobody else is bright enough to detect, and your comments make it clear that you think you're the smartest person in the room.

[Blue Velvet]

...but where were the UFOs? :D

Hopefully coming to take some people away.

[CaptMurdock]

So who is this week? The Illuminati? The Trilateral Commission? The Council on Foreign Relations?

Personally, I go with the Girl Scouts secretly running the world. The secret's in the cookies. Are they all (e.g Thin Mints, Tagalongs) really that much better than the store-bought equivalents? Or is there...something deeper...?

:rolleyes:

[Ttownbeast]

I don't know how much of this web sites information is accurate but they have plenty of great links to conspiracy theories and such all rated for different levels of quality:
http://www.crank.net

[Tesselator]

Okay, here's a good example. You said:

Now, I clicked on your link. It's a Google search summary. Just from the summations, many of them appeared to me to be referring to a "new world order" in a colloquial, non-conspiratorial way. You know, like, "In the flat-screen TV world, LED is the new world order."

And sure enough, the first one I click on (http://blogs.marketwatch.com/retirement/2009/10/26/big-firms-are-changing-their-retirement-income-strategy/) (the seventh one down) says this:

Similarly, Ward's Auto mentions that the recession has left the auto industry facing a new world order. And so on.

Note the lower-case letters. Most of the legitimate, responsible websites seem to be talking about that kind of "new world order".

Here's somebody that mentions the (capitalized, conspiratorial) "New World Order" you're talking about:

...and it's accompanied by this picture:

cliped

And what website refers to this kind of New World Order? www.bignews.biz.

Who??

Exactly.

And that's why nobody believes it. The small-letter new world order is just a figure of speech. The capital-letter New World Order is the hobgoblin of paranoiacs, and tends to be found in Alex Jones-type websites, not in responsible news organizations.

But I'm probably wasting my time explaining this to you, since I'm apparently on your ignore list. I just think you deserve...no, need...a straight, realistic answer.

So I see two things happening here. 1) You sampled only two links before you decided it was nonsense. Huh? And 2) you decide from there that there is a NWO and a nwo - one being fantastical BS and the other being a marketing slogan or hype. You conclude we're all confused and because you do not pursue the historical roots of the "NWO" you lack all foundation and make uneducated conclusions that in affect cut you off from any further investigation. K, well, that's sounds human. Deeply flawed but certainly human. At least this time you didn't attack anyone. Kudos for that.

============================================================================



Do you spend a lot of time on conspiracy theory websites? Maybe you could let us know what you're reading, it might help everyone understand you.

I like history books. I don't spend much time reading modern pop-culture and almost no time wasted watching television programming. Beside studying art, animation, and computer science my pet-peeve has been political and religious science and history. I've read a lot about American and European history. The central story lines of power leading in to the 20th century, the formation of the US, central banks, the causation of most large military conflicts in the last 400 years, inventions such as the TV - it's purpose & programming, and the sociology/psychology employed for the purposes of consumerism patriotism and etc. are fairly clear to me.

I do not view myself as from a position in context of only my life-time - composed of only my own life experiences. I place myself in the present knowing fully that this present could not exist without every preceding event that took place before. The result of an almost infinite number of causal events. So I realize that to compose a fuller understanding of what's going on around me I must try and understand the preceding events that led to them - as far back as I can. For everything: gay marriage, abortion, military drafts, news and information entities, banks and banking policies, as well as concepts like liberty, freedom, human rights, capitalism (individualism (http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Individualism)), communism/socialism (collectivism (http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Collectivism)), etc. etc. - whatever the issue of focus. If I can't gain a deep historical foundation and frame of reference it's often very difficult to grasp the implications and impact of the event in question's modern incarnate form. Typically the rhetoric surrounding it's modern presentation is meaningless, convoluted, and hyper-trivial. As the saying goes: those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it - magnitude not withstanding.

So when political scientists make statements like: The US is the modern-day Nazi Germany. I take that rather seriously and I call on my knowledge of history combined with rigorous study to draw the parallels in order to know how true or untrue such a statement is. I look at and compare the time-lines of social institutions and programs, economic variables, prevailing attitudes then and now, similar/dissimilar governmental and power structures, the stated goals of state and powerful men, etc. etc. And then I form an opinion about the truth or fallacy of the statement or proclamation being made.

I've been retired and doing this very actively for about 15 years now. For the 35 years previous to that I did so as time and work allowed - mostly weekends when not skiing or surfing.

=============================================================





What the hell is the "New World Order" supposed to be? That the US isn't the only big boy in the playground anymore?

every thread needs a wikipedia reference;

:
In conspiracy theory, the term “New World Order” or “NWO” refers to the emergence of a bureaucratic collectivist one-world government.

The common theme in conspiracy theories about a New World Order is that a powerful and secretive elite of globalists is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an autonomous world government, which would replace sovereign nation-states and other checks and balances in international power struggles. Significant occurrences in politics and finance are speculated to be caused by an extremely influential cabal operating through many front organizations. Numerous historical and current events are seen as steps in an on-going plot to achieve world domination through secret political gatherings and decision-making processes....


Almost. You emboldened the wrong part of the text. You should have made this part bold: "world government, which would replace sovereign nation-states and other checks and balances in international power struggles." and perhaps stressed "the emergence of a bureaucratic collectivist one-world government". It's not really very secret as men such as Rothchilds, Rockefeller, Hitler, Stalin, Prince Philip, and numerous credible historians and documentarians have written a great deal on the subject. Virtually libraries worth outlining the benefits, goals, and plans for achieving this end. From 1700 to 2000 there are literally thousands of books written on this subject from both sides of the isle - those who pursue and justify it and those who would warn against it. And it's not really a conspiracy in the typical sense of the term. It's more like a movement based on political ideas. Historically for the past 100 years or so the powers in the USA and CFR (and perhaps it's son the UN) have followed the political ideals of a Fabianistic approach. In fact, many members of congress and the CFR are card-carrying members of the Fabian Society.

Fabianism (After Quintus Fabius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabius_Maximus)) unlike Nazism or Leninism is a gradualistic approach to collectivism. His political and battle tactics were of a similar nature and strategically interned the premiss of "waiting them out" in order to achieve an overcoming advantage while avoiding direct conflict. Here's a table-side chat on the topic which explains the difference between Fabianism and Leninism for example:


Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRKpiNp-IYc
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoGRIoyrvgA
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNVdS5SazUw

The speaker similarly concludes that it is Fabianism which is the overwhelming governing principle of modern western politics.


These political views at the higher end of the spectrum (heads of state, "the banking elite", and etc.), seem almost always to go hand in hand with what we would normally call bizarre or even satanic religions. Religions or societies like the Illuminaties or Skull & Bones to name two which are commonly known, almost always have in their basic tenants the idea that we must limit and/or cull populations and population growth. These are very real organizations. Even tough the folks here myself included, think of them as crazy and fringe it doesn't change the fact that they exist. There is strong evidence to show that men such as Rockefeller, Rothchilds, and etc. including much of their families and many of the heads of the organizations and foundations they create, participate at the highest levels. There really is little room for doubt here. It's historically been the documented case for well over a century. Call them what you like, the goal of these "religions" include freeing the Earth from the dominion of mankind. Something christians would see as a direct rebellion against God. It doesn't matter if you who are reading this now, believe in such things or not. They do. And their attempt to carry out these beliefs and tenants are just as well documented. I believe this is why WWII and Hitler come up so often in political discussions here and on other forums on the web. It's perhaps the best documented example of this kind of mass eugenics from the bowels of a dark religion. And we can additionally track the financial and material support for such right into our modern day organizations, foundations, and government agencies. Operation Paperclip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip) is but one of many such trackable and documentable. These were principled men dedicated to a very specific ideal and both their ideological and blood descendants carry on even now within the western world.

Looking discernibly on the fruits of these men's labors in modern times can often be very revealing. In short, though it may at first seem fantastical or even nonsensical this political/religious "movement" to acquire world power, a corresponding world government, and the realization of world depopulation has been documented again and again throughout history. To deny it's existence under any name (Anti-Christ, NWO, or it's vehicle Collectivism) is to deny history itself. It's almost the same as if you were denying your very birth. You may think you were beamed down from outer space onto the planet Earth at the age of 1 year simply because you don't know any better but just a little research would reveal the records that show otherwise. Doubt the records and eye-witness accounts if you like but you are doing yourself and your fellow man a great disservice. Again: Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it - magnitude not withstanding.

Thus when I hear something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnWdENi5Tkg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClqUcScwnn8&NR=1

I take it with a historical perspective and context and not only is it found to be very very credible but the underlying meaning of such words and attitudes become obvious and pertinent. Without any historical frame of reference I can well imagine that upon viewing this video the intended implications from its author would seem frivolous and even fanatical.

=======================================================================



NWO is just a conspiracy. It's just another excuse for ppl to hate the US Gov/the current presidential administration. A bunch of my friends are joining the facebook group "I'm against the NWO" or whatever it's called. I want to punch them in the face.

You should be asking questions and studying instead of vocalizing your knee-jerk reactions. No one wants to believe that these kind of men exist. No one wants to consider that Mao, Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler were not isolated events but rather were the results of a very real ideal that still exists in the world today. IMHO, your friends have exactly the right idea.

=======================================================================



You know, a better question might be: what causes people to accept conspiracy theories, no matter how implausible? Is it gullibility alone? Is it ego -- the need to feel you're in on some big secret that no one else believes? Is it paranoia, the delusion that "they" are out to get us? Or something else?

I think that's part of a broader pattern:
http://gqrr.com/articles/2398/5488_TheVerySeparateWorldofConservativeRepublicans101609.pdf
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid_style.html


Both very interesting links, thank you...especially the latter, which looks at the back history of conspiracy theories. It's getting late, but I'll have to read those in full tomorrow.

