''Proof'' of the NWO: ''Quotes''

[cafetimes1991]

I often see ''quotes'' like the ones provided below as proof of a global conspiracy, NWO etc. But are these quotes real? Perhaps they were misinterpreted?
Just Google ''NWO+quotes'' and you will find a plethora of links. I need your help debunking this ''proof''.

http://www.preferrednetwork.com/NWO_QUOTES.htm

With thanks,
cafe

 

[Horatius]

I often see ''quotes'' like the ones provided below as proof of a global conspiracy, NWO etc. But are these quotes real? Perhaps they were misinterpreted?
Just Google ''NWO+quotes'' and you will find a plethora of links. I need your help debunking this ''proof''.

http://www.preferrednetwork.com/NWO_QUOTES.htm

With thanks,
cafe

They are usually either completely made up, or misrepresentations of what the quote intended to say. You'll also note that the CT sites rarely if ever provide citations for where these quotes were originally found, so that it is almost impossible to check their validity.

Were they serious about wanting others to "educate themselves" about the NWO, they would have to provide such citations, as the "CT echo chamber" makes it incredibly difficult to find the original source. Take the first quote listed on that page:

"To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the minds of men their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas." - Brock Adams, Director UN Health Organization

I googled that quote, and 10 pages on, all I was seeing was various CT sites posting the exact same quote, without citations. If they know where it came from, it would be trivially easy for them to post the source, and yet, they never do that. That leads me to believe it's either completely made up, or seriously quote mined. Consider what the meaning of this quote would really have been if the following sentence had been, "This is why we will never achieve such a world government, and must content ourselves with the more limited organizations that are pragmatically possible." Without the context, we cannot know for sure what Mr. Adams truly had in mind.

Although, if he really were discussing the elimination of "individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas" as a actual, in-the-works plan of the NWO, don't you think they might have included a few more quotes from that source?

 

[Horatius]

Here's a good example of why they avoid giving citations. They quote this:

"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.

Now, as it turns out, Time Magazine has their back catalogue in a searchable database, And here's the context in which that quote was made:

The human drama, whether played out in history books or headlines, is often not just a confusing spectacle but a spectacle about confusion. The big question these days is, Which political forces will prevail, those stitching nations together or those tearing them apart?

Here is one optimist's reason for believing unity will prevail over disunity, integration over disintegration. In fact, I'll bet that within the next hundred years (I'm giving the world time for setbacks and myself time to be out of the betting game, just in case I lose this one), nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. A phrase briefly fashionable in the mid-20th century -- "citizen of the world" -- will have assumed real meaning by the end of the 21st.

All countries are basically social arrangements, accommodations to changing circumstances. No matter how permanent and even sacred they may seem at any one time, in fact they are all artificial and temporary. Through the ages, there has been an overall trend toward larger units claiming sovereignty and, paradoxically, a gradual diminution of how much true sovereignty any one country actually has.

And then, way down the first page, we find:

From time to time the best minds wondered whether this wasn't a hell of a way to run a planet; perhaps national sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all. Dante in the 14th century, Erasmus in the 16th and Grotius in the 17th all envisioned international law as a means of overcoming the natural tendency of states to settle their differences by force.

They've combined two different passages into one, to make it seem as if the thoughts are directed combined, even though one of them is clearly paraphrasing other people. Also, note that in the part about "the next hundred years", they didn't even quote the whole sentence, because it makes it clear that this is nothing more than his guess, and a guess that he admits is "optimistic" and is possibly wrong. The rest of the article is basically a history of history (), detailing some of the changes he's seen that leads him to this belief. There is nothing to indicate that this is the desired outcome of any sort of plan. He then sums up near the end:

They are the disputatious representatives of a larger, basically positive phenomenon: a devolution of power not only upward toward supranational bodies and outward toward commonwealths and common markets but also downward toward freer, more autonomous units of administration that permit distinct societies to preserve their cultural identities and govern themselves as much as possible. That American buzz word empowerment -- and the European one, subsidiarity -- is being defined locally, regionally and globally all at the same time.

Humanity has discovered, through much trial and horrendous error, that differences need not divide. Switzerland is made up of four nationalities crammed into an area considerably smaller than what used to be Yugoslavia. The air in the Alps is no more conducive to comity than the air in the Balkans. Switzerland has thrived, while Yugoslavia has failed because of what Kant realized 200 years ago: to be in peaceful league with one another, people -- and peoples -- must have the benefits of democracy.

Yep, these NWO Thugs sound like a group of right bastards, they do.


