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

[Red3]

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...

Hit the nail on the head.

 

[Tippit]

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.

Yes, the New World Order is synonymous with globalization, but you are the one who is ignorant. The New World Order, in terms of the select few bankers who are ushering it in, does exist. You're just completely and totally oblivious to their motives. Unlike Genghis Khan, and Alexander, this band of would-be world conquerors is using stealth, not force, to attempt to dominate the world, and they are succeeding. They gain control of the money supply, and then they use the practically unlimited funds at their resources to select people with ideologies that unwittingly serve their agenda. They also employ the Hegelian dialectic to create crises for which they provide "solutions" (synthesis) which further cement their agenda.

David Icke is a joke, and he poisons the well with his "shape-shifting" nonsense. It's very effective because lots of otherwise ignorant people associate this nonsense with the very real takeover of international bankers. One only needs to read a few select history books, like Tragedy and Hope to gain credible insight into what is happening.

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.

That's funny, because I've personally witnessed the timeline where I was crazy because the New World Order "didn't exist" at all. Now the New World Order exists, but it doesn't mean what I think it means, and I simply don't "understand it". The NWO is about the loss of sovereignty and the accumulation of virtually anonymous global power and control without the attendant political risk that Presidents and Prime Ministers suffer. It's about selling people the illusion of democracy, and political accountability where none exists.

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.

Ahh, if only you understood it.

 

[dudalb]

All You Sheeple are Blind, and only we Conspiracy Theorists Know The Truth!
How often have we heard that song before?

 

[Tippit]

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



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.

Of course Rockefeller wants a more integrated global political and economic infrastructure. He controls the existing structure and he wants even more power and control. He's at the point now where he can even admit it without fear of reprisal, because people think the Rockefeller and Rothschild banking dynasties have fallen off of the map because they don't appear at the top of Forbes next to Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.

But which is it? Are the Rockefellers done, or do they wield "inordinate influence"? As someone who employs and understands the very basics of asset protection that they use, the answer is obvious to me.

 

[dudalb]

Countdown until the name "Rothschild" enters into this discussion......

 

[Red3]

I'm not arguing with you, I can't be bothered. It's almost impossible to verify or debunk the volume/type of claims you make.

Unless you want to make some specific claims that can be investigated.

 

[Eyeron]

I also see the quote game with Christians trying to prove that America is a Christian nation.

Isn't argument by quotes a fallacy as well? I know it is one fallacy called argument from authority, but as far as the proper fallacy I don't know.

 

[Nosi]

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!

The humorous bit to me is the World Wide Web is a global phenomenon, and can be considered a global community, a world community. It's changing how we do many things, including quote mining, research, and debate.


A NWO. The CT's missed the Global Boat.

 

[Red3]

I will read the Quigley book...Seeing as it seems to be some kind of tinfoil holy scripture. I'm curious.

Any parts I should look out for?

 

[Horatius]

The humorous bit to me is the World Wide Web is a global phenomenon, and can be considered a global community, a world community. It's changing how we do many things, including quote mining, research, and debate.


A NWO. The CT's missed the Global Boat.

Ah, I see. Metahumour.

But you do make a good point, a lot of this globalization stuff that they rant on about actually acts to empower the very people they claim are being enslaved by it. They see quotes like "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", and only focus on the power that moves upwards. They either ignore or dismiss as "the illusion of democracy" anything that appears to contradict their worldview.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Sometimes "New World Order" is just code for "the real world as it exists."

 

[Horatius]

Sometimes "New World Order" is just code for "the real world as it exists."

I recall a comic I did on this topic a while back....

 

[mythstifieD]

I have to agree that sometimes I'm puzzled as to how there is a powerful man with an agenda, which clearly wasn't offered by the speaker, and while national sovereignty is a great idea, he made it clear what the "best minds" think.

I'm shocked that such a NWO CT is in favor of Talbot

 

[Alareth]

Countdown until the name "Rothschild" enters into this discussion......

-1 post. Tippit got it in the post before yours.

 

[Elizabeth I]

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.

Why? Not saying that I'm in favor of a world government, but I fail to understand the almost universal assumption by the conspiracy theorists that it would necessarily be a bad thing.

...It was irrelevant in this case, because while the quote was mangled, it reflected what Talbott believes anyway...

A mind reader, now?

 

[Tippit]

I'm not arguing with you, I can't be bothered. It's almost impossible to verify or debunk the volume/type of claims you make.

Unless you want to make some specific claims that can be investigated.

It's not impossible to verify or debunk, it's just difficult, and beyond your scope. For instance, the Rockefellers control some of the largest and most influential foundations and think tanks in the country. I can't prove this easily, but what I can do is read history books which document it, and observe accounts made by the Reece Committee. To prove their influence today would require investigative and subpoena power that I don't have. Nevertheless there is plenty of historical evidence of this, and the Rockefellers virtual disappearance from the public eye is a function of their asset protection schemes which disguise their great wealth. JD Rockefeller once said he wishes to own nothing and control everything, and he was right.

 

[Tippit]

I will read the Quigley book...Seeing as it seems to be some kind of tinfoil holy scripture. I'm curious.

Any parts I should look out for?

The book isn't printed anymore, it's difficult to find a copy, and it's a long dry read, written by Bill Clinton's former history professor at Georgetown. I own it and I have read it. I did annotate it but I don't have the annotations with me, you should be able to find the relevant quotes elsewhere, or just read the book yourself. _The Naked Capitalist_ by Cleon Skousen is a response to Tragedy and Hope.