The interesting thing about CTs (as I'll abbreviate conspiracy theories from now on) is that they are self-justifying. The more you point out the implausibility of any particular theory, the more that "proves" to the believer how cunning his "enemies" truly are. "Of course it all sounds totally unbelievable -- don't you see, that's the genius of it!"

I had this experience with the very first (and only) CT believer I ever spent a lot of time arguing with. She was an avid devotee of the moon-landing-faked-in-a-TV-studio theory. The more I pointed out how impossible that was, the firmer she dug in. Hundreds or thousands of people would have to be in on it? She was sure they'd been bought off or murdered. And so on.

It took me only that one lesson to learn not to try to reason with such people, because there is no reasoning with them. The belief is not scientific or analytical, it's religious.

Incidentally, I did skim the articles, and I saw they mentioned the usual suspects: Masons, the Catholic Church, Communists and others -- but where were the UFOs? :D

I disagree. You're confusing the fanatical with the founded. Yes, UFO/Alien nuts or even those believing in fairies and trolls are definable as a group in the terms as you have cited here. And although there is a possibility that the types have mixed together somewhat as of late this is very different than those of us who can historically and categorically identify those with a political ideal and agenda and who see many too many, parallels with real past historical events and those of the past decade or two especially. Yes, there are those who can glimpse some truth from the videos and the papers written by historians and documentarians, and who go off on a "religious" crusade partially informed and ill-equipped to debate. Those people indeed seem to fall into the categories you're discussing here. But that's only the affects of group-think and not the real issue at hand. This kind of group-think takes place in every large group whether it be religious, political, educational, or etc. The two should not be confused or substituted one for the other - even if they are at present intermingled.

======================================================================



So who is this week? The Illuminati? The Trilateral Commission? The Council on Foreign Relations?

Personally, I go with the Girl Scouts secretly running the world. The secret's in the cookies. Are they all (e.g Thin Mints, Tagalongs) really that much better than the store-bought equivalents? Or is there...something deeper...?

:rolleyes:

Second only to unthinking respect for authority, insincerity is the greatest enemy of truth!

[Ttownbeast]

I for one wouldn't mind a single world government where extensive paperwork is not required to travel from region to region, but I understand that the likelihood of that is more possible in a science fiction novel than in reality until humans start dismissing archaic cultural rituals and the us vs. them attitude.

[Tesselator]

I for one wouldn't mind a single world government where extensive paperwork is not required to travel from region to region, but I understand that the likelihood of that is more possible in a science fiction novel than in reality until humans start dismissing archaic cultural rituals and the us vs. them attitude.

I think it's very likely. In fact it is already partially implemented with the advent of the UN, the world bank, and etc. Doubtful that "the world government" will have an obvious structure which replaces the governmental structure of nation states in their current form.

I don't want it. It might be OK if we could guarantee it was run by free thinking men of good will who were beyond reproach and not power-mongers dedicated to self-gain and world depopulation. No such guarantee can be made and in fact the later be prevalent in the upper echelons of the world power structure even now. So, no thanks! To wish for that is to wish for Nazi germany on a world scale - even though it will perhaps not happen suddenly but gradually at first.

[Ttownbeast]

I think it's very likely. In fact it is already partially implemented with the advent of the UN, the world bank, and etc. Doubtful that "the world government" will have an obvious structure which replaces the governmental structure of nation states in their current form.

I don't want it. It might be OK if we could guarantee it was run by free thinking men of good will who were beyond reproach and not power-mongers dedicated to self-gain and world depopulation. No such guarantee can be made and in fact the later be prevalent in the upper echelons of the world power structure even now. So, no thanks! To wish for that is to wish for Nazi germany on a world scale - even though it will perhaps not happen suddenly but gradually at first.

You expect something impossible even as someone against such a thing as you are, and that is complete cooperation. My fantasy is your nightmare. I bother with more tangible things like the Malthusian Scenario, were more likely to overcrowd this planet to the point of self destruction, than we are to organize a "new world order" it's a lot easier to **** things up than it is to attain any kind of Utopian ideal.

[skunk]

I'd be fascinated to hear more about this alleged history written in Greek by Q Fabius Maximus. I wasn't aware he had the time or inclination. Any chance of a link? It seems that your extensive historical research has led you to confuse Q Fabius Maximus Cunctator, the general, with Q Fabius Pictor, the annalist, who was sent to Delphi and wrote some history in Greek, almost all of which has been lost, and which tells us very little.

[Tesselator]

Why would you put it like that? Trying to be troublemaker? If you have a correction just offer it in good will without trying to belittle or put down others. Right? Don't you think?

Anyway sarcasm aside I added a link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabius_Maximus) for his name so there won't be any confusion.

And thanks for bringing the error to my attention.



.

[Thomas Veil]

I think I have the honor of being replied to with the world's longest post. Which means it will be difficult to wade through a rebuttal, but I'll make the attempt.

So I see two things happening here. 1) You sampled only two links before you decided it was nonsense. Huh? And 2) you decide from there that there is a NWO and a nwo - one being fantastical BS and the other being a marketing slogan or hype. You conclude we're all confused and because you do not pursue the historical roots of the "NWO" you lack all foundation and make uneducated conclusions that in affect cut you off from any further investigation. K, well, that's sounds human. Deeply flawed but certainly human. At least this time you didn't attack anyone. Kudos for that.You appear to have missed several points completely.

First, I didn't decide to turn the words "new world order" into a bit of handy slang; you'll have to talk to the media about that.

Second, I may've checked out only two links, but one can read from the summaries and the URLs that there are few if any news-based sources for the conspiratorial New World Order. Such links are either to websites most people have never heard of, or YouTube clips which appear to be by the people who create those same websites most people have never heard of. Where are the links to the New York Times, MSNBC, The Washington Post, The Associated Press, CBS News, etc.?

...I look at and compare the time-lines of social institutions and programs, economic variables, prevailing attitudes then and now, similar/dissimilar governmental and power structures, the stated goals of state and powerful men, etc. etc. And then I form an opinion about the truth or fallacy of the statement or proclamation being made.Context is admirable, even necessary. However, there is such a thing as seeing context that's not there. What I think conspiracy theorists are experiencing is a sort of historical apophenia.

In fact, many members of congress and the CFR are card-carrying members of the Fabian Society....

The speaker similarly concludes that it is Fabianism which is the overwhelming governing principle of modern western politics.You'll excuse me if I just don't have the time to watch any more YouTube videos. But Fabianism is a gradual approach to socialism, and collectivism is more complicated than that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism).

According to Encyclopædia Britannica, "collectivism has found varying degrees of expression in the 20th century in such movements as socialism, communism, and fascism. The least collectivist of these is social democracy, which seeks to reduce the inequities of unrestrained capitalism by government regulation, redistribution of income, and varying degrees of planning and public ownership. In communist systems collectivist economics are carried to their furthest extreme, with a minimum of private ownership and a maximum of planned economy."So when your speaker says that Fabianism may be the overwhelming governing principle of modern western politics, he may be right in a way, but it doesn't mean we are marching towards communism or, worse, some sort of nightmarish 1984 society.

Plus, one could argue that capitalism has an overwhelming influence on modern western politics.

[skunk]

Why would you put it like that?Because your error here, conflation, is symptomatic of the whole basis of these NWO theories, which are based on nothing but the conflation of diverse data with vaguely plausible interrelationships to make an entirely artificial synthesis. Dan Brown is probably writing a novel about this New World Order as we speak.

[Gelfin]

Plus, one could argue that capitalism has an overwhelming influence on modern western politics.

One could further argue that capitalism falls just as much on the spectrum of collectivist philosophies as any of those others. Does anybody think money just happens? Rhetorical question: of course they do.

[Ttownbeast]

One could further argue that capitalism falls just as much on the spectrum of collectivist philosophies as any of those others. Does anybody think money just happens? Rhetorical question: of course they do.

You mean it doesn't grow on trees????

[Tesselator]

I think I have the honor of being replied to with the world's longest post. Which means it will be difficult to wade through a rebuttal, but I'll make the attempt.

Nah, it should be easy. half of it is quoted text. I tried to make the other half as clear as possible. ;)


You appear to have missed several points completely.

First, I didn't decide to turn the words "new world order" into a bit of handy slang; you'll have to talk to the media about that.

Well, you discover and/or acknowledge it. Same difference.


Second, I may've checked out only two links, but one can read from the summaries and the URLs that there are few if any news-based sources for the conspiratorial New World Order.

I don't agree. They're WAY too condensed and abbreviated to know what's being discussed, how accurate it is, what references it's based on and etc.. No, you were lazy. Just admit it. :)


Such links are either to websites most people have never heard of, or YouTube clips which appear to be by the people who create those same websites most people have never heard of. Where are the links to the New York Times, MSNBC, The Washington Post, The Associated Press, CBS News, etc.?

I dunno. search for them.

Associated press: http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&um=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22New+World+Order%22+associated+press
CBS News: http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&um=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22New+World+Order%22+CBS+News
Washington Post: http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&um=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22New+World+Order%22+Washington+Post
MSNBC: http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&um=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22New+World+Order%22+MSNBC
New York Times: http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&um=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22New+World+Order%22+New+York+Times

Remember, by this part of my remark I'm not claiming any particular aspect of the NWO to be true or untrue. I'm just attempting to establish that it exists in some form or another under the most basic definition I provided in my post. That's what the poll and this thread is all about. Either it exists or it doesn't. I say the likelihood that it does is extremely high. Either it does or the fallacy is so engrained and so old that the supposed players acknowledge it, have assimilated, and are now actively participating - which of course would again make it a reality anyway, so... :p


Context is admirable, even necessary. However, there is such a thing as seeing context that's not there. What I think conspiracy theorists are experiencing is a sort of historical apophenia.

