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

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Tesselator, Oct 30, 2009.

  1. Tesselator macrumors 601

    Tesselator

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #1
    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=...der"&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn

    What say you to these questions?
     
  2. bamaworks macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2007
    Location:
    Lexington, KY
    #2
    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?".
     
  3. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #3
    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.
     
  4. Tesselator thread starter macrumors 601

    Tesselator

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #4
    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. :eek:

    I want to see how others justify ignoring it and what they tell themselves in order to think it doesn't exist.
     
  5. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #5
    Yep. You hit the nail on the head.

    Wow, that certainly didn't help your case- at all.
     
  6. bamaworks macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2007
    Location:
    Lexington, KY
    #6
    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.
     
  7. Tesselator thread starter macrumors 601

    Tesselator

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #7
    Yeah, I can see your point. K, I'll think about changing the wording in my post.




    EDIT: (changed)
     
  8. Chundles macrumors G4

    Chundles

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2005
    #8
    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.
     
  9. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #9
    Funny how that works, isn't it?
     
  10. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #10
    I believe this says more about "every other site" you're on than about the posters on this one.
     
  11. Tesselator thread starter macrumors 601

    Tesselator

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #11
    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. ;)

    Not possible, not logical. It says something about both.
     
  12. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #12
    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 (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:

    [​IMG]

    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.
     
  13. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #13
    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.
     
  14. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #14
    What the hell is the "New World Order" supposed to be? That the US isn't the only big boy in the playground anymore?
     
  15. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #15
    :D every thread needs a wikipedia reference;

     
  16. Dane D. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2004
    Location:
    ohio
    #16
    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.
     
  17. Prof. macrumors 601

    Prof.

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago
    #17
    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.
     
  18. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #18
    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?
     
  19. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #19
    I think that's part of a broader pattern:


     
  20. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #20
    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
     
  21. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #21
    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:
    1. Everyone is too incompetent or complacent to notice a vast global conspiracy, meanwhile;
    2. 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.
     
  22. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #22
    Hopefully coming to take some people away.
     
  23. CaptMurdock macrumors 6502a

    CaptMurdock

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2009
    Location:
    The Evildrome Boozerama
    #23
    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:
     
  24. Ttownbeast macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 10, 2009
    #24
    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
     
  25. Tesselator thread starter macrumors 601

    Tesselator

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Location:
    Japan
    #25
    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.

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



    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), communism/socialism (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.

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



    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) 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:


    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 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.

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



    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.

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



    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.

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



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

Share This Page