Need help on some research regarding NWO

[Sunray Breaker]

I wrote an article recently debunking Freeman on the Land Woo, as well as another one that sort of debunks conspiracy theories in general. In this article, I pointed out that all the known conspiracies in history (Watergate, Iran Contra, MKULTRA, etc) we're exposed by the government or Media itself. Which implies that the government, in all it's corruption, still takes their scandals pretty seriously.

In my next installment, I'm hoping to debunk the NWO myths. It's a tough one to crack, as there are a lot of sub committees and organizations that need addressing (bilderberg, Trilateral Commission, League of Nations, UN) as well as several people that need to be researched (the RockefellarS, Rothschilds, Bill Gates, Bush Admin, ETC.)

I may find myself having to break this article up into sections as opposed to writing one big paper. I was wondering if anyone has a few good sources they could point me to so I could debunk a few of these myths. If you we're a journalist (which I barely am, just an amateur) where would you start?

I started with the history of the League of Nations, H.G. Wells pro-world government statements, Woodrow Wilson and Churchill's statements regarding NWO and a great quote from George Washingtion stating:

It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati... had not spread in the United States... no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am.

But I'm not quite sure where to go from here. The main things I'd like to address in this article is:

1. The significance of the Bildergerg group,The Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign relations and it's actual effects on our policies

2. This patricular quote from Rockefeller and what it suggests, what context it was under:

For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure — one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.

3. The depopulation agenda and how, if it even is happening, isn't effective (as this is my initial suspicion)

4. And a few basic strong talking points on the Federal Reserve woo to tie it all in.

I'm quite proud of my last two articles and so are a lot of my friends (even some of the CT's!!!) And it has a lot to do with the help I've had with you fine folks here at JREF...

So what kinda bones could you throw a brtha on this one?

By the way, here's the link to my other articles, comments and critiques are more than welcome!!!

http://www.examiner.com/x-23787-Denver-Skepticism-Examiner

 

[Brainster]

The Rockefeller quote apparently comes from his memoirs. I have not read the book, but I assume that like most businessmen who are not in the armaments biz, he finds war to be a senseless drain of resources and feels that a world government would make war less likely. This is not a particularly unusual viewpoint.

 

[grandthefttoaster]

The New World Order conspiracy seem seems to have been created by the John Birch Society. Although the phrase was used by politicians and HG Wells before that, the JBS are some of the first people to think that it was a conspiracy.

 

[LightinDarkness]

I think often the most helpful source in debunking NWO insanity are the organizations themselves - especially when it comes to public policy interest groups (like the CFR) that the nutters claim are part of the NWO.

For example, for an organization that part of a secret cabal hell-bent on global domination, they are sure open about who they are and what they talk about:

1) If the CFR is part of a global cabal, why do they publish and update an annual roster of its members on their own website?
http://www.cfr.org/about/annual_report/

2) If the CFR is hell bent on destroying state sovereignty and instituting a one world government, why is so much of their site dedicated to finding regional solutions to problems in which the CFR recommends and endorses retaining individual state sovereignty and NOT turning to international organizations like the UN?
http://www.cfr.org/region/index.html

3) If the CFR is part of a shadowy, secret cabal to control us all, why do they record their meetings in podcasts which are freely available to the public and release the name, dates, times, subject matters, and members attending these various meetings? They even have an iPhone CFR app, they are so devious.
http://www.cfr.org/about/meetings/influential_forum.html

Transparency? Check.
Openness? Check.
Free and open publication of research? Check.

Doesn't sound like a evil NWO cabal to me. And the truth is, when you do the research (which the CT loons dont), these things can be said of 90% of the organizations they claim are hell bent on killing us all.

 

[Sunray Breaker]

I think often the most helpful source in debunking NWO insanity are the organizations themselves - especially when it comes to public policy interest groups (like the CFR) that the nutters claim are part of the NWO.

For example, for an organization that part of a secret cabal hell-bent on global domination, they are sure open about who they are and what they talk about:

1) If the CFR is part of a global cabal, why do they publish and update an annual roster of its members on their own website?
http://www.cfr.org/about/annual_report/

2) If the CFR is hell bent on destroying state sovereignty and instituting a one world government, why is so much of their site dedicated to finding regional solutions to problems in which the CFR recommends and endorses retaining individual state sovereignty and NOT turning to international organizations like the UN?
http://www.cfr.org/region/index.html

3) If the CFR is part of a shadowy, secret cabal to control us all, why do they record their meetings in podcasts which are freely available to the public and release the name, dates, times, subject matters, and members attending these various meetings? They even have an iPhone CFR app, they are so devious.
http://www.cfr.org/about/meetings/in...ial_forum.html

Transparency? Check.
Openness? Check.
Free and open publication of research? Check.