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,976015-1,00.html


See? How hard was it to provide a cite? Now, go and see if I'm blowing smoke out my ass. Unlike some in this "debate", I'm not afraid of independent confirmation of my quotes.


Now, one must wonder why the provided the cite for this one quote, and not the others. It might be because Wikipedia provides it, and they'd look way too guilty trying to hide it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strobe_Talbott#Quotes

 

[Chaos]

"I am a greedy bastard ripping off the masses of gullible morons out there."
- Alex Jones


...What? Prove that he didn´t say this!

 

[Tippit]

Consider what the meaning of this quote would really have been if the following sentence had been, "This is why we will never achieve such a world government, and must content ourselves with the more limited organizations that are pragmatically possible." Without the context, we cannot know for sure what Mr. Adams truly had in mind.

Your use of the word "achieve" in that example quote belies your acceptance of the concept that a world government is ideal, or at the very least, the idea that it's ok for powerful people to think it is ideal. Achievement denotes a positive outcome.

Although, if he really were discussing the elimination of "individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas" as a actual, in-the-works plan of the NWO, don't you think they might have included a few more quotes from that source?

As an NWO conspiracy theorist, there is no context for that quote that would reassure me. Having said that, I don't think Mr. Adams is party to NWO meetings in smoke filled rooms, with a specific agenda to help take over the world. In fact, I think the vast majority of "conspirators" who utter quotes like that are totally oblivious to the conspiracy itself. Compartmentalization is the beauty of the system, it's the same principle that intelligence agencies are run by. Mr. Adams was selected by a system which values his pre-existing ideology. Mr. Adams already believes world government would be a wonderful thing. He doesn't need to be paid off, coerced, or part of the "loop". He's the ideal conspirator.

 

[Tippit]

They've combined two different passages into one, to make it seem as if the thoughts are directed combined, even though one of them is clearly paraphrasing other people. Also, note that in the part about "the next hundred years", they didn't even quote the whole sentence, because it makes it clear that this is nothing more than his guess, and a guess that he admits is "optimistic" and is possibly wrong. The rest of the article is basically a history of history (), detailing some of the changes he's seen that leads him to this belief. There is nothing to indicate that this is the desired outcome of any sort of plan. He then sums up near the end:

I have to agree that quote mining is dishonest, reprehensible, and sometimes produces the opposite of the desired effect by destroying credibility.

On the other hand, I'm puzzled as to how you can conclude there is "nothing to indicate that this is the desired outcome of any sort of plan". Talbott is a former Deputy Secretary of State, a Skull and Bonesman, and president of the Brookings institution, a globalist think tank. Obviously a powerful man with an agenda, his desirability for world government cannot be taken out of context.

While the quote mining denoted a certainty which clearly wasn't offered by the speaker, and while Talbott may waffle on the subject of whether national sovereignty is a great idea, he made it clear what the "best minds" think.

 

[Juniversal]

I often see ''quotes'' like the ones provided below as proof of a global conspiracy, NWO etc. But are these quotes real? Perhaps they were misinterpreted?
Just Google ''NWO+quotes'' and you will find a plethora of links. I need your help debunking this ''proof''.

http://www.preferrednetwork.com/NWO_QUOTES.htm

With thanks,
cafe

I once had CTist message me on youtube asking something to the effect of "if the NWO doesn't exist then why does The New York Times say they do??" And another sent me a message with a link to the first president Bushes speech where he used the term new world order as if it was common knowledge and they don't attempt to hide it lol.

 

[Horatius]

On the other hand, I'm puzzled as to how you can conclude there is "nothing to indicate that this is the desired outcome of any sort of plan". Talbott is a former Deputy Secretary of State, a Skull and Bonesman, and president of the Brookings institution, a globalist think tank. Obviously a powerful man with an agenda, his desirability for world government cannot be taken out of context.

Perhaps I should have phrased it, "nothing in this document to indicate that this is the desired outcome of any sort of plan". Knowing the CT penchant for misrepresenting people's positions, I was really leaving a huge opening there.

Thanks Tippit, for such a good example of the mindset we're dealing with!

Of course, feel free to create a new thread on the full context of Talbott's total belief structure. Perhaps you will be unlike every other CTist I've ever seen, and construct a properly-cited, evidenced based case that he is "a powerful man with an agenda," and showing clearly "his desirability for world government". It would be a nice change from poorly-cited, misrepresented single quotes.

But as I said, that's a subject for another thread.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Agreed with Horatius, et al. For example, I recently looked up JFK's speech about secrecy being 'reprehensible." It was delievered in April 1961 to a group of newspapermen, and that line was just the caveat in a pro-secrecy speech. Yeah, this speech is why the CIA killed him 2 1/2 years later, he was gonna... somethin!