Hehehe... I guess not. That was kinda funny tho.


You'll excuse me if I just don't have the time to watch any more YouTube videos. But Fabianism is a gradual approach to socialism, and collectivism is more complicated than that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism).

Depends on your preferred definition. There are more than one for each. To me Collectivism is a superset containing socialism, marxism, leninism, nazism, and etc. Communism is also (to me) a superset. It even includes the "hippy communes" that sprang up all over in the 60's - a few of which still exist. :)


So when your speaker says that Fabianism may be the overwhelming governing principle of modern western politics, he may be right in a way, but it doesn't mean we are marching towards communism or, worse, some sort of nightmarish 1984 society.

Well if that statement is correct it would mean we were marching toward a more socialistic government anyway. I think it's correct. There's lots to suggest that it is.

Rant{But IMHO the USA already is nightmarish compared to other countries. It's one of the worst countries on the planet. It's just that Americans say it's great and free so often that they actually believe it. They're desensitized to it. And it's been very bad for at lest 50 years. In the 70's I was stopped on the streets so often by meet-headed cops it was just crazy. Searched, made to show "my papers", even arrested for no reason at all. Simply because I was outside. And all my friends (and I really mean all) had the same experience. It was so bad we always called them "pigs" - I guess you've heard the term? I had a black friend who was walking down the street with his 6-month pregnant wife when the cops started giving them a hard time for walking down the street. He talked back to them insisting they watch their language and tone around his wife. They were so roughed up as a result that she lost the child. Try it. Talk back to a southern California, Dallas, Chicago, etc. cop and see what happens. Many other states and cities are bad too. They act like they're gods and you're a piece of crap and they force the point with violence. Then there are the laws themselves. OMG the USA is messed up. Property rights and real ownership is all totally gone now. You're forced to pay illegal taxes. Your forced to participate in a bureaucracy that's gone completely mad. All under penalty of imprisonment. The prisons themselves are for-profit private businesses owned by those with the political power to create law, lobby for strict sentencing, etc. - OMG! The USA has more people in the corrections system than ALL other countries added together and that's an actual statistic. This is not even mentioning the "secret prisons" that are STILL in operation and filled with American citizens. They require a license to drive, to run a business, and they're talking about requiring licensing just to have children. The CPS is so bad it's just crazy so you may loose your kids anyway - just for fitting a profile. You've accepted and become desensitized to a lic. for driving already but not too long ago it wasn't needed and people were VERY against requiring it. They snuck it in because of large trucks. Well that's a removal of my freedom - regardless of the scripted talking points no doubt some assimilated person will bring up saying "I'm glad we have it because X, Y, and Z". Our country now invades other countries without even a proper excuse. At least from the 40's through to about 2000 we made up excuses. Of course through media propaganda (brain-washing), group-think, and patriotism most or a lot of folks agreed with the actions. Many realized the folly in hind-sight - others remain "convinced" and feel justified. Walk through an airport or drive through a "check-point" (most of which are actually illegal!) and tell me you're not in a country that parallels nazi germany. Even in Japan where I live. The Airports are free access. There are no random stops on the streets. Well there are but if you insist you can ignore them usually. 15 years ago in Japan you could walk up to a cop and punch him in the nose and if you apologized after you likely would not be arrested. Even if you were taken in almost no one would be charged for such a thing - depending on the circumstances and severity of course. I watched repeatedly what they do to you in the USA if you even struggle while they arrest you for some BS law. First hand, really! (and my brother-in-law is a cop too and confirms it completely) - they put you in a secluded cell and take turns beating the crap out of you. Refuse to show a Japanese cop your ID and all you get is an argument - which you can walk away from. Drive without a lic. here and they tell you to go get one - and that's it most of the time. Don't pay your property taxes and all they do (90% of the time) is threaten to take your stuff - but never do (99.9% of the time). Same with the repo/confiscation game. In the USA they'll attack you and arrest you if the police dept. decides they just want what you have. etc. etc. And that's comparing to Japan - supposedly a strict police-centric country. Freedom of speech? yup that's gone for the most part too. Sure you can say what you like but there may be severe consequences. A man I worked with wrote a message similar to this one - not much worse and was put on a no-fly list for it. The whole idea of a no-fly-list is pretty crazy and they're starting to talk about extending to our freeways as well. How many are on the no-fly list now? 4 million or something? Yeah, right! 4 million domestic terrorists. LOL. The man I mentioned BTW could no longer go to work and lost his house as a result. I could go on and on and on endlessly comparing the USA to countries which actually are free - or at least free-er. IMHO the USA is about 5 years past "1984" in every respect. Even the language. You just can't see it unless you deprogram yourself so as to see it in a clear objective light. But that's how it was in the book too if you'll remember. Anyway I wouldn't be here saying ANY of these things about the NWO or anything if I didn't recognize that life in the USA was indeed nightmarish compared to other countries - even including the USSR and Red China these days. Life in Japan is so relaxing compared to the USA! And it's not just me. Everyone I talk to so far says the same thing. I hear "it's as if a weight were lifted from my shoulders" from people living here longer than a month or so, so often it's common. Headed toward nightmarishness? We're way past that.

I fully expect to get a buttload of denial replies. And that too fits the condition and situation both real and as described in the book. }



Plus, one could argue that capitalism has an overwhelming influence on modern western politics.

Yeah, that's true. I wasn't saying Fabianistic tactics were the only influence. Just a major one - and steadily quietly growing.


Because your error here, conflation, is symptomatic of the whole basis of these NWO theories, which are based on nothing but the conflation of diverse data with vaguely plausible interrelationships to make an entirely artificial synthesis. Dan Brown is probably writing a novel about this New World Order as we speak.

Conflation is combining two or more texts or ideas into one. Pasting the wrong bio into place has nothing to do with conflation. It's an editing mistake. Nothing to do with conflation at all.


One could further argue that capitalism falls just as much on the spectrum of collectivist philosophies as any of those others. Does anybody think money just happens? Rhetorical question: of course they do.

I don't think so. I'd have to look it up but I believe free market capitalism has the best track record in history for any large society. Researching this would be a bitch tho. There's no pat answer or quick look-up. One would have to track how "free" the markets were (it varies) during any down-turns and examine closely all of the factors that went into any destabilizing period as well as all of the stable slash growth periods too. That's years of research. Most economists I've listened to say it has the best record or at least a phenomenal one compared to all others! So no, I don't think we can argue that free market "capitalism falls just as much on the spectrum of collectivist philosophies as any of those others".

[skunk]

Conflation is combining two or more texts or ideas into one. Pasting the wrong bio into place has nothing to do with conflation. It's an editing mistake. Nothing to do with conflation at all.No, conflation was exactly what you were doing, combining the two Fabii to make a non-existent construct. You also appear to mistake a slow-moving natural accretion of power with a purposeful gradualism. Certainly there are families and clans which have retained and increased their wealth and influence over a thousand years and more, but this is equally nothing to do with a "New" World Order - it's as old as the hills.

[Thomas Veil]

<snip>The fact that you are entertained by the idea of seeing patterns in otherwise random events doesn't mean that it isn't true. In fact, skunk seems to have reached a similar conclusion.

But just because you say I don't research things thoroughly enough, here's what I found in the media links you gave:


AP: A mere three pages of links. Geez, even the Flying Spaghetti Monster has upwards of fifty. Of the top three links: two non-conspiratory name drops, and one conspiracy site that mentions the AP;
CBS News: One book by the highly untrustworthy Jerome Corsi, two reader comments;
MSNBC: One results page with five references. Top three: one bibliographic reference and one disparaging reader comment;
WaPo: Three results total. Another reference to Corsi, and two reader comments;
NYT: Again, exactly three results. One non-conspiratorial reference, one book excerpt, and Corsi (again!).
It appears that these esteemed newsgathering institutions either do not take the NWO seriously...or they are in on it.

In any case, that's twice that I have spent considerable time following your links to dead ends, without having seen one iota of proof.

And just to wrap things up: discovery and acknowledgment are not the same thing. And as far as definitions of collectivism are concerned, I'll take the Encyclopaedia Britannica's.

[Tesselator]

No, conflation was exactly what you were doing, combining the two Fabii to make a non-existent construct.

No. My construct still holds perfectly. The only thing I was saying is that Fabianism is named after the roman general who developed and practiced the art of winning both politically and in battle by seeming non-agressive and gradually gaining ground by waiting for the most opportune moments. That's still true. I just pasted the wrong bio is all - JUST LIKE I SAID. It has nothing directly to do with the NWO. It's only how the US government sometimes operates. And my claim that many members of congress are members of the Fabian society also holds. That I pasted the wrong bio is insignificant to ANY of the points I was making.

You also appear to mistake a slow-moving natural accretion of power with a purposeful gradualism. Certainly there are families and clans which have retained and increased their wealth and influence over a thousand years and more, but this is equally nothing to do with a "New" World Order - it's as old as the hills.

OK, but those are your opinions. They have nothing to do with my opinions and prove or disprove nothing at all.

[Tesselator]

The fact that you are entertained by the idea of seeing patterns in otherwise random events doesn't mean that it isn't true. In fact, skunk seems to have reached a similar conclusion.

Well it has nothing to do really with my ability or inability to detect patterns. How did that even come up? The fact is that the men involved in this stuff admit it and discuss it themselves in book and papers they themselves author and which are authored by documentarians with first hand knowledge (i.e.. sitting at the meetings and involved with the families/men).

