What is the New World Order?

vivatifosi

julieq wrote: »

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

Do you know what I find most amazing about conspiracy theorists? An absolute gift from God has dropped in their laps in the shape of Wikileaks US embassy cables. But instead of reading through them, doing their own primary research and checking whether there's any information that backs up their theories and shouting it from the rooftops they are making glossy YouTube vids the theory behind which can be knocked over with a feather.

cgk1

smeagold wrote: »

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

If you are going to quote someone, provide the full quote:

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: a new era, freer from the threat of terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. An era in which the nations of the world, east and west, north and south, can prosper and live in harmony.

A hundred generations have searched for this elusive path to peace, while a thousand wars raged across the span of human endeavor, and today that new world is struggling to be born. A world quite different from the one we've known. A world where the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle. A world in which nations recognize the shared responsibility for freedom and justice. A world where the strong respect the rights of the weak.

This is the vision that I shared with President Gorbachev in Helsinki. He and the other leaders from Europe, the gulf and around the world understand that how we manage this crisis today could shape the future for generations to come.

Also when you provide a quote out of context it means nothing - this speech was given within the context of east and west coming together over the Gulf crisis.

julieq

In the conspiracist world, the leaks were authorised fakes to give false information.

There's a key technique of demagogery which is to take an event and cast doubt on it to imply that there is a wider conspiracy. Moon landings, 9/11, the end of the gold standard, wikileaks, all of these come in for scrutiny and odd little "inconsistencies" are listed and overemphasised. These propagate far faster than the debunking, because probably it's more interesting to believe in the dark side than work through the dull detail of the truth.

Human gullibility is a fascinating subject, and group gullibility is almost boundless, particilarly when there's an authority figure involved in making cases. That's the significance of the Matrix clip, it is someone who "knows" telling the initiate and asking him to join the initiated or go back to the mass of the unknowing (hence the term "sheeple" which you see a lot from internet cultist sheep). In almost all group deceptions from religions to Ponzi schemes, this specific choice is offered: come with us, or regret forever not joining us. Once you have joined, you have an emotional stake in the belief system proposed.

cgk1

That's the significance of the Matrix clip, it is someone who "knows" telling the initiate and asking him to join the initiated or go back to the mass of the unknowing (hence the term "sheeple" which you see a lot from internet cultist sheep). In almost all group deceptions from religions to Ponzi schemes, this specific choice is offered: come with us, or regret forever not joining us. Once you have joined, you have an emotional stake in the belief system proposed.

You are right in that the same technique is used by ponzi schemes and also scam marketing schemes. The other way it is applied is to offer it and then start suggesting that the initiate might not be worthy or ready and that maybe they have made a mistake selecting them, this only makes them more pliable and willing to suspend disbelief.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

smeagold wrote: »

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.

A politician using an empty phrase? Surely not.

bendix

Come on smeagold . . let's see how you deal with the charge of using quotes (themselves very weak) out of context.

I suppose you'll ignore the objection as always.

Weak. Very weak.

[Deleted User]

When people start talking about plans being in place for hundreds of years and everything being part of a single conspiracy, backed up by mainly conjecture and circumstantial evidence it loses credibility.

The problem I have with this is that when people start talking about some real issues that the conspiracy theorists have used as more 'evidence' (or a part or a symptom of the overall plan) it takes credibility away from those people by association.

The real and evident problems include, the political influence of big business especially banks, the lack of opportunity for the masses due to many of the highest paid jobs being inaccessible to those more than capable enough thanks to the current system giving unfair advantages to those who are born into money and especially those who have family connections to people already within these industries. For someone to break into banking, the legal profession, medical profession, politics, etc they often require much more than the ability to do the job. These professions, large corporations etc also have a disproportionate influence on us via the representation within government or lobbying power.

Social mobility, the sleazy nature of the financing of political parties, the influence of big business and some professions, is the thing that we should be tackling. These real problems are not part of a conspiracy they're just unfair and sleazy.

cgk1

[quote=[Deleted User];41480770]When people start talking about plans being in place for hundreds of years and everything being part of a single conspiracy, backed up by mainly conjecture and circumstantial evidence it loses credibility.

The problem I have with this is that when people start talking about some real issues that the conspiracy theorists have used as more 'evidence' (or a part or a symptom of the overall plan) it takes credibility away from those people by association.

The real and evident problems include, the political influence of big business especially banks, the lack of opportunity for the masses due to many of the highest paid jobs being inaccessible to those more than capable enough thanks to the current system giving unfair advantages to those who are born into money and especially those who have family connections to people already within these industries. For someone to break into banking, the legal profession, medical profession, politics, etc they often require much more than the ability to do the job. These professions, large corporations etc also have a disproportionate influence on us via the representation within government or lobbying power.

Social mobility, the sleazy nature of the financing of political parties, the influence of big business and some professions, is the thing that we should be tackling. These real problems are not part of a conspiracy they're just unfair and sleazy.[/QUOTE]

Charlie Brooker sums it up perfectly here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/14/september11.usa

Out,_Vile_Jelly

New Order's only number one was World In Motion. Coincidence? I THINK NOT.

Always knew there was something sinister about John Barnes' rap.

smeagold

In order to find out what it actually is we first have to establish that the move towards it exists that there is a political objective called the new world order. Once we know that the objective exists we can then turn to the question what is the nature of the objective. What exactly is it they are trying to create. So can we all agree that there is an objective, that some politicians are trying to create, and that objective is called the new world order?