 

[Red3]

It's not impossible to verify or debunk, it's just difficult, and beyond your scope. For instance, the Rockefellers control some of the largest and most influential foundations and think tanks in the country. I can't prove this easily, but what I can do is read history books which document it, and observe accounts made by the Reece Committee. To prove their influence today would require investigative and subpoena power that I don't have. Nevertheless there is plenty of historical evidence of this, and the Rockefellers virtual disappearance from the public eye is a function of their asset protection schemes which disguise their great wealth. JD Rockefeller once said he wishes to own nothing and control everything, and he was right.

So what you're saying is (re: bolded text) that they own/run some stuff and you can't prove what that is or what they do?

 

[Praktik]

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!

No no, totally on topic! Good post! I had some related thoughts on this in a NAFTA superhighway thread here.

This is definitely an issue where you can see the influence of the far-right in the world of conspiracies. It was the militias and stormfront and their ilk, the fans of The Turner Diaries that were carrying the torch** on the New World Order conspiracies for several decades before AJ, Icke and 9/11 popularized the New World Order conspiracies to a wider audience (that includes people from across the spectrum, including left-wingers now).

I think the wider acceptance of this these days, and the spreading of a right-wing meme to the left has to do with the left's involvement with anti-globalization protests and the laundry list of alphabet soup they highlight, sometimes not without reason, as agents of nefariousness (WTO, IMF, NAFTA, SPP etc etc). So for those steeped in Naomi Klein and Znet there will be a certain percentage that become receptive to the New World Order tropes of AJ - there's a certain compatibility there when rational analysis is forgone in favour of emotional reaction.

Reading an Infowars account on North American Integration you come away with the idea that any integration is always a bad thing, that it will always result in a loss of hallowed "sovereignty". To take one small example, look at this article on Infowars that spends a lot of time on the fabled "superhighway", as if re-orienting our transportation networks in a north-south manner is somehow a negative thing.

I'm a Canadian. Over 75% of our imports and exports are with America. CN Rail used to be largely east-west, but as trade with America picked up over the course of the 20th century, they re-oriented to a north-south focus on their railways. The west had been developed and things needed to go south to the largest consumer market in the world. What's bad about that? Really. Tell me. I don't recall anyone pointing to this reorientation as a harbinger of the End of Canada, and if I did come across that, I would have laughed out loud.

They also have a very narrow view of "sovereignty". The communication and transportation revolutions have resulted in a deeper mixing of humanity. Populations are more inter-mixed, more aware of what's going in other countries and with more relations that cross borders. States that withdraw from the community of nations, that pursue an out-moded view of "sovereignty" that sees formalized agreements with neighbours and others as anethema to the control of their countries - well they end up having far less control over things. Voluntary abstention from trade agreements means voluntary absentention from economic influence. Smaller states would become the flotsam and jetsum whirling around under the influence of the currents driven by stronger nations. Trade agreements give them an architecture to pursue redress with unfair trade practises and pry open markets of the larger countries whom they need to buy their products.

Security, environmental and health issues transcend borders. How is an isolated nation to deal with security threats from neighbours, the transmission of disease and the border-defying nature of environmental degradation? It can't. So in the pursuit of maximum sovereignty, such nations actually end up losing sovereignty.

In this sense, membership in international organizations actually is a double edged sword. Sure, nations subject themselves to rules and regulations that, on the face of it, limit their sovereignty. But membership also enhances sovereignty. For larger nations this is especially true. The US has managed to use the mechanics of international organizations like the IMF, the WTO and the UN to serve its interest. So when AJ talks about an end of American "sovereignty" with the NAU - it's an even more ridiculous assertion than it would be with say, Belgium. America has given itself more levers of influence, more methods of cajoling by participating in international orgs. Even smaller nations, without the capacity to "write the rules" and decide who's leading what organization have enhancements of sovereignty that coincide with the curtailment of sovereignty that comes with agreeing to a set of rules. Isolation means less trade, less power over your borders, less ability to deal with trans-national security threats and less ability to deal with disease and shared environmental issues.

I can't find a link right now but I remember reading an infowars article on integration and essentially their position is that matters of environment, security and disease are just "trojan horses" to sell a gullible public on their nefarious plans. Seriously.

And if you believe that, then you really are living in an alternate universe - to deny that these are serious matters for nations that require a certain amount of formalized cooperation is to deny that the sky is blue.

Now I don't deny that sometimes these agreements will come out with negative impacts on certain segments of the population, or that nations won't insert language for selfish reasons, or use the agreements as bludgeons on weaker countries. International cooperation is not a panacea.

But there are very important reasons for it, and if the law of the jungle is still operative and the strong are still preying on the weak under these contexts I'll say, "so, what else is new?"

-----------
** If you want to go further back the history of these ideas can be traced through fears of a Communist World Order during the red scare days, and in the age-old debate in American politics - that over central banking vs decentralized banking, and in the fear of "English Bankers" influencing the events of the day (The "Free Silver" movement, the "bank wars", etc).

 

[Nosi]

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!

You nailed it. Some people don't do change, and when it happens, they see hitting fans. Some people see more fans getting hit than others, but mental issues is another thread altogether...