But just because you say I don't research things thoroughly enough, here's what I found in the media links you gave:


AP: A mere three pages of links. Geez, even the Flying Spaghetti Monster has upwards of fifty. Of the top three links: two non-conspiratory name drops, and one conspiracy site that mentions the AP;
CBS News: One book by the highly untrustworthy Jerome Corsi, two reader comments;
MSNBC: One results page with five references. Top three: one bibliographic reference and one disparaging reader comment;
WaPo: Three results total. Another reference to Corsi, and two reader comments;
NYT: Again, exactly three results. One non-conspiratorial reference, one book excerpt, and Corsi (again!).
It appears that these esteemed newsgathering institutions either do not take the NWO seriously...or they are in on it.

In any case, that's twice that I have spent considerable time following your links to dead ends, without having seen one iota of proof.

And just to wrap things up: discovery and acknowledgment are not the same thing. And as far as definitions of collectivism are concerned, I'll take the Encyclopaedia Britannica's.

Checking two links is not enough I'm sure anyone will agree.

I "helped" you by offering the search titles for you - the ones you specifically requested. Personally I wouldn't try to research the NWO by internet "news" sites. I've found most of the information through leaked or publicly released internal white papers and library books. I just claimed that the "news" search at Google produced over 500 hits - which it does. That you personally discredit the majority of those hits is up to you. Within our "1984" example though you do realize what that means tho right? Sticking to (believing) only "party" information, etc.

The AP has exactly 0 (zero) links on the flying spaghetti monster: A.P. http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&um=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22Flying+Spaghetti+Monster%22+source%3Aassociated+press
And exactly 1 hit if "associated press" is part of the search string itself: http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&um=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22Flying+Spaghetti+Monster%22+%22associated+press%22


Britannica's matches mine almost exactly:
"any of several types of social organization in which the individual is seen as being subordinate to a social collectivity such as a state, a nation, a race, or a social class. Collectivism may be contrasted with individualism, in which the rights and interests of the individual are emphasized.

The earliest modern, influential expression of collectivist ideas in the West is in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Du contrat social, of 1762 (see social contract), in which it is argued that the individual finds his true being and freedom only in submission to the “general will” of the community. In the early 19th century the German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel argued that the individual realizes his true being and freedom only in unqualified submission to the laws and institutions of the nation-state, which to Hegel was the highest embodiment of social morality. Karl Marx later provided the most succinct statement of the collectivist view of the primacy of social interaction in the preface to his Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy: “It is not men’s consciousness,” he wrote, “which determines their being, but their social being which determines their consciousness.”

Collectivism has found varying degrees of expression in the 20th century in such movements as socialism, communism, and fascism. The least collectivist of these is social democracy, which seeks to reduce the inequities of unrestrained capitalism by government regulation, redistribution of income, and varying degrees of planning and public ownership. In communist systems collectivism is carried to its furthest extreme, with a minimum of private ownership and a maximum of planned economy."
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/125584/collectivism

[bobber205]

Well it has nothing to do really with my ability or inability to detect patterns. How did that even come up? The fact is that the men involved in this stuff admit it and discuss it themselves in book and papers they themselves author and which are authored by documentarians with first hand knowledge (i.e.. sitting at the meetings and involved with the families/men).



Checking two links is not enough I'm sure anyone will agree.

I "helped" you by offering the search titles for you. Personally I wouldn't try to research the NWO by internet "news" sites. I've found most of the information through leaked internal white papers and library books. I just claimed that the "news" search at Google produced over 500 hits - which it does. That you personally discredit the majority of those hits is up to you. Within our "1984" example though you do realize what that means tho right? Sticking to (believing) only "party" information, etc.

The AP has exactly 0 (zero) links on the flying spaghetti monster: A.P. http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&um=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22Flying+Spaghetti+Monster%22+source%3Aassociated+press

:rolleyes:
I'm pretty sure he was joking. The AP covers a huge variety of topics and the fact it only has 3 pages is telling.

What exactly are you afraid of with the NWO? Doesn't this seem like a creation of the super paranoid to you? I would think if you were really convinced of this, you would be doing more than trolling on a compute forum.

Why not get a argument so bullet proof that no one can deny it first? Why come up with half assed arguments that are full of holes that only strengthen "our" (and mine) opinion, further obfuscating us from the truth?

[Gelfin]

I don't think so. I'd have to look it up but I believe free market capitalism has the best track record in history for any large society. Researching this would be a bitch tho. There's no pat answer or quick look-up. One would have to track how "free" the markets were (it varies) during any down-turns and examine closely all of the factors that went into any destabilizing period as well as all of the stable slash growth periods too. That's years of research. Most economists I've listened to say it has the best record or at least a phenomenal one compared to all others! So no, I don't think we can argue that free market "capitalism falls just as much on the spectrum of collectivist philosophies as any of those others".

Total non sequitur. It isn't a matter of "track record," whatever you mean by that, and your expectation that "a good track record" proves something is not collectivism is simply circular.

I offer no moral judgment about collectivism or capitalism. I merely observe that inventing a normative token of wealth and policies for how that wealth is stored and transmitted is a collectivist strategy. A common economy is a way of organizing the labor of an entire society in a way that works towards the advancement of that society, and more subtly towards the ends valued by the people who authored the policies. Money is government.

[Thomas Veil]

Well it has nothing to do really with my ability or inability to detect patterns. How did that even come up? The fact is that the men involved in this stuff admit it and discuss it themselves in book and papers they themselves author and which are authored by documentarians with first hand knowledge (i.e.. sitting at the meetings and involved with the families/men).



Checking two links is not enough I'm sure anyone will agree.

I "helped" you by offering the search titles for you - the ones you specifically requested. Personally I wouldn't try to research the NWO by internet "news" sites. I've found most of the information through leaked or publicly released internal white papers and library books. I just claimed that the "news" search at Google produced over 500 hits - which it does. That you personally discredit the majority of those hits is up to you. Within our "1984" example though you do realize what that means tho right? Sticking to (believing) only "party" information, etc.

The AP has exactly 0 (zero) links on the flying spaghetti monster: A.P. http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&um=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22Flying+Spaghetti+Monster%22+source%3Aassociated+pressRe FSM: I was joking.

As to the rest:

If you feel the original two links I looked up were insufficient, then feel free to look up more. The delusion is yours; you supply the proof. But keep in mind that on the second go-around (post #37) I checked fifteen links and they all bombed out.

We are now at the point where I was with my "moon landing in a TV studio" acquaintance:

You are blithely discarding any ideas of how apophenia may be connected to your belief system.
You are giving me links to research, and then telling me the results don't matter or that you wouldn't look them up that way.
You are, as someone pointed out earlier, constantly shifting the goal posts. Now you're talking about the proof being in books and writings. I'm not even going to ask you to produce them, because from your prior record I know they would lead to even more dead ends.I'm tired of being led on your little snipe hunt, and shame on me for allowing myself to be sucked into it. Maybe you get some sort of twisted kick out of this, but if so, you need more help than anyone here can give you.

[Tesselator]

:rolleyes:
I'm pretty sure he was joking. The AP covers a huge variety of topics and the fact it only has 3 pages is telling.

Ya never know. ;)

What exactly are you afraid of with the NWO?

Afraid? Mmm, no personally nothing for myself. I want the best world for my children and grandchildren tho. To me what the NWO represents is a very poor world. Like Russia or something. Also people say that the USA is the holder of the freedom torch - for the rest of the world. So if that's lost it'll (I guess) affect a whole lot of people on the planet. Maybe for example like what we already did to Iraq or are doing to Iran & Pakistan currently. <shrug>


Doesn't this seem like a creation of the super paranoid to you?

If I hadden't studied anything and was being introduced to it for the first time 'out of the blue' so to speak then yes, it sure would.


I would think if you were really convinced of this, you would be doing more than trolling on a compute forum.

General discussion sucks? Why be here at all then? But I don't think it's trolling in the typical sense.


Why not get a argument so bullet proof that no one can deny it first? Why come up with half assed arguments that are full of holes that only strengthen "our" (and mine) opinion, further obfuscating us from the truth?

Is there such a thing as a "bullet proof argument"? I was answering Ugg who asked: "Do you spend a lot of time on conspiracy theory websites? Maybe you could let us know what you're reading, it might help everyone understand you." and addressing a wikipedia entry I thought was being slightly misinterpreted. I want to know why almost everyone here becomes hostile, defensive, and condescending whenever NWO or other related ideas are mentioned or come to light - so I started this thread. I'm not really interested in proving anything or convincing anyone. I think everyone should be allowed to post their opinions unhindered and un-attacked. The readers here can then pick out of it what they like. If it's complete unfounded speculation without any thread of evidence circumstantial or other, then I can see others saying so unobtrusively and in non-combative ways - that makes sense. But most opinions posted here about whatever are just that (unfounded speculation without any thread of evidence) and no one says much typically. Mention the NWO tho and the usual culprits come out harpoons in hand.

Re FSM: I was joking.

As to the rest:

If you feel the original two links I looked up were insufficient, then feel free to look up more. The delusion is yours; you supply the proof. But keep in mind that on the second go-around (post #37) I checked fifteen links and they all bombed out.

We are now at the point where I was with my "moon landing in a TV studio" acquaintance:

You are blithely discarding any ideas of how apophenia may be connected to your belief system.
You are giving me links to research, and then telling me the results don't matter or that you wouldn't look them up that way.
You are, as someone pointed out earlier, constantly shifting the goal posts. Now you're talking about the proof being in books and writings. I'm not even going to ask you to produce them, because from your prior record I know they would lead to even more dead ends.I'm tired of being led on your little snipe hunt, and shame on me for allowing myself to be sucked into it. Maybe you get some sort of twisted kick out of this, but if so, you need more help than anyone here can give you.