On "the NWO," there really isn't one, but rather many. It's a stereotyped phrase that's less popular than it might be due to the flavor it's gotten. In 1990-91, the major context Bush was using was first put up by Gorbachev in the last days of the USSR, to describe a bi-polar post-Cold War world with allies US and USSR policing the wolrd together. Bush called the Gulf War the "first test" of this idea he otherwise shunned, probably to get Soviet support in the Security Council.

Of the other presented here, my favorite is:

"No one will enter the New World Order unless he or she will make a pledge to worship Lucifer. No one will enter the New Age unless he will take a Luciferian Initiation."

David Spangler, Director of Planetary Initiative, United Nations

That sounds pretty nuts. Google Search shows belief in this quote from Godlike Productions, Abovetopsecret, Truelightministries, Jesus-is-savior, birdflu666... So far the only attribution I'm seeing attributed back to "The Federal Observer" That in turn is another list of contextless quotes.

Finally a good link, by just searching for Spangler and title.
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php...nited-nations-and-the-new-age/comment-page-1/
Appears that a guy who works for a group tangentially-connected to the UN is into some weird New Age stuff and may have said this after all. Again, context, what does Lucifer mean to him, his group, the UN at large, etc. People leap to conclusions based on their own psychosis, that the world is full of satanic forces called "New Age" which are obviously co-odinated (by Satan) to attack God and his followers (the paranoid people). So the meaning to THEM is entirely clear.

 

[Red3]

It's nice to see a few names from the David Icke forum on here. That's a good sign.

 

[Tippit]

Perhaps I should have phrased it, "nothing in this document to indicate that this is the desired outcome of any sort of plan". Knowing the CT penchant for misrepresenting people's positions, I was really leaving a huge opening there.

Thanks Tippit, for such a good example of the mindset we're dealing with!

I fail to see how agreeing with you about how quote mining is dishonest and counter-productive amounts to misrepresenting your "position".

It's pretty obvious that Strobe Talbott is a big fan of world government, and a critic of national sovereignty, merely from reading the Time magazine article that you cited. Genghis Khan would have been proud to have him as a diplomat. Doing a little basic research on who Strobe Talbott is fills in the context as to his agenda.

Of course, feel free to create a new thread on the full context of Talbott's total belief structure. Perhaps you will be unlike every other CTist I've ever seen, and construct a properly-cited, evidenced based case that he is "a powerful man with an agenda," and showing clearly "his desirability for world government". It would be a nice change from poorly-cited, misrepresented single quotes.

But as I said, that's a subject for another thread.

The point is, of course, that despite the fact that the quote was completely mined, mangled, and dishonestly taken out of context (as you correctly researched and pointed out), it still more or less summarizes Talbott's views after being taken in full context.

 

[Red3]

Even if their are proponents of a world government, what does that prove?

 

[Tippit]

Even if their are proponents of a world government, what does that prove?

Not much, other than the obvious. If on the other hand it can be demonstrated that there are powerful people who are both interested in and have the means to enact world government, then it might warrant more than just raising an eyebrow.

 

[Nosi]

Here's a good example of why they avoid giving citations. They quote this:



Now, as it turns out, Time Magazine has their back catalogue in a searchable database, And here's the context in which that quote was made:




And then, way down the first page, we find:




They've combined two different passages into one, to make it seem as if the thoughts are directed combined, even though one of them is clearly paraphrasing other people. Also, note that in the part about "the next hundred years", they didn't even quote the whole sentence, because it makes it clear that this is nothing more than his guess, and a guess that he admits is "optimistic" and is possibly wrong. The rest of the article is basically a history of history (), detailing some of the changes he's seen that leads him to this belief. There is nothing to indicate that this is the desired outcome of any sort of plan. He then sums up near the end:





Yep, these NWO Thugs sound like a group of right bastards, they do.


http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,976015-1,00.html


See? How hard was it to provide a cite? Now, go and see if I'm blowing smoke out my ass. Unlike some in this "debate", I'm not afraid of independent confirmation of my quotes.


Now, one must wonder why the provided the cite for this one quote, and not the others. It might be because Wikipedia provides it, and they'd look way too guilty trying to hide it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strobe_Talbott#Quotes

I find it slightly humorous that this debate of Global Conspiracy Vs Quote Mining is happening in the World Wide Web where any one on the planet can conceivably take part.

 

[Horatius]

I fail to see how agreeing with you about how quote mining is dishonest and counter-productive amounts to misrepresenting your "position".

Uh-huh. Ever heard the term "back-handed compliment"?

