What is the New World Order?

Out,_Vile_Jelly

smeagold wrote: »

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?

No. I don't agree that politicians agree on anything.

julieq

[quote=[Deleted User];41480770]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Alan Sugar wasn't born into money. Neither was Bill Gates, or the woman who founded Ebay or the guys who created google. City traders are resolutely non blue blooded. Many if not most of the corporate overlords these days come from developing countries and not traditional networks of wealth and influence. If I have a complaint it's about the primacy of the MBA - which is a purely theoretical qualification - against common sense and entrepreneurial spirit. Many CEOs have never built a company.

Success is largely a question of hard work, application, talent and opportunity. By definition it can't come to everyone. It is far harder today to coast into a position of influence and power on the basis of connections than it has ever been. Jealousy is very often misplaced.

And yes, big business has influence, though as BP are discovering, this is less than previously enjoyed. But consider this: profits from our businesses overwhelmingly go towards pension income in the general population, not to fill the coffers of fat cats. It is quite right that the interests of business are represented to those framing public and social policy, because if the latter dominates, the ability to generate the wealth needed to pay for them is diminished. That's not to support excess, but the tendency to bash the corporate world is ridiculous and excessive. We all benefit if business prospers.

cgk1

smeagold wrote: »

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?

No because people (politicians) included can use the same phrase to mean vastly different things. Trying to post-hoc rationalize together the words of different politicians at different times from different cultures and different politically viewpoints is a rather naive and silly undertaking.

bendix

smeagold wrote: »

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?

No. It's too facile.

What we can agree on is that now and again politicians use bland phrases like 'a new world order' to describe a better tomorrow than today.

It's fatuous phrasemaking.

You conspiracists turn it around and see it as evidence of THE new world order than you all obsess about.

Two different things.

So, no, I don't agree at all. We are not agreeing on the same terms.

julieq

smeagold wrote: »

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?

Complete and utter tosh.

If you say there is an objective, tell us what the objective is. Then we will look for evidence of concerted actions leading to that objective.

The words "new", "world" and "order" exist and are often combined in that order by all manner of people meaning different things. We can agree on that. So what is the next stage of your argument exactly?

You're in a difficult situation here, because you're arguing with people who know about techniques of persuasion, and who are not going to be rolled over. So you're going to have to get into substantive detail to convince.

bendix

That's the thing about smeagold (and other conspiracists). They automatically assume they're more enlightened and intelligent than everyone else. Smea often talks about his superior knowledge on gold and silver; he's doing the same here.

Wrong forum pal. You might shine on your conspiracy nutjob websites and run rings around the others, but on here you come across as a complete lightweight intellectually.

cgk1

julieq wrote: »

You're in a difficult situation here, because you're arguing with people who know about techniques of persuasion, and who are not going to be rolled over. So you're going to have to get into substantive detail to convince.

I used to debate evolution with creationists - the same principles apply, their techniques only work when the people are on the other side are those who are unwilling to do any research. As soon as the creationist/conspiracy theorist encounters anyone like that, it all falls to pieces and they are reduced to "I DIDN'T HEAR THAT" and repeating the same questions over and over again.

julieq

The only way of arguing a false truth is via techniques of manipulation, and there are only so many of those - they're fairly easy to recognize when you know them and we've covered a lot of them in this thread: false dichotomy and removal of context are two absolute classics (I've often spoken here of the importance of verifying bounding data to establish full context when faced with a headline statement). They rely essentially on psychology and work astonishingly effectively.

It's a fascinating subject in itself. What amuses me though is that a strong indicator of someone who has fallen for the techniques is a belief that other people have been deceived in the opposite sense. The word "sheeple" used in a derogatory sense is an even stronger indicator incidentally.

Heyman_2

julieq wrote: »

You're in a difficult situation here, because you're arguing with people who know about techniques of persuasion, and who are not going to be rolled over.

It's good to see you and Bendix actually taking the time to debunk all of it with common sense.

cepheus

Wealth is more evenly distributed than at any point in history

Where did you get this information from? Whilst inequality is reducing in certain European states, it is very much increasing in the UK, US, China and India. I am reasonably sure you will also find the Developed nations still hold a greater concentration of wealth than the Developing ones particularly Africa.

I also suggest that globalisation is one reason for this international inequality and multinationals will continue to ensue that the hard labour of the 80% keep the other 20% prosperous and the top 1% very rich indeed!

I guess this excludes illegal activities, particularily the massive offshore market, which might explain the decreasing Gini index for Russia

Gini index=greater inequality