Well first, just to be clear, I don't believe I ever mentioned anything about the moon-landing. I'm fairly positive we did in fact land on the moon - working in that field as I did at the time. :)

But I think the problem or disconnect here lies in the understanding of the purpose and intent of this thread itself. Read my reply to bobber205 for more I guess. So no shifting goals here - tho thinking that this thread was all about proving that the NWO does in fact exist, I can see why you might think so.

I guess if I wished to prove to someone that the NWO existed the single most convincing piece of literature would be a first edition of Georgetown University Professor of History Carroll Quigley's book "Tragedy and Hope". Quigley as you may know was Bill Clinton's G.U. Professor, adult lifetime friend, mentor, and political advisor. He wrote the book as a documentarian during his time in active membership within the CFR.

Probably next for the casual layman I would suggest entering "Proof that the new world order exists" into google search and see what references people cite or quote from and then track down and read those. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=Proof+the+%22new+world+order%22+exists&aq=f&oq=&aqi= gets me over 5 million hits. By Google result page 20 they're still relevant so I guess the search is proper and the information is rich.

Stuff like this is fun but I dunno how convincing it is for those who haven't already looked into it: http://www.b-eye-turkey.com/the-new-economic-world/proof-of-the-new-world-order-in-under-11-minutes (embedded YT link).

[bobber205]

Well first, just to be clear, I don't believe I ever mentioned anything about the moon-landing. I'm fairly positive we did in fact land on the moon - working in that field as I did at the time. :)

But I think the problem or disconnect here lies in the understanding of the purpose and intent of this thread itself. Read my reply to bobber205 for more I guess. So no shifting goals here - tho thinking that this thread was all about proving that the NWO does in fact exist, I can see why you might think so.

I guess if I wished to prove to someone that the NWO existed the single most convincing piece of literature would be a first edition of Georgetown University Professor of History Carroll Quigley's book "Tragedy and Hope". Quigley as you may know was Bill Clinton's G.U. Professor, adult lifetime friend, mentor, and political advisor. He wrote the book as a documentarian during his time in active membership within the CFR.

Probably next for the casual layman I would suggest entering "Proof that the new world order exists" into google search and see what references people cite or quote from and then track down and read those. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=Proof+the+%22new+world+order%22+exists&aq=f&oq=&aqi= gets me over 5 million hits. By Google result page 20 they're still relevant so I guess the search is proper and the information is rich.

Stuff like this is fun but I dunno how convincing it is for those who haven't already looked into it: http://www.b-eye-turkey.com/the-new-economic-world/proof-of-the-new-world-order-in-under-11-minutes (embedded YT link).

There's tons of google links for "two girls 1 cup" and "The government caused 9/11".

That doesn't mean there's "Rich" information or give any credibility to your cause.

There are many many paranoid people that look towards stuff like this for comfort and self identity.

Cooperation between governments does not mean a new world order. :rolleyes:

[Ttownbeast]

Wow! That really contributed to the discussion!

it's called comic relief, it helps ease tensions in an otherwise heated debate if you take life too seriously you'll kill yourself long before this supposed NWO does

[Tesselator]

There's tons of google links for "two girls 1 cup" and "The government caused 9/11".

That doesn't mean there's "Rich" information or give any credibility to your cause.

I never said it did. I said the references used in them might be a good starting point if one wanted to discover the truth of the matter.


There are many many paranoid people that look towards stuff like this for comfort and self identity.

I doubt that very seriously.


Cooperation between governments does not mean a new world order. :rolleyes:

No one is talking about that.

it's called comic relief, it helps ease tensions in an otherwise heated debate if you take life too seriously you'll kill yourself long before this supposed NWO does

No. I disagree. It's called buttinski-interuptus, it's rude, it's usually condescending, and it's off topic. If you want comic relief go to a site that is made for that - there are thousands of them. Doing it in the middle of a thread located in the "Politics, Religion, Social Issues" forum of a site is wholly inappropriate!

[Ttownbeast]

No. I disagree. It's called buttinski-interuptus, it's rude, it's usually condescending, and it's off topic. If you want comic relief go to a site that is made for that - there are thousands of them. Doing it in the middle of a thread located in the "Politics, Religion, Social Issues" forum of a site is wholly inappropriate!

Wow are you going to a shrink for your issues concerning your clear disconnection from reality?

[bobber205]

I never said it did. I said the references used in them might be a good starting point if one wanted to discover the truth of the matter.




I doubt that very seriously.




No one is talking about that.

http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS305US305&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=paranoid+theories

See. There's lots on google about it. ;)

You really doubt there are alot of paranoid people that take some form of self identity from theories like this? Seriously?!

[Tesselator]

You really doubt there are alot of paranoid people that take some form of self identity from theories like this? Seriously?!

Yes. :)

I guess someone so confused as to receive comfort from paranoid delusions likely isn't functioning at a high enough level to communicate at all let alone rationally. Identifying momentarily with the delusion is more probable I suppose but still that would be the trait of a fairly sick individual - perhaps most of whom are either already incarcerated or holding high political office. And yes, I'm being serious. :)

[.Andy]

Probably next for the casual layman I would suggest entering "Proof that the new world order exists" into google search and see what references people cite or quote from and then track down and read those. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=Proof+the+%22new+world+order%22+exists&aq=f&oq=&aqi= gets me over 5 million hits. By Google result page 20 they're still relevant so I guess the search is proper and the information is rich.

vnboards.ign.com

blogs.myspace.com

zapatopi.net/belgium/

uncyclopedia.wikia.com

youtube.com

uk.answers.yahoo.com

b-eye-turkey.com/

vodpod.com

illuminati-news.com/
Information rich and reliable urls for the casual layman.

[Tesselator]

This is kinda interesting:

Parts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpPjeXCyRFc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLqaee1fk6Y&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_G3Gh4yPTBw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsAsgMd_nOo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWQcLlNG6mM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLhj5ggD220&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDi8ZFUNPag&feature=related

Stuff like this is very common.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Yes, it's very common for someone to take little understood historical facts, and spin them into a wildly inaccurate conspiracy theory that has little to nothing to do with the actual historical groups.

Have you done any research of your own on the knights of the rose cross and the illuminati?

There's a lot of interesting historical stuff there, and none of it has to do with taking over the world in any conventional fashion.

It's similar with popular understandings of historical Gnostic Christianity today. People are content to delve into fantasy and whatever they see on Youtube, instead of actually doing any research into the historical facts.

Oh well. Whatever keeps you happy and makes you believe you're gaining "knowledge."

[Tesselator]

Have you done any research of your own on the knights of the rose cross and the illuminati?

Yes.


There's a lot of interesting historical stuff there, and none of it has to do with taking over the world in any conventional fashion.

;)


It's similar with popular understandings of historical Gnostic Christianity today. People are content to delve into fantasy and whatever they see on Youtube, instead of actually doing any research into the historical facts.

Generally true.

[skunk]

Frankly, if those working for a New World Order are aiming for world domination for centuries to come, they are at least likely to take the threat of pollution and climate change seriously. How refreshing to know that there is a group of people around with real influence who are not governed by short-termism and the need to keep an ignorant electorate on side. Why would anyone have a problem with this?

[Tesselator]

Frankly, if those working for a New World Order are aiming for world domination for centuries to come, they are at least likely to take the threat of pollution and climate change seriously.

No, their central-most theme is world depopulation. Several numbers are given but the most often repeated one is 50 million total. All others must die. Pollution and etc. is a means to that end. "Climate change" has already proven to be completely bunk psudo-science.

How refreshing to know that there is a group of people around with real influence who are not governed by short-termism and the need to keep an ignorant electorate on side. Why would anyone have a problem with this?

Oh brother... :rolleyes:

[skunk]

No, their central-most theme is world depopulation. Several numbers are given but the most often repeated one is 50 million total. All others must die. Pollution and etc. is a means to that end. "Climate change" has already proven to be completely bunk psudo-science. And you are the one responding with "Oh brother"?????

Oh brother indeed.

[Tesselator]

Patiently they have used wars and debt to take control of the US economy and now are positioned to bankrupt the American economy at any moment. It is all part of the plan conceived long ago by the (Rothschild) family and their secret investment strategy to eliminate all governments of the world and have a single source for money under a New World Order.

Hmm... I wonder if there's anything to this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAlUFFe2Tdk

[skunk]

Hmm... I wonder if there's anything to this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAlUFFe2TdkAnd why should there not be less reliance on the dollar? It is not as stable as it used to be.

[Tesselator]

And why should there not be less reliance on the dollar? It is not as stable as it used to be.

Less is fine with me. I hope it's NOT replaced with a world currency tho.

From what I understand by reading CFR and UN documents US and other union (EU, NAU, AU etc.) member states will retain the same printed notes and coins but the currency will be the world one. That was about a year ago now tho so while I doubt the plans have changed they very well could have.

[P-Worm]

I don't believe in this New World Order as it is called, but if it did exist, why should I care? It seems to me that it would be beneficial to the world if we could manage to live harmoniously under one government.

P-Worm

[Zombie Acorn]

It depends how its implemented and who is controlling it. Free trade and one currency sounds like it would be interesting/beneficial efficiency wise, but I have to imagine it would get messed up somehow. I don't agree with our laws being dictated from one world government however.

[Rt&Dzine]

It seems to me that it would be beneficial to the world if we could manage to live harmoniously under one government.

Dream on. :)

[Tesselator]

I don't believe in this New World Order as it is called, but if it did exist, why should I care?

It depends how its implemented and who is controlling it.

Yeah. And if it is real then according to many of the same people who are claiming so and researching it, it's "being controlled" by a "religious society" one and the same as brought us Hitler and Lenin. According to that very religion they want to depopulate the Earth. By their own admission about six billion people must die in order to achieve their stated goals of a total population of 500 million. So to answer the question - I guess that's why you should care. Unless you agree with them. And then please off yourself before others in order to help achieve that goal. I'm not trying to be a smart-ass but seriously, if anyone feels strong enough about overpopulation to kill then they should do themselves first IMHO.

[yg17]

Yeah. And if it is real then according to many of the same people who are claiming so and researching it, it's "being controlled" by a "religious society" one and the same as brought us Hitler and Lenin. According to that very religion they want to depopulate the Earth. By their own admission about six billion people must die in order to achieve their stated goals of a total population of 500 million. So to answer the question - I guess that's why you should care. Unless you agree with them. And then please off yourself before others in order to help achieve that goal. I'm not trying to be a smart-ass but seriously, if anyone feels strong enough about overpopulation to kill then they should do themselves first IMHO.

If it's real. Keyword there. If.

There's still no proof that it's real. Just a bunch of crackpot conspiracy theories with no facts to back them up. The NWO is about as real as unicorns or Santa Claus.

[Tesselator]

If it's real. Keyword there. If.

There's still no proof that it's real. Just a bunch of crackpot conspiracy theories with no facts to back them up. The NWO is about as real as unicorns or Santa Claus.

How many times are you going to post essentially the same thing? I think we all already know your position on the matter. (Basically you know nothing about it, don't care to find out, and therefor it doesn't exit.)

I have a question for you though. If it's a total fantasy as you've convinced yourself of then why do the men directly involved in it at what seems to be the very highest positions, freely admit it and write about it in books, magazines, and council documents?

And you are the one responding with "Oh brother"?????

Oh brother indeed.

That's not my opinion. That's what they say - which I did specify. I think it's pretty crazy too. Like totally out in outer-space crazy. But it doesn't matter what you or I think. This is what they say.

[nbs2]

Everybody knows that NWO was total BS, and that Hulkamania would return. (I can't believe nobody maade that reference in three pages - unless I missed it in all the ramblings)

Really, though, the Novus Ordo Seclorum has long since been established.

[takao]

Yeah. And if it is real then according to many of the same people who are claiming so and researching it, it's "being controlled" by a "religious society" one and the same as brought us Hitler and Lenin. According to that very religion they want to depopulate the Earth. By their own admission about six billion people must die in order to achieve their stated goals of a total population of 500 million.

wait a minute so the "jewish world conspiracy" believer himself was put into position by a secret religious world conspiracy ... ... and that they first even put Lenin on the map successful and won a huge civil war and then failed in 1923 quite miserable when they throwing out the "november-criminals" from '18/19 with the first try to put the man on the map

and the revolutions in 1917 in russia and 1918/19 germany ended the first world war .. so how exacly does that fit the plan of "killing of more people"

and if the socialists were just put forward in governments (influenced by religious society) during 1917-19 why bother with replacing them just after 4 years in 1923 ?

[Macky-Mac]

..... Quigley as you may know was Bill Clinton's G.U. Professor, adult lifetime friend, mentor, and political advisor......

now there's an interesting claim......Quigley died in 1977, more than 30 years ago. How could he have been Clinton's "adult lifetime friend" when he's been dead for the vast majority of Clinton's adult life? :D

[leekohler]

now there's an interesting claim......Quigley died in 1977, more than 30 years ago. How could he have been Clinton's "adult lifetime friend" when he's been dead for the vast majority of Clinton's adult life? :D

Well, that was just a little slip up...ya know... it happens all the time...not that serious...

Except that it wasn't true.

But facts don't matter to people like this.

[Rt&Dzine]

I don't know about being his friend, but Clinton did take a course from Quigley and later named him as an important influence on his politics.

[Macky-Mac]

I don't know about being his friend, but Clinton did take a course from Quigley and later named him as an important influence on his politics.

that's true, his freshman year Clinton took Quigley's course......got a "B", but that doesn't turn him into an adult lifetime friend, mentor and political advisor, especially when he was dead for most of Bill's career :D

poor Quigley, to the end of his days he complained that the international conspiracy crowd (especially John Birch Society members) were misquoting, misrepresenting and distorting his work.

edit; I'm NOT saying that Tesselator invented this "adult lifetime friend" business, rather I suspect he read that somewhere on one of his favored sites......I just think it's funny, and a bit pathetic, that a dead man has been repurposed in such a way

[Thomas Veil]

edit; I'm NOT saying that Tesselator invented this "adult lifetime friend" business, rather I suspect he read that somewhere on one of his favored sites.....Yeah. Stuff like this is very common, you know. ;)

now there's an interesting claim......Quigley died in 1977, more than 30 years ago. How could he have been Clinton's "adult lifetime friend" when he's been dead for the vast majority of Clinton's adult life? :DWhat, you've never seen "Weekend at Bernie's"?

[NT1440]

What, you've never seen "Weekend at Bernie's"?

Somehow I could see slick Willy doin something like that :p

[Thomas Veil]

It does give new meaning to the title "Quigley Down Under"....

[Tesselator]

edit; I'm NOT saying that Tesselator invented this "adult lifetime friend" business, rather I suspect he read that somewhere on one of his favored sites......I just think it's funny, and a bit pathetic, that a dead man has been repurposed in such a way

No, I made it up. Well, I deduced it from Clinton's own comments about the man in several of his speeches and writings. So they obviously were "Adult lifetime friends" during the period they were both alive.

But why is that important? It kinda misses the central point of both the post and the thread - going off on a mini-tangent like that. :confused:

I don't know about being his friend, but Clinton did take a course from Quigley and later named him as an important influence on his politics.

Yes, that's right. etc.



One of the central points to the post was that C. Quigley's book in it's 1st edition was/is very revealing in terms of the NWO and CFR connection and their dark Nazi-like collectivist policies. Quigley being a CFR insider and upper level member wrote openly about it. To him a total believer in such eugenics and "ruling the world" it was perfectly normal to lay it out. Just like it would be for one of us who believe in freedom and liberty to discuss that openly.

takao seems to be the only one thinking here today.

[Ugg]

But why is that important? It kinda misses the central point of both the post and the thread - going off on a mini-tangent like that. :confused:


Does it? I think it's more a matter of examining the basis of your claims. Hyperbole maybe?

If you've been around here long, you'll have noticed that fact checking can be quite rigorous.

Actually, now that I'm on the topic (and half that bottle of Two Buck Chuck (http://www.traderjoes.com/product_categories.html#Booze) has mysteriously disappeared!) I'm surprised that you place so much emphasis on youtube videos. IMO, the printed word is much more honest and reliable than video. Video is designed to play on your emotions, not your intellect...

[Tesselator]

Does it? I think it's more a matter of examining the basis of your claims. Hyperbole maybe?

If you've been around here long, you'll have noticed that fact checking can be quite rigorous.

No it's not. Not EVEN! Nothing that's main-stream is checked here - it's all just blindly accepted - and that's what needs to be checked the most. Mention something controversial tho and it's not "fact checked", it's subverted by nitpicking meaningless colloquialisms used in the descriptions and taking semantics to new levels of extremity. Oh yeah, and if that doesn't work then the name calling starts. This is a perfect example - not to mention the 20 or so posts that were deleted at my request. If it were checked someone would have searched for the book itself and skimmed it. Someone would have paralleled early nazi (or stalin/lenin russian) policies and detailed how they parallel those of the CFR. Perhaps noting that they differ primarily only in implementation. And perhaps noticing that even those differences in the most recent years is indeed changing to match more and more closely.


Actually, now that I'm on the topic (and half that bottle of Two Buck Chuck (http://www.traderjoes.com/product_categories.html#Booze) has mysteriously disappeared!) I'm surprised that you place so much emphasis on youtube videos. IMO, the printed word is much more honest and reliable than video. Video is designed to play on your emotions, not your intellect...

Maybe. I think that video has two important advantages. One is that we as viewers can get an idea of the character of the individuals involved. The other is that it's shorter, easier to digest, and requires less effort for the chronically lazy - which I believe describes most internet surfers.

[Macky-Mac]

No, I made it up. Well, I deduced it from Clinton's own comments about the man in several of his speeches and writings. So they obviously were "Adult lifetime friends" during the period they were both alive.

But why is that important? It kinda misses the central point of both the post and the thread - going off on a mini-tangent like that. :confused:.....

it's important because it speaks directly to your original question of "why do people think the NWO is BS.....or do they?"

It shows yet another example of how the true believers in the NWO continually present claims that simply aren't true....even on silly side issues there seems to be this need to embellish the real facts, or to invent a tall tale to support some claim. After awhile, one comes to expect the arguments of the NWO true believers to be full of such fake claims, or BS

No, I made it up......

.....One of the central points to the post was that C. Quigley's book in it's 1st edition was/is very revealing in terms of the NWO and CFR connection and their dark Nazi-like collectivist policies. Quigley being a CFR insider and upper level member wrote openly about it. To him a total believer in such eugenics and "ruling the world" it was perfectly normal to lay it out. Just like it would be for one of us who believe in freedom and liberty to discuss that openly.....

but who are we to believe? you? or the author of the book? One of his complaints against the conspiracy theorists who cited his book was that they were thoroughly distorting and misrepresenting what he said on issues such as you mention.

He emphatically denied that he had ever said there was some sort of secret cabal with a conspiracy of the sort you're claiming.....he said that idea was all the invention of right wing extremists.

Again, who are we to believe? you? or the author of the work?

[Thomas Veil]

No, I made it up. Well, I deduced it from Clinton's own comments about the man in several of his speeches and writings. So they obviously were "Adult lifetime friends" during the period they were both alive.

But why is that important? It kinda misses the central point of both the post and the thread - going off on a mini-tangent like that. :confused:Because it speaks to your credibility, or lack of same. If your proofs are YouTube videos and you can't even get your own facts straight, you can't expect anyone to take you seriously.

takao seems to be the only one thinking here today.Again, everyone else is mistaken. :rolleyes:

No it's not. Not EVEN! Nothing that's main-stream is checked here - it's all just blindly accepted - and that's what needs to be checked the most.Examples, rather than general accusations, please.