I have to agree that quote mining is dishonest, reprehensible, and sometimes produces the opposite of the desired effect by destroying credibility.

On the other hand, I'm puzzled as to how you can conclude there is "nothing to indicate that this is the desired outcome of any sort of plan".

You ostensibly agree with my essential conclusion, but then fallaciously attempt ("on the other hand") to broaden the discussion to other areas that were not a part of my original argument, to somehow show that my original argument was flawed. You were "puzzled" as to how I could conclude "there is "nothing to indicate that this is the desired outcome of any sort of plan"", when it should have been clear to anyone reading my post (with a mind willing to understand it) that I was only discussing this particular article, and made no such general conclusion.

It is of course the lack of a "mind willing to understand" that allows CTists to read such articles, and completely misrepresent their subject matter. While ostensibly denouncing such behavior, you yourself act in the same, albeit less blatant, manner.

So, again, thank you for illustrating the point, again.

 

[Horatius]

I find it slightly humorous that this debate of Global Conspiracy Vs Quote Mining is happening in the World Wide Web where any one on the planet can conceivably take part.

Why would this be humorous? It is possible to take part in a debate without quotemining, even if it is admittedly rare for that to actually happen!

 

[Tippit]

Uh-huh. Ever heard the term "back-handed compliment"?

You can drop the condescending attitude. I wasn't trying to compliment you, I was pointing out how I agree with you that quote mining is bad. It was irrelevant in this case, because while the quote was mangled, it reflected what Talbott believes anyway.

You ostensibly agree with my essential conclusion, but then fallaciously attempt ("on the other hand") to broaden the discussion to other areas that were not a part of my original argument, to somehow show that my original argument was flawed. You were "puzzled" as to how I could conclude "there is "nothing to indicate that this is the desired outcome of any sort of plan"", when it should have been clear to anyone reading my post (with a mind willing to understand it) that I was only discussing this particular article, and made no such general conclusion.

I agree that the quote was mangled, spliced, and taken out of context. I've seen it done before with Thomas Jefferson quotes. Then I explained why this is counter-productive for the person who did it, because it destroys their credibility, and any pretense of objectivity.

You're just being obtuse, and contradictory. Whether there was enough information in the Time article to conclude that Talbott is a globalist with an agenda (there was) is irrelevant. If you disagree about how much information the article reveals, that's fine. It's not important. What's important is that we know that Talbott is in favor of world government, and he has an influential position, even an agenda. If it's not evident to you from the article, it should be evident after doing the most basic research on the man.

It is of course the lack of a "mind willing to understand" that allows CTists to read such articles, and completely misrepresent their subject matter. While ostensibly denouncing such behavior, you yourself act in the same, albeit less blatant, manner.

So, again, thank you for illustrating the point, again.

The only misunderstanding is yours. It's quite obvious Talbott is in favor of global government, and there is no quote mining or other deception necessary to establish that fact. In short, while you found a good example of deception, it wasn't necessary because Talbott's position is clear and consistent without taking him out of context.

It's like lying about your age in order to get into a movie theater, when your driver's license already establishes that you're of the legal age. There was absolutely no legitimate reason to splice those quotes together when simply listing them seperately would have sufficed.

 

[cafetimes1991]

Thanks for the posts so far, everyone.

 

[Red3]

One thing worth pointing out, is when you get people like David Icke et al. harping on about the nwo, then saying "look around you, look at what they're doing, you see it everywhere" what you're actually seeing is globalization and various systems trying to deal with it. Which is only the same thing as the nwo if you're paranoid, ignorant and scared of change. The problem is globalization does bring problems of it's own, but when you're fighting the nwo, you're fighting an enemy that doesn't exist. The truth movement is hijacking lots of serious issues surrounding ethics in business/politics and turning it into a farce.

The phrase "World Order" has been used for many reasons, and at the moment is used to address how the world is changing, hence the "new" addition. It addresses economic,political,social changes surrounding autonomy and sovereignty and how these entities are dealing with changes in trade, communication, immigration, security...Subjects which most people don't know all that much about.


I think that's one of the main reasons conspiracy theories are so popular; because people see all this change going on and it scares them because they don't understand it.

Anyway, off topic somewhat!

 

[Sunray Breaker]

This quote is one of the favorites of CT's:

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.
- David Rockefeller's Memoirs, Page 405

Now although I have de"woo"ed myself quite a bit in the last few months...This quote always stuck in my craw...This is the real quote from his memoirs...But again, like you said...It's all about the context....

It sounds like he's more just bragging about being a globalist than he is bragging about working against the best interests of the United States...BUt I'd like to hear other opinions on this one.