What is the New World Order?

bendix

smeagold wrote: »

Alright fun and games over. lets get down to 'brass tacks' There's a certain phrase often used by politicians and power brokers; 'The New World order, watch these:

Blair:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ6uxAqlplc
Brown: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv5cqh26CC0
Bush: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7i0wCFf8g
Sarkozy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3sDbRU2Huk
Clinton: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1etgsNU46s4
Obama: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CV8Xt2VWvc
kissinger: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GThfWVCfjVo
Harper (Aus) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UQ48HoqlUY
EU: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7D21rPpBrk

Now quit slapping yourselves on the backs about how funny everything is and wake up. Watch the videos above. All these politicians are talking about a New World Order, Don't deny it, watch them. Now come back and tell me that they arn't talking about the same thing. They believe it, they're working towards a new world order while you clowns live in your little fantasy denial world where everyrthing is just oh so funny. So what exactly is the NWO? The politicians of the world are working towards it/believe in it, So what is it? Come on tell me, fantasy or reality? Give us your wisdom. The jokes over, start behaving like grown men, if your able.(which I doubt)

Oh come on, smea. New world order is always used as a generic term for a better improved society - and yet you guys seize on it as evidence of a conspiracy. If it's a freaking conspiracy, why are they talking about 'it' openly.

Three simple worlds. new. world. order. A great political rallying cry - a great symbolic phrase to describe a happy period.

And yet fools like you interpret it as our global leaders giving us hints (well, not hints - advanced warning) that those same leaders are soon joining forces to enslave us.

For the love of god. Get some balance.

bendix

And for the record, I watched Asheron's video. I've never seen such a bunch of utter crap in my life. Evidence? Seriously, is that your definition of evidence.

I call it vague conjecture and muddled thinking.

It's almost adolescent. Completely banale.

The only thing frightening is that supposedly intelligent people get taken in but I suppose it's like any kind of religion - it provides an intellectually lazy framework for people to make sense of a world which - by definition - can't be made sense of. We all want that kind of ordered thinking.

The ironic thing is that those who gullibly and lazily believe these ideas - NWO, religion, marxism, - which seek to explain everything around them have the effrontery to believe that they are the enlightened ones, and that everyone else is living in the dark.

cgk1

Oh dear, I'd expect this sort of thread on Stormfront or some other far-right talk-board.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Enslaving the entire world sounds like a tiresome hassle. What would be the point? It's not like the rich and powerful don't already do exactly as they please.

julieq

If you were a secret conspiracy to create a New World Order, you'd hardly tell everyone.

Unless it's a cunning double bluff

It's of psychological interest more than anything else. There is a significant group that laps this nonsense up, and that is I suspect a result of disenfranchisement, envy and a lack of willingness to engage on anything that's evidence based in favour of wild theories. In which it's not so very different from HPC dogma.

I think that waiting round the corner is a very unpleasant scenario with gold though. Demand from gold is largely driven from the Far East and I suspect is being generated from a very heavily debt fuelled housing bubble the like of nothing we've had here. When that pops, there will be a lot of gold sold to access liquid currency, and the gold bubble is going to pop too. If you've been sucked into the fallacy that "gold is wealth", there's a high risk of a high impact short notice event. The irony here is that the actual change in the world order has absolutely nothing to do with an international conspiracy to enslave their people, it comes from the most populous country in the world embracing free markets.

cgk1

Kohoutek wrote: »

Predicted key words:

Bilderberg Group; Trilateral Commission; United Nations; IMF; European Union; David Rockefeller; Rothschild family; debt; dollar, collapse of; oil; financial crisis....am I on the right lines?

You've missed the Nazis - there is always a reference to the Nazis in this stuff.

smeagold

I think we have established now that there is a concept called the NWO. These politicians obviously ascribe it some meaning, is it just an empty phrase? I think not.

The phrase describes an objective.

Brown said, at the Iraq inquiry that he feared the "new world order we were trying to create would be put at risk".

Bush said:

The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective — a new world order — can emerge: . Speech to joint session of Congress (11 September 1990

I can produce many more such quotes. So what have we established? That there is a concept called NWO and that it describes an objective. Anyone deny this?

bendix

smeagold wrote: »

I think we have established now that there is a concept called the NWO. These politicians obviuosly ascribe it some meaning, is it just an empty phrase? I think not.

The phrase describes an objective.

Brown said, at the Iraq inquiry that he feared the "new world order we were trying to create would be put at risk".

Bush said:

The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth objective — a new world order — can emerge: . Speech to joint session of Congress (11 September 1990

I can produce many more such quotes. So what have we established? That there is a concept called NWO and that it describes an objective. Anyone deny this?

Oh for the love of God. We've already addressed this.

When they use the phrase creating a new world order, they are referring generically to an improved future. It is not a concept called NWO, some mythical enslavement of humanity, as you mean it, but a change from where we are now.

It's a vague political phrase, NOT a sinister conspiracy.

AGAIN, if it's a sinister conspiracy, why the hell would they keep referring to it?

You posted this thread to debate the issue. You're not debating it; you're ignoring perfectly valid challenges and simply lecturing on without engaging in discussion.

A typical tactic.

bendix

julieq wrote: »

It's of psychological interest more than anything else. There is a significant group that laps this nonsense up, and that is I suspect a result of disenfranchisement, envy and a lack of willingness to engage on anything that's evidence based in favour of wild theories. In which it's not so very different from HPC dogma.

.

Exactly. All through history, humanity has sort to create belief systems that amazingly describe why life is the way it is - we have this inner need to be able to explain the world and yet the world is something that can't be explained. There is no order to it - human history is a series of incidents and trends building on each other.

Understand that, and the need for dogmatic belief systems becomes redundant.

julieq

Yes, I would deny that the NWO as defined exists, because the quotes do not regard the NWO that the video is attempting to describe, which in turn is a construction of a paranoid conspiracist world view.

Would you say that the NHS is a good or a bad thing? Because to a NWO conspiracist , the US attempt to create some degree of universal healthcare is part of the conspiracy to enslave.

Unless you define very clearly what you believe the objectives of the NWO as you see it are, you cannot ascribe the statements of Brown to being a contribution to those objectives. Brown was talking about something different, essentially a peaceful and law abiding world free of tyranny. Which like him or loathe him he has always been completely consistent about.

You can always quote out of context - or invent quotes - to make someone say something they're not, but that is a shabby technique known as demagoguery.

You are also using a classic technique of the demagogue in the question "Do you deny there is a concept called NWO and that it describes an objective, anyone deny this?". But you are retaining ownership of the concept and only allowing us to agree or disagree on the fact that three words are used. It's a cheat.