Mention something controversial tho and it's not "fact checked", it's subverted by nitpicking meaningless colloquialisms used in the descriptions and taking semantics to new levels of extremity.Meaningless to whom? I'm the one who pointed out how badly your "new world order" links failed. We still, despite having asked numerous times, have not received anything showing that a New World Order conspiracy exists from a truly credible source.

Oh yeah, and if that doesn't work then the name calling starts. This is a perfect example - not to mention the 20 or so posts that were deleted at my request.Ah, that explains a lot. Now we have an outright admission. That, too, speaks to the lack of credibility in your arguments; if your losing badly, see how many of the opposing posts you can get deleted.

It's easier than producing facts, I guess.

I think that video has two important advantages. One is that we as viewers can get an idea of the character of the individuals involved. The other is that it's shorter, easier to digest, and requires less effort...Since when are YouTube videos fact-checked by credible journalists? Since when does seeing somebody in a video provide an insight into their character? Since when is watching a 10-minute YouTube video shorter than reading a transcript of the video?

[Iscariot]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-8bVEIVUh8&feature=fvw

[leekohler]

takao seems to be the only one thinking here today.

Comments like this don't help you either.

[Tesselator]

it's important because it speaks directly to your original question of "why do people think the NWO is BS.....or do they?"

It shows yet another example of how the true believers in the NWO continually present claims that simply aren't true....even on silly side issues there seems to be this need to embellish the real facts, or to invent a tall tale to support some claim. After awhile, one comes to expect the arguments of the NWO true believers to be full of such fake claims, or BS

Nope. It's purely subversion and semantics. When your friend dies do you not still call him friend? My friends are friends for life. And I consider them friends after they die too just like Clinton did C.Q.. To argue this point is semantics and it clearly detracts from the general topic.



but who are we to believe? you? or the author of the book? One of his complaints against the conspiracy theorists who cited his book was that they were thoroughly distorting and misrepresenting what he said on issues such as you mention.

I cited this book - and I never said any such thing! WTF?


He emphatically denied that he had ever said there was some sort of secret cabal with a conspiracy of the sort you're claiming.....he said that idea was all the invention of right wing extremists.

Who is "He"? Me?, the person who cited it? Quigley? I don't believe he ever commented on the issue. Clinton? Yeah, <snicker> we can believe Clinton. LOL

Again, who are we to believe? you? or the author of the work?

Read the book and then you'll know. That's called "fact checking". If people here knew what "fact checking" meant I probably wouldn't have to even say that. Other more general fact checking missions would lead you to the same conclusions IMO tho. It's not all pivotal on just one book. The book in question "Tragedy And Hope" Edition 1, mostly just outlines and explains the connections between the CFR, the banking elite (as I call them), and the US government (and other governments) as well as certain foundations and etc.

Here's something else to look at. Do you doubt the honesty of this man (Norman Dodd)?:

Parts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8cC21jB9EE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBfYarsfgpI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMVZSsPzaTc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFUygqg57XU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nl1oh5DB1I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBR6dDRmdbU

Here's a clip some you-tuber clipped where he thinks some important points are critiqued:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WML6-l81mDw&NR=1 from the interview (from above).


There's testimonial after testimonial that collectively confirms overwhelmingly to my mind the existence of this NWO thingy. Maybe people's idea of what this kind of cabal looks like from the outside is distorted? Maybe to clarify it you can think of some local church you may belong to. It's not much different other than it's not open to just anyone, it's a bit more political because the upper members are extremely powerful men, and the base religion (canon) is what we call satanism. These Illuminati (or satanists) also come with their own set of leakers and whistleblowers from varying ranks and positions so there's mountains of testimonials about that aspect of this "cabal" as well. Do you remember the leaks that surfaced about Bush and Kerry's membership in the related group Skull & Bones?

[Macky-Mac]

Nope. It's purely subversion and semantics. When your friend dies do you not still call him friend? My friends are friends for life. And I consider them friends after they die too just like Clinton. To argue this point is semantics and it's clearly detracts from the general topic.....

As you admit, you made it up....and that goes right to the point of your original post asking why people think the NWO is BS.....you might not like the answer that it's because the true believers in the NWO inevitably make up so much of their stuff.....but there it is, as demonstrated by your own post

....Who is "He"? Me?, the person who cited it? Quigley? I don't believe he ever commented on the issue. Clinton? Yeah, <snicker> we can believe Clinton. LOL
.....

you're unaware that Quigley commented on these things? Yes, it was Quigley. So you don't actually know very much about the author's views do you.

Do these youtube presentations do anything other than restate the very sort of misrepresentations that Quigley complained about?

[Tesselator]

--==Delusions and misleading comments clipped==--
...
...
...

Do these youtube presentations do anything other than restate the very sort of misrepresentations that Quigley complained about?


Yes. But is it so difficult to view them in order to find out?
You might lean something about the country you live in!
Assuming you live in the USA.

[Thomas Veil]

Yes. But is it so difficult to view them in order to find out?Yes. Every time you post six videos, you are seriously suggesting that someone sit down for an hour and trudge through those.

If you have a point to make, please link to a few credible, mainstream news articles or accepted scholarly documents. Don't give us YouTube videos, don't tell us the proof is in some unnamed politician's writings, don't just show us a list of search results. Link to some actual, hard news articles from CNN or the Associated Press or something!

[bobber205]

Yes. Every time you post six videos, you are seriously suggesting that someone sit down for an hour and trudge through those.

If you have a point to make, please link to a few credible, mainstream news articles or accepted scholarly documents. Don't give us YouTube videos, don't tell us the proof is in some unnamed politician's writings, don't just show us a list of search results. Link to some actual, hard news articles from CNN or the Associated Press or something!

But the conspiracy is keeping the "true" word out of those compromised media sources!

;)

[Ttownbeast]

Is tess going somewhere with all this conspiracy nonsense or is this just another long introduction for a zeitgiest movie edit? in all honesty if you're not on drugs you probably should be, if you are you're probably on the wrong ones or probably shouldn't be taking any.

[Tesselator]

The events critiqued in the videos might have been in the papers back in the 50's. <shrug> I kinda doubt any specifics were mentioned tho. Maybe just the general status of the Reese Commission or something. I doubt any of the findings were mentioned. If they had been I think there would have been a second civil war or something drastic. The information did get out because I heard about it myself back then when it was "current" and during those tines "comments" alluding to certain aspects of the investigations were dropped casually on the radio and in local town or neighborhood papers (something we no longer have these days).

This was way before personal computers so I doubt any of these reports made it into electronic text. Some people have written about it but I'm sure this crowd would call them conspiracy "wing-nuts" and discredit them. Just a few years ago the dictation belts were retrieved and entered in on some lady's computer. I think she's selling the transcripts or something.

But yes, to answer your question, I do expect anyone interested enough in this topic to post in this thread to also take the time to look over the evidence. Yeah, it's about 40 min. worth. It's better than TV for sure! And what are your usage habits like anyway? You just hop on for 5 min., make meaningless remarks, and then shut down? If you even post in between work tasks (assuming you work on a computer) then you could probably also just as easily run the video in the BG as you work too.

Or it's fine if you don't want to. But then I don't expect to hear from you in this thread either.

Is tess going somewhere with all this...

The questions remain the same from the very first post:

Why is it that on this site if someone mentions the New World Order they're branded a "conspiracy theorist" and/or discredited?
Do you think there are disinformation shills here on this site?
Do you think the people taking this position are brainwashed by the media and without a clue?
Do you believe there is no such thing? If so why?
I haven't changed a thing. I have tried to answer questions and I have asked some questions about other's comments when they weren't about A, B, C, or D. Other than that - that's all there is.

[xlii]

The New World Order is real. The plan is being executed now. It is all about the transfer of wealth and power from the USA to China, India, and the rest of the 3rd world. In the 80s the manufacturing jobs in the USA started to move overseas. In the 90s, low end tech started to move and in the 2000s high end tech transfer started. We're talking college educated jobs leaving the USA for India & China. We are talking outsourcing. We are talking about a voluntary transfer of our tech knowledge and tech manufacturing knowledge to India and China.

It would be one thing if these countries home grown industries beat us fair and square at the game and put us out of work. But this is our own American owned companies transferring jobs and work overseas so the CEO and his gang can enrich themselves at the expense of the American worker. Just look around at what has happened.

[Ttownbeast]

The New World Order is real. The plan is being executed now. It is all about the transfer of wealth and power from the USA to China, India, and the rest of the 3rd world. In the 80s the manufacturing jobs in the USA started to move overseas. In the 90s, low end tech started to move and in the 2000s high end tech transfer started. We're talking college educated jobs leaving the USA for India & China. We are talking outsourcing. We are talking about a voluntary transfer of our tech knowledge and tech manufacturing knowledge to India and China.

It would be one thing if these countries home grown industries beat us fair and square at the game and put us out of work. But this is our own American owned companies transferring jobs and work overseas so the CEO and his gang can enrich themselves at the expense of the American worker. Just look around at what has happened.

That's just corporate practice to widen a narrower profit margin by going where they don't have to pay a union scale--when its cheaper to ship products from overseas and pay workers in other nations pennies rather than dollars. That means more money for CEO's here (I bet those people in India that handle customer service for MicroSoft don't get paid much above their country's minimum wage standard if there is one).