Doesn't sound like a evil NWO cabal to me. And the truth is, when you do the research (which the CT loons dont), these things can be said of 90% of the organizations they claim are hell bent on killing us all.

It doesn't say graduate poster under your name for nothin...Thanks LiD...You continue to be a valuable resource of rational thought...This a great start.

I'm currently starting my section on the U.N. and will be tackling these other groups later in the article. I suspect I won't have this thing done til monday, but anything worth doing, is worth doing right!!!

The comment on the Rockefeller quote brought up a great point. I did know it was from his memoirs, and expect most globalists to have an interest in world peace and not domination. This just further validates that opinion. I'm gonna start some more diggin, any help is greatly appreciated.

I'll be thanking you folks in my article and providing a link for my readers to this site.

 

[zaphod2016]

The problem with "debunking" the NWO, or more accurately, the anti-NWO movement, is that at the heart of this, this is a political opinion, moreso than any specific statement of fact.

For example, it is as futile as "debunking" conservatism or liberalism; there are ideologies and/or philosophies, more so than any collection of specific claims.

Let me illustrate my point:

Say we pick a favorite "conspiracy quote", anything repeated ad naseum via YouTube. I see two possibilities:

1. You can debunk the quote; prove it is mis-attributed or just plain made-up. This makes for an effective, solid debunking.

2. The smart CTs have learned to stick only to solid, first-person quotes; i.e. Rockefeller from his own book. Assuming a real quote, "right from the horses mouth", the issue is now in proving intent.

I can read a quote from Thomas Jefferson, and I can debate my interpretation of that quote, but I cannot prove or disprove the intent, or the "true meaning" behind it. I cannot read Jefferson's mind; Jefferson will not answer my emails and tell me what he really meant. And, even if he did, it would always be possible he himself changed his mind. I.e. he might have later recanted or changed his stance on a given position.

Therefore, as far as "debunking" the NWO goes, I'd follow these 3 specific rules:

1. Debunk CT quotes that are false, or wrongly attributed, or blatantly taken out-of-context. This can be proven objectively.

2. Evaluate SPECIFIC CLAIMS being made by Alex Jones, Icke, et all, and debunk those claims. I.e. "the vaccines are killing your children". This can also be proven objectively.

3. Avoid political debate, or attacking the fundamental "anti-government" view of the movement. The intent and proper role of government will always be a source of passionate debate, and very light on facts. Until we can model entire societies, politics and economics will remain more opinion than science- we have no way of testing with controls.

My 3 cents.

 

[Meed]

In this article, I pointed out that all the known conspiracies in history (Watergate, Iran Contra, MKULTRA, etc) we're exposed by the government or Media itself.

This is a poor argument, because by very definition a "known conspiracy" is one that has been exposed.

I think the way to frame your point is that secrets are very hard to keep since there have been so many damning leaks and declassified documents etc. OTOH some may argue that the NWO HAS been exposed and that's why they know about it.

The burden of proof is on them and things like liberally interpreted cherry picked quotes are not proof of anything.

 

[Sunray Breaker]

I think the way to frame your point is that secrets are very hard to keep since there have been so many damning leaks and declassified documents etc. OTOH some may argue that the NWO HAS been exposed and that's why they know about it.

I make a similar point in the actual article. That the sheer improbability of these conspiracy theories really taking place, requires a tremendously higher amount of people to be involved than anyone in the actual Conspiracies. So my essential argument was, if a handful of people can't pull it off, without eventually getting caught, what is the likelihood of thousands getting away with it?

Had someone with credibility managed to "expose" the new world order, and court trials and congressional committees took place as a result, then that'd be a sufficient "exposure" of the so called NWO.

 

[Meed]

I make a similar point in the actual article. That the sheer improbability of these conspiracy theories really taking place, requires a tremendously higher amount of people to be involved than anyone in the actual Conspiracies. So my essential argument was, if a handful of people can't pull it off, without eventually getting caught, what is the likelihood of thousands getting away with it?

Had someone with credibility managed to "expose" the new world order, and court trials and congressional committees took place as a result, then that'd be a sufficient "exposure" of the so called NWO.

Not everything exposed has been brought to trial and people in government and government agencies have gotten away with a lot of crimes, but other than that I agree.

Another good argument against the NWO theory is that the US (particularly conservatives like Bush, Bolton, Rumsfeld etc) has tended to be blatantly anti-UN. And the rhetoric of the government and media is far more nationalist and patriotic than "globalist". Think "you're either with us or against us", "freedom fries", "support our troops". Even the left has tried to keep their message within that framework (e.g. "dissent is patriotic"). The US has also vetoed more UN resolutions than any other country and simply ignored them when convenient (e.g. war in Iraq).

