What is the New World Order?

cgk1

julieq wrote: »

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.

Yes, it's a very interesting area, I expect at some stage we'll get the 'gish gallop':

A variant of the Gish Gallop is employed by bloggers who post an endless series of dubious assertions - each of which can be countered, but to no effect, as it will be buried under the cascade of dubious posts.

julieq

cepheus wrote: »

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 particularily Africa.

I didn't say it was uniformly evenly distributed, I said the distribution is more even globally that at any point in history. Which is obvious: wealth has moved from the West to the East. That's one of the benefits of globalisation.

smeagold

julieq wrote: »

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.

yes I can see that. Quite remarkable tho when all these politicians use exactly the exact same phrase and use words like trying to create or move towards a new world order, it doesn't mean anything or it means something different to each one even though the objectives, which most prefer to believe, is a moving towards more global co-operation, peace and prosperity for all, which everyone can seem to agree on.

Its also quite remarkable that when poiticians say we want to create a new world order people won't even admit the possibilty that it might mean something, instead even the very possibilty that it may mean something is instantly dismissed. 'It doesn't mean anything' they say but if someone were to say I'm going to make something or create something that most certainly does mean something.

I suppose these statements have no meaning either:

"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all." Strobe Talbot, President Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, l992.

"We shall have world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent." Statement by Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member James Warburg to The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17th, l950

"The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical. What the Trilateral Commission intends is to create a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nationstates involved. As managers and creators of the system, they will rule the future." U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater

"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991

"The New World Order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down...but in the end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault." CFR member Richard Gardner, writing in the April l974 issue of the CFR's journal, Foreign Affairs.

"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order [referring to the 1991 LA Riot]. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond [i.e., an "extraterrestrial" invasion], whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government." Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991

julieq

cgk1 wrote: »

Yes, it's a very interesting area, I expect at some stage we'll get the 'gish gallop':

The film itself was an example of that. It's difficult to go point by point through a 2.5 hour film because unless you've seen it and are prepared for a rash of detail you're not going to be interested by a long rebuttal.

cgk1

And here it is! The Gish Gallop has begun!

julieq

smeagold wrote: »

yes I can see that. Quite remarkable tho when all these politicians use exactly the exact same phrase and use words like trying to create or move towards a new world order, it doesn't mean anything or it means something different to each one even though the objectives, which most prefer to believe, is a moving towards more global co-operation, peace and prosperity for all, which everyone can seem to agree on.

Its also quite remarkable that when poiticians say we want to create a new world order people won't even admit the possibilty that it might mean something, instead even the very possibilty that it may mean something is instantly dismissed. 'It doesn't mean anything' they say but if someone were to say I'm going to make something or create something that most certainly does mean something.

I suppose these statements have no meaning either:

"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all." Strobe Talbot, President Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, l992. "We shall have world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent." Statement by Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member James Warburg to The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on February 17th, l950
"The Trilateral Commission is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power political, monetary, intellectual and ecclesiastical. What the Trilateral Commission intends is to create a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nationstates involved. As managers and creators of the system, they will rule the future." U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater

"We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the work is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." David Rockefeller, founder of the Trilateral Commission, in an address to a meeting of The Trilateral Commission, in June, 1991

"The New World Order will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down...but in the end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much more than the old fashioned frontal assault." CFR member Richard Gardner, writing in the April l974 issue of the CFR's journal, Foreign Affairs.

"Today, America would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order [referring to the 1991 LA Riot]. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were an outside threat from beyond [i.e., an "extraterrestrial" invasion], whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government." Dr. Henry Kissinger, Bilderberger Conference, Evians, France, 1991

No Smeagold, here's how it works.

- You tell us what the objective of the NWO is.

- You show us evidence of substantive ACTIONS (not words) that have led to its creation, and evidence that it exists (hint: films of black limousines with faked news stories don't work).

- You get called for every example of demagoguery and misrepresentation. Which is going to be uncomfortable for you.

Quotes out of context are meaningless. As is posting clips from the Matrix. Are you seriously suggesting that the Matrix is a repository of arcane wisdom?

You're through the looking glass now. In the world where people who know about techniques of manipulation aren't going to give you the latitude to bluster.

cgk1

"In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all." Strobe Talbot, President Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State, as quoted in Time, July 20th, l992.

In the copy of the article I found in about 15 seconds, he makes no such statement. I'm not going to waste my time with the rest - if you can't be bothered to check your "quotes", why should the rest of us?

Kohoutek

There's no evidence that the Rockefeller or Kissenger quotes are authentic, because they were supposedly uttered at secret meetings.

Heyman_2

cgk1 wrote: »

And here it is! The Gish Gallop has begun!

Complete with 'Thanks' from rewired! Smell the Credibility!

smeagold

julieq wrote: »

No Smeagold, here's how it works.

- You tell us what the objective of the NWO is.

- You show us evidence of substantive ACTIONS (not words) that have led to its creation, and evidence that it exists (hint: films of black limousines with faked news stories don't work).

- You get called for every example of demagoguery and misrepresentation. Which is going to be uncomfortable for you.

Quotes out of context are meaningless. As is posting clips from the Matrix. Are you seriously suggesting that the Matrix is a repository of arcane wisdom?

You're through the looking glass now. In the world where people who know about techniques of manipulation aren't going to give you the latitude to bluster.

The objective of the NWO is the creation of a one world government one world bank, one world currency as stated by those who are engineering it(quoted above)

Is there evidence we are moving in that direction? where national sovereignty is being superceeded by international law? are there moves to replace the dollar as the reserve currency and replace it with SDRs a global reserve currency? Is there a world bank? the answer to all these questions is yes.