It's not some giant global conspiracy either its just a business practice so people here can make money. I've heard them all. Some saying that the labor unions are in on this global conspiracy, others saying that it's the corporations outsourcing jobs to avoid paying union salaries, others blame health care, democrats blame republicans, republicans blame democrats, middle class blame the homeless, police blame the drug users, the drug users blame the cops, Neo Nazis blame the Jewish media, Nascar fans blame the illegal aliens, Christians blame the Atheists, Atheists turn around and blame them. Blame is placed upon the deity, or on the demon, or sometimes on the moon, or PMS--did I leave anything out? Sure I probably did the list of grievances gets much longer.

Not everyone agrees on why we're ****ed up it's just easier to blame everyone else for our problems and bicker about huge conspiracies--when we all agree we are ****ed up at least.

[savar]

You conclude we're all confused and because you do not pursue the historical roots of the "NWO" you lack all foundation and make uneducated conclusions that in affect cut you off from any further investigation.

I tend to believe in the rational and observable. However, I readily admit that the world is far too big for me to understand, especially at age 26. So a large part of my world understanding has to be derived from other people's representations and opinions.

But how to decide who to trust? Well it's actually pretty simple. I look for people who seem educated, can write effectively, and know the difference between the words affect and effect.

You, sir, do not fall into that category.

[Tesselator]

That's just corporate practice to widen a narrower profit margin...

So Clinton was a corporation?

The moves described by xlii were outlined in the 40's by the NWO or whatever you want to call them (I call them "the banking elite" or sometimes just plain "criminals" myself). The bulk of that stage (and parts) of their stated goals and plans were created in the 40's, stages set in the 70's & 80's and carried out from the 80's through from then till now - still being affected. What we can actually see of it is setup by politicians and bankers 1st and then the corporations you mention follow. You don't remember Nixon in China? Or the big stink about Clinton giving China all our national and technological secrets?

It's like being on an endless slow moving disneyland boat-ride isn't it? You're in the boat looking at the shores and if you don't have a radio and aren't listening to the construction workers a mile downstream you have no idea the river's course was predetermined by the ride's planners and foremen.

Instead you're left to argue with the other people in the boat as to whether or not the piles of freshly dug dirt that occasionally line the shores are from something else or indeed the river-ride is being constructed and it's path planned.

If you dig around you can find a walky-talky and hear them plan and construct it though.

Hehe... Sorry about the lame metaphor. :D



But how to decide who to trust? Well it's actually pretty simple. I look for people who seem educated, can write effectively, and know the difference between the words affect and effect.

You're going to decide who to trust based on education and grammar skills? I say don't trust anyone but politely consider everything and then go find out for yourself. Education is NOT a criteria tho for sure! You're 26 and educated right? Were you taught anything about it? Same with the rest of us. Especially considering that the institutions of education were among the 1st casualties of this take-over. (See the 6-part video above)

[Thomas Veil]

You're 26 and educated right? Were you taught anything about it? Same with the rest of us.They never taught us anything about vampires either. Does that mean they exist?

You just hop on for 5 min., make meaningless remarks, and then shut down? If you even post in between work tasks (assuming you work on a computer) then you could probably also just as easily run the video in the BG as you work too.Yeah, that's the ticket. Nothin' wrong with watching YouTube conspiracy movies while you're at your desk. Bosses love that. :rolleyes:

But no, I've spent enough time being led around by your links. I've asked you for a specific kind of documentation of what you're saying, something anybody ought to be able to produce, something people can and do provide here every day. And you can't.

Or it's fine if you don't want to. But then I don't expect to hear from you in this thread either.Expectation dashed.

[Rt&Dzine]

So Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and Bush were all in on this?

[Zombie Acorn]

So Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and Bush were all in on this?

Damn right they were, who do you think planned the Kennedy assassination? Lincoln?

[Tesselator]

They never taught us anything about vampires either. Does that mean they exist?

Wow! your school sucked! I was taught about vampires. Really.

Yeah, that's the ticket. Nothin' wrong with watching YouTube conspiracy movies while you're at your desk. Bosses love that. :rolleyes:

Headphones?


But no, I've spent enough time being led around by your links. I've asked you for a specific kind of documentation of what you're saying, something anybody ought to be able to produce, something people can and do provide here every day. And you can't.

Expectation dashed.

It's not that I can't. I just haven't yet. Don't be so hasty. For example here's the transcript (with notes and comments) of the 6-part video I pasted: http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/dodd/interview.htm

[NT1440]

Headphones?



Oh, yea im sure his boss would only care about the noise. :rolleyes:

[Macky-Mac]

....Who is "He"? Me?, the person who cited it? Quigley? I don't believe he ever commented on the issue. Clinton? Yeah, <snicker> we can believe Clinton. LOL....

Actually, Quigley had a lot to say about the conspiracy theorists who misrepresented what he said in his book....a few samples;

Quigley's comments on one of the first of the conspiracy theorists claims about Quigley's writings; Professor Skousen, who wrote "The Naked Capitalist: A Review and Commentary on Dr. Carroll Quigley's Book, Tragedy and Hope".


"Skousen's book is full of misrepresentations and factual errors," Professor Quigley said. "He claims that I have written of a conspiracy of the super-rich who are pro-Communist and wish to take over the world and that I'm a member of this group. But I never called it a conspiracy and don't regard it as such..."

...Skousen also claims Dr. Quigley believes the influential group of Wall Street financiers still exists and controls the country. "I never said that," Dr. Quigley said flatly. "In fact, they never were in a position to 'control' it...


Quigley expressing his astonishment about the conspiracy theory crowd that adopted his book;

"You can't believe what people think,” he says. "Some believe it is all a Jewish conspiracy, that is part of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion which we now know were perpetuated by the Czarist Russian police force in 1904. And that this conspiracy is the same thing as the Illuminati, a secret society founded in 1776 in Bavaria. And that the Illuminati are a branch of the Masons. There are some people who say the Society of Cincinnati, of which George Washington was a member during the American Revolution, was a branch of the Illuminati and that's why the Masons built their monument in Alexandria to George Washington, since he was a Mason and head of the Illuminati before he helped start the Society of Cincinnati. See what I mean?"


More from Quigley;

"I generally think that any conspiracy theory of history is nonsense," Quigley says, "for the simple reason that most conspiracies that we know about seem to me to be conspiracies of losers, people who have been defeated on the historical platforms of public happenings...."

[Thomas Veil]

It's not that I can't. I just haven't yet. Don't be so hasty. For example here's the transcript (with notes and comments) of the 6-part video I pasted: http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/dodd/interview.htmThank you. I read that in 20 minutes, instead of 40 watching the video.

I'll grant the benefit of the doubt that this transcript is a true and accurate record of Mr. Dodds' comments. However, I don't find much in it to convince me of anything. Here's why:


This particular story is told from Mr. Dodd's point of view, which may or not be true. The one thing talk radio and networks like Fox have taught us is that there are quite a few people highly skilled at spinning real life events to support their own belief system. So Mr. Dodd may be telling the God's honest truth, or he may be remembering it the way he wants to remember it, or he may be outright lying. Without checking other sources, there's no way to tell.
There isn't much on the internet to tell us about Norman Dodd. Wiki has scant information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Dodd), and doesn't seem to trust the information it does have. Encyclopaedia Britannica doesn't have anything on him.
There are other versions of the events Dodd speaks of, which tell another story. They sound to me, if not more credible, at least more likely. Again, going back to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reece_Committee), it seems the Democrats on the committee objected to what they came to believe was the committee's true purpose: Opponents criticized the Committee as "investigating free thought".[3]
The committee's two Democrats, Wayne L. Hays and Gracie Pfost, refused to sign the final report. The Hays-Pfost minority report charged that the foundations "have been indicted and convicted under procedures which can only be characterized as barbaric." The minority accused Chairman Reece and the committee staff of a "deep-seated antagonism toward foundations" which might "well be characterized as pathological."
According to the minority report: The majority and committee staff were guilty of "an evil disregard of fundamental American guarantees."
So what emerges appears to be an interesting story told from Mr. Dodd's standpoint which, when compared to info on a website which does not have a stake in the matter, is contradicted, or at least sounds questionable.

Therefore, while I don't flat-out reject Mr. Dodd's comments, I don't find them particularly convincing. I don't think he's making this up out of whole cloth, but I do think he's spinning events quite a bit.

[Tesselator]

So Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and Bush were all in on this?

Yes. I believe that most or all presidents from about 1920 on knew of it with varying degrees of compliance and approval - even prior to taking the oath of office. I personally believe that Kennedy didn't know or understand it until later on in his presidency. When he woke up to it he spoke about it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3T3gWKURc8) and began trying to dissemble it with his Executive Order 11110, (which was signed and gave the authority to basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest.) and other maneuvers. For this he was murdered. For trying to pick up where his brother left off JFK's brother Bobby, was murdered. And for even looking like he might be interested in picking up the ball JFK's son John-John, was murdered (not so long ago). The Federal Reserve Bank is one of the main vehicles that establish wealth and power for these crooks - weee, free money printing with indenturing side benefits! I think maybe Tricky-Dick and Ray-gun were shot for bucking them a little too tho I'm not as clear on those. At this point in history (2000 ~ 2009 and probably since 1989 [Bush 41] really!) it is the president that serves at the pleasure of the controlling factors of the NWO (or whatever we're calling them).


Oh, yea im sure his boss would only care about the noise. :rolleyes:

So, that's a no on the headphones thing then huh? :)


Thank you.

...while I don't flat-out reject Mr. Dodd's comments, I don't find them particularly convincing. I don't think he's making this up out of whole cloth, but I do think he's spinning events quite a bit.

Yeah, I understand that. That's good common sense caution. There are however another several mountains of circumstantial and tangible evidence which together convince me pretty well. This story is just a tip of one of the icebergs at play here. I'm not trying to convince anyone tho. This side-discussion remember, comes from others asking me why I myself think that there is indeed such a thing as a NWO as well as wanting to know what and what kind of proof there was that would cause me to think so.