As ridiculously obvious as that objection is, I've never heard a good answer to it.

 

[grandthefttoaster]

Another good argument against the NWO theory is that the US (particularly conservatives like Bush, Bolton, Rumsfeld etc) has tended to be blatantly anti-UN. And the rhetoric of the government and media is far more nationalist and patriotic than "globalist". Think "you're either with us or against us", "freedom fries", "support our troops". Even the left has tried to keep their message within that framework (e.g. "dissent is patriotic"). The US has also vetoed more UN resolutions than any other country and simply ignored them when convenient (e.g. war in Iraq).

As ridiculously obvious as that objection is, I've never heard a good answer to it.

I've asked that question before and haven't heard a real answer either. Conspiracy theorists will go on an on about some document from 60 years ago proving a NWO agenda but completly ignoring huge ammounts of history.

 

[zaphod2016]

As ridiculously obvious as that objection is, I've never heard a good answer to it.

The answer is simple: different political groups are pursuing different agendas. This is true within political parties, and especially true between different political parties.

Er, I mean... the 5 Jew bankers *want* you to think the GOP is anti-UN so that you think you have a choice at the voting booths.

 

[Meed]

The answer is simple: different political groups are pursuing different agendas. This is true within political parties, and especially true between different political parties.

This would mean the NWO had relatively little power if they had no control over the US media or foreign policy.

Er, I mean... the 5 Jew bankers *want* you to think the GOP is anti-UN so that you think you have a choice at the voting booths.

That's a more likely answer, but neither Dems nor Republicans have given the UN much respect based on their actions, while the Dems are less likely to bash them publicly than the Repubs.

 

[Sunray Breaker]

I'm beginning to realize why there's not a tremendous amount of articles debunking conspracy theories (especially NWO theories). I think it's because once you find out how silly they are, you don't want to spend much time proving it...Because it's a fruitless effort.

If I write an article about this NWO crap, I will have likely wasted a lot of time expressing a point of view that'll be picked clean by extremeists, eager to counter the article with ad hominem attacks and non-falsifiable BS...

All it will really do is upset the loons who buy into this stuff and be ignored by those who don't. I'm starting to get bored with this debunking business...I'd rather be going to school and researching something more significant, making more music, laughing more and loving more...

I'm thinking of calling it quits on this Skeptical Journalism thing.

It requires way too much effort for little to no reward...

Unless anyone can provide me with a reason to stick to it, or give me something seriously juicy to write about...I'm done.

 

[Sunray Breaker]

PS - I'll still be chatting with you fine folks at JREF almost daily

 

[zaphod2016]

I'm thinking of calling it quits on this Skeptical Journalism thing.

I'd suggest you take a break (vacation) before quitting. Sometimes a few days away is refreshing.

However, I agree with you that the NWO is too broad of a subject to "debunk" properly. There is some ideology of a "New World Order"; the phrase has been used by all sorts of opposing groups for all sorts of opposing purposes. And, the biggest problem with the NWO CT is that lack of evidence is considered evidence (of a coverup).

I like sticking with more specific claims:

Does the Federal Reserve & treasury create money via debt?

Did we land on the moon?

Was President Obama born in America?

These can each be answered with a clear YES or NO, and proven with objective facts, not mindless speculation and endless editorial.

I love Michael Shermer, and he does a good job explaining the "big picture" of why people believe in dumb things, but IMO the most effective debunkings are the ones that shatter a specific claim beyond any reasonable doubt. Shatter the core misunderstanding, and the rest of the CT dissolves pretty quickly.

 

[gtc]

The Rockefeller quote apparently comes from his memoirs. I have not read the book, but I assume that like most businessmen who are not in the armaments biz, he finds war to be a senseless drain of resources and feels that a world government would make war less likely. This is not a particularly unusual viewpoint.

I don't think that I can conclude that he supports one world government on the basis of that quote; not that there is anything wrong with arguing in favour of world government.

 

[zaphod2016]

I don't think that I can conclude that he supports one world government on the basis of that quote; not that there is anything wrong with arguing in favour of world government.

My point exactly.

I could interpret this quote to mean whatever I want, and write a 600 page book explaining why I came to my conclusion, and why my interpretation is the best interpretation ever, and why I know the inner-workings of Rockefeller's mind better than he himself.

It would prove nothing.

So using these quotes to prove or disprove a larger agenda is really just an introduction to a political debate. If you're going to focus on quotes, I'd stick to something like this, where you prove an attributed quote is just a